This article reviews existing theories on whether we can equate the third
party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s
amount of damages, explores the scope of the third party related to the injured
principal in considering culpa compensatio and, ultimately, concludes as follows.
First, in the case of culpa compensatio, we should consider the third party’s
negligence in calculating the amount of damages mainly because, for example, a
person’s negligence who has same social status or similar living relationship
with injured party, or is under injured party’s direction can be equated with the
negligence of the injured party. Thus, extending the definition of injured party
in order to include the third party’s negligence who can be identified with the
injured party accords with the idea of fair attribution in the theory of
compensation liability.
Second, although there are some arguments on the theoretical basis of whether
we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in
calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, we should consider the third party’s
negligence who are somewhat related with the injured party as culpa
compensatio because the idea of fairness which means that the damage should
be properly and fairly attributed is the basis of the theory of culpa compensatio.
Although there also are some viewpoints in this context such as the theory of
family group, theory of family association, theory of joint torts, theory of
application mutais mutandis of employer‘s liability, and theory of fairness, the theory of fairness seems the most persuasive and the Korean Supreme Court
supports this perspective.
Third and lastly, the unity with the injured party should be the standard in
deciding the scope of the third party. In relation to this issue, the Japanese case
law and academia supports the theory identical devolvement although the Korean
Supreme Court does not present a specific standard.