This study intended to review the precedents on plastic surgery medical malpractice lawsuits in lower-court trials, classify the reasons of 'limitation of liability' by type, and suggest a standard in the acknowledgement of limitation of liability ratio. The 30 lower-court's rulings on the cases bearing the medical negligence of the defendants acknowledged the liability ratio of the defendants between 30% and 100%. Ten cases ruled that the defendants were wholly responsible for the negligence or malpractice, while 20 cases acknowledged the limitation of liability principle. In the determination of damage compensation amount, the court considered the cause of the victim side, which contributed in the occurrence of the damage. The court also believed that it is against the idea of fairness to have the assailant pay the whole compensation, even there is no victim-side cause such as previous illness or physical constitution of the patient, and applies the legal doctrine on limitation of liability, which is an independent damage compensation adjustment system. Most of the rulings also limited the ratio of responsibility to certain extent. When considering that the legal doctrine on limitation of liability which supports concrete validity for the fair sharing of damage, the tangible classification of causes of limitation of liability suggested in this study would be a useful tool in forecasting the ruling of a plastic surgery medical malpractice lawsuit.
Humans ; *Liability, Legal ; Malpractice/*legislation & jurisprudence ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/legislation & jurisprudence ; Republic of Korea ; Surgery, Plastic/*adverse effects/*legislation & jurisprudence