Law Philospher: ABSOLUTE LIABILITY / STRICT LIABILITY PPC and Tort paper 5 and 6 for LLB part I Punjab Universty

Absolute Liability / strict liability | Gefährdungshaftung unbedingte Haftpflicht / die Kausalhaftung / Deliktshaftung | Responsabilité de plein droit

Liability even when there is no proof of negligence. Strict liability appears most often in cases of product liability where manufacturers are held legally responsible for injuries caused by defects in their products, even if they were non-negligent; liability that is imposed without fault.

The essence of a claim based on strict liability is that the degree of negligence of the defendant is irrelevant to the determination of their liability for the consequences of the accident. Such liability may be imposed because of the inherently dangerous instrumentality which is governed as a source of strict liability, for example, alcohol. Dram Shop Acts hold a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest. However some states specifically ban such liability by statute. Another example of strict liability is the attractive nuisance doctrine for example holds that where a landowner has land which has a dangerous feature which attracts children – a pond, a mine

The equivalent German terms are Gefährdungshaftung, unbedingte Haftpflicht, Kausalhaftung, Deliktshaftung and Gefährdungshaftung. Gefährdungshaftung however best conveys the concept of strict liability, i.e. liability without fault or liability where fault is irrebutably presumed. For example, the German regime of motor liability implicates any owner of a motor vehicle for the legal liability of all damages which arise out of the use of the vehicle. Drivers are also strictly liable, however drivers can reduce their liability by a proof of non-culpability. In cases of two damaged vehicles the damages to each vehicle will be used to offset the determination of the loss.

The equivalent French term is « responsabilité de plein droit ». The law of 19 May 1998 established a strict liability regime for manufacturers and furnishers of defective products, including defective medicines. The French strict liability regime, like the Anglo-American common law, is statutory and concurrent to the regime de droit commun (literally: common law regime, i.e. the regime of the French Civil Code). Similarly to the Anglo-American legal system the defective character of the product is not presumed. The similar defences, for example that the plaintiff was also at fault, can exonerate defendants under the strict liability statute.

See also: per se liability, strict liability

Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H.L. 330; Clark-Aiken Co. v. Cromwell-Wright Co., lnc. (Mass.), 323 N.E.2d 876.

Accident law | Unfallrecht

A lay synonym for the law of tort. In the common law torts are either negligent or intentional but are always distinct from crimes. However that distinction, while typologically correct, is nevertheless somewhat illusory: While it is true that in the civil law however some delicts are also crimes, at common law for each intentional tort there was also a corresponding crime. Thus the distinction between tort and crime at common law was procedural and concerned the higher standard of proof in criminal cases where not only fortune but also liberty could be deprived from the defendant.

Act | Handlung / Positives Tun

External manifestation of will. A failure to act is an ommission: both may constitute negligence.

Action at law | Klage

Klage could also be translated as “complaint”, i.e. the initiation of a law suit. Actions can be either at law or in equity with somewhat different rules of procedure and only judicial fact-finding in equity.

Act of God | Höhere Gewalt | Force Majeure

An unforseeable natural disaster which cannot be prevented. Where the injury is uniquely due to an ‘act of God’ it is a defense against liability. ‘Acts of God’ will not however excuse delays in fulfilling contractual commitments because the duties assumed are negotiated – including the responsibility for losses resulting from natural disaster. Thus if the duty of the party is in tort acts of God will excuse their liability. But if the duty of the person is in contract then the contractor must have included a clause covering ‘acts of God’ even though the misfortune was unforseeable and could not have been prevented. Most insurance contracts include clauses to exclude liability of the insuror for ‘acts of God’.

A latin maxim applie: Actus Doi nomini facit injuriam: An act of God does wrong to no one – thus no one is responsible in tort for the result of an inevitable accident.

Acts of God can be distinguished in the common law from force majeure: Acts of god are natural disasters whereas force majeure, at least in the common law, consists of man made disasters.

See:

Watts v. Smith, D.C.App., 226 A.2d 160, 162

Middaugh v. U. S., O.C.Wyo., 293 F.Supp. 977, 980.

Höhere Gewalt

In german law is defined as an unforseeable unusual result which was brought about by irresistable force. The German concept is thus similar to the common law and includes all manner of natural disasters and their consequences. (See, Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik „Gefährdungskatalog Höhere Gewalt“

e.g. http://www.uni-saarland.de/verwalt/gshb99/g/g1.htm(1999)

Force Majeure:

Again the concept paralells that of höhere Gewalt and acts of god.

As we have already mentioned, force majeure as a concept does exist in the common law but is limited to man made disasters. In French law however force majeure encompasses all unforseeable disasters whether man made or not. Again unforseeability is the key element to the exclusion of liability which may arise via force majeure.

Actio personalis moritur cum persona / moritur doktrin

The principle that the cause of action of the victim of a tort died with the tort feasor. Statutorily remedied through wrongful death statutes.

See also: wrongful death, survival statutes

Mornand v. Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corporation, O.C.Okl., 37 F.Supp. 659, 652.

Humphries v. Going, O.C.N.C., 59 F.R.D. 583, 587.

Agent | Vertreter | agent | agente

An agent is a person granted the authority of another to act on their behalf. The agent is subject to the control of s/he who grants the agency. The grantor of the power of agency is known as the principal, and s/he determines the extent of the powers of the agent. The agency may be gratuitous or compensated and the agency agreement may be oral or written.

http://dictionary.law.com/

Agente

Vertragspartei des Agenturvertrages,welche die Verpflichtung übernimmt,dauernd für einen oder mehrere Auftraggeber Geschäfte zu vermitteln oder in ihrem Namen und auf ihre Rechnung abzuschliessen,ohne zu den Auftraggebern in einem Arbeitsverhältnis zu stehen.

(Obligationenrecht,Art.418a Abs.1(SR 220)

agent

Partie du contrat d'agence qui prend à titre permanent l'engagement de négocier la conclusion d'affaires pour un ou

plusieurs mandants ou d'en conclure en leur nom et pour leur compte,sans être liée envers eux par un contrat de travail.

(Code des obligations,art.418a al.1(RS 220))

agent

Parte del contratto d'agenzia che assume stabilmente l'impegno di trattare la conclusione di affari per uno o più mandanti o

di conchiuderne in loro nome o per loro conto,senza essere vincolato ad essi da un rapporto di lavoro.

Codice delle obbligazioni,art.418a cpv.1(RS 220)

Related Concepts: Principle, Master, Servant, Respondeat Superior, Vicarious liability, Constructive liability

Agency | ? | Représentation |

The agreement between a principal to grant a power to dispose his or her affairs to an agent. As a general rule, whatever a man do by himself, except in virtue of a delegated authority, he may do by an agent: qui facit per alium facit per se.

Agents are entitled to actions against third persons for torts committed against them in the course of their agency.

Agents are liable for their acts, both to their principals and to third persons.

The liabilities of agents to their principals arise from a violation of their duties and obligations to the principal, by exceeding their authority, by misconduct, or by any negligence or omission, or act by which the principal sustains a loss. Agents may become liable for damages and loss under a special contract, contrary to the general usages of trade. They may also become responsible when charging a del credere commission.

Agents become personally liable to third parties when they act outside the scope of their authority, when they do not disclose their agency, when they make themselves personally responsible, e.g. by contracting in their own name,

See: agent, principle, master and servant

Rorton v. Doty, 57 ldaho 792, 69 P.2d 136, 39.

Bevollmächtigte

The German term for a person empowered as an agent is the Bevollmächtigte. A Bevollmächtigte holds a Mandat.

Agent / Mandataire

In French law, the concept of one empowered to transact business on behalf of another is also known as an agent. However an agent in France is not granted a power of agency. They French term for agency is mandat, and thus an agent is also a mandataire.

All-Or-Nothing Principle / Full compensation principle) | Alles oder nichts Prinzip / Grundsatz der Totalreparation Full compensation principle | Principe de réparation intégrale

Principle that where one has committed a tort that they shall be liable for all the damages therefrom, even where others are also liable. This principle also holds that where there is no negligence there is no liability whatsoever.

The logic of this principle is that the tort-feasors will have claims against each other. This general principle is however being riddled with so many exceptions as to be practically swallowed by them.

Apportionment of damages / Apportionment of liability | Schadensverteilung / Haftungsverteilung

Because the logic of German tort law distinguishes between determination of liability and the extent of liability it must also distinguish between the apportionment of damages and the apportionment of liability. However in the common law the extent of damages and the determination of liability are in principle equivalent, with the extent of damages exactly matching the finding of liability. There is of course the exception of joint-tortfeasors where a tort-feasors liability may exceed or be less than the damages but even there the joint-tortfeasor has, unless statutorily modified, an action against his confederate.

At common law, in cases of joint tort feasors, the defendant could make a claim against any tort feasor for all of the damages. Statutes have in some cases modified this rule. (Rangolan, v. County of Nassau and Nassau County Sheriff's Department, 749 N.E.2d 178; 725 N.Y.S.2d 611).

Répartition des dommages-intérêts is the equivalent term in French law.

Assumption of Risk | handeln auf eigene Gefahr

The principle that a plaintiff can waive their rights in tort by contractually assuming the risk for the injuries which they may incur in cases of dangerous conduct. Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense to a charge of negligence wherein the plaintiff is asserted to have assumed the risk of the injury. This assuming of risk may be either express or implied. The defense typically arises in cases of inherently dangerous sports such as skydiving or other inherently dangerous activities. Ordinarily the assumption of risk is found through express clauses in contracts which waive the tortious liability of the organizer of the dangerous sport.

An interesting question is whether one can "assume the risk" in cases of strict liability (handeln auf eigene Betriebsgefahr), e.g. no-fault auto accidents. The better argument is no, since strict liability functions as a form of social insurance and as a way to avoid difficult burdens of proof between inequal opponents, viz products liability.

See: Clarke v. Brockway Motor Trucks, D.C.Pa., 372 F.Supp. 1342, 1347.

Turcone v. Fell, 502 N.E.2d 964 (N.Y. 1986)

See also: burden of proof

On burden of production see: Stuart v. D. N. Kelley & Bon, 331 Mass. 76, 117 N.E.2d 160.

Barnes v. U.S., 412 U.S. 837, 846, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 2363, 37 L.Ed.2d 380. explains clearly the distinction between the burden of production and the burden of proof.

Beweisführungslast

Pflicht,das Vorhandensein einer behaupteten Tatsache zu beweisen,wenn daraus Rechte abgeleitet werden.

nach Schweiz.Zivilgesetzbuch,Art.8(SR 210)

Thesaurus des Eidg.Versicherungsgerichts(1997)

Charge de la Preuve

Devoir en vertu duquel une partie doit prouver les faits qu'elle allègue pour en déduire son droit.

-d'après Code civil suisse,art.8(RS 210)

obligation de prouver les faits allégués

-Thésaurus du Tribunal fédéral des assurances(1997)

onere della produzione della prova

Obbligo di dovere fornire la prova imposto a chi vuol dedurre il suo diritto da una circonstanza di fatto da lui asserita.

secondo Codice civile svizzero,art.8(RS 210)

Tesoro del Tribunale federale delle assicurazioni(1997)

Burden Of Proof | Beweislast | Charge de la Preuve | onere della prova / onere probatorio:

The burden of proof is the duty of one party in a lawsuit to prove the point which they assert. Ordinarily the movant bears the burden of proof, expressed in the maxim "actor incombit probari".

Different levels of proof are required depending on the type of case. In a civil case the plaintiff must prove the elements of their claim by a "preponderance of evidence" i.e. that their assertion is more likely than not true. In a criminal trial the burden of proof required of the prosecutor is to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," a much more difficult task. Unless there is a complete failure to present substantial evidence of a vital fact (usually called an "element of the cause of action"), the ultimate decision as to whether the plaintiff has met his/her burden of proof rests with the jury or the judge if there is no jury. The burden of proof in some issues it may shift to the defendant if s/he raises a factual issue in defense, such as a claim that s/he was not the registered owner of the car that hit the plaintiff, so the defendant has the burden to prove that defense. If at the close of the plaintiff's presentation s/he has not produced any evidence on a necessary fact (e.g. any evidence of damage) then the case may be dismissed without the defendant having to put on any evidence.

Law.com

The defendant has the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The defendant will however have the burden of proving the rebuttal and also of any affirmative defenses.

In criminal cases every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Thus the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor unless a different provision is expressly made by statute.

On burden of proof see: Ambrose v. Wheatley, 321 F.Supp. 1220, 1222.

Barnes v. U.S., 412 U.S. 837, 846, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 2363, 37 L.Ed.2d 380. explains the distinction between the burden of production and the burden of proof.

And Hearing of Evidence | Beweisaufnahme | administration des preuves / audition des preuves:

The court procedure wherein the evidence is presented before the judge (and if applicable the jury) for the determination of the truth or falsehood of each fact asserted.

-C-

Capacity | Rechtsfähigkeit / Geschäftsfähigkeit | capacité juridique | capacità giuridica:

Legal capacity is the abilitiy of a person, whether natural or artificial, to perform civil acts . This concept is in fact somewhat confused because the notion of legal existence is confounded with the notion of capacity to alienate. Legal capacity in German law is clearly divided into two concepts: legal personality (Rechtsfähigkeit) and legal capacity (Geschäftsfähigkeit). While all legal persons enjoy rights and bear duties, only persons posessing legal capacity can voluntarily acquire or alienate rights and duties.

Also see: children

Johnson v. Helicopter & Airplane Services, 404 F.Supp. 726, 729.

Rechtsfähigkeit (suggested translation: enjoyment of civil rights | jouissance des droits civiques | esser titolare di diritti civili)

Ist die Fähigkeit, Träger von Rechten und Pflichten zu sein. Rechtsfähig sind alle natürlichen und juristischen Personen. Die Rechtsfähigkeit eines Menschen beginnt mit der Vollendung der Geburt (§ 1 BGB). Sie endet mit dem Tode des Menschen. Die Leibesfrucht ist also noch nicht rechtsfähig, wird aber durch eine Reihe von gesetzlichen Vorschriften bereits geschützt und ist darüber hinaus z.B. schon erbfähig (§ 1923 Abs.II BGB). Die Rechtsfähigkeit besteht unabhängig von der Deliktsfähigkeit und Geschäftsfähigkeit. So kann z.B. ein Kleinkind bereits Besitzer eines Vermögens sein, obwohl es noch gar nicht geschäftsfähig ist.

aus: E. Götze, "Rechtslexikon",

Fischer – Heymanns

Geschäftsfähigkeit

Ist die Fähigkeit, Rechtsgeschäfte selbständig und vollwirksam vorzunehmen. Der Gesetzgeber geht davon aus, daß grundsätzlich alle Menschen geschäftsfähig sind und daß mit Eintritt der Volljährigkeit die uneingeschränkte Geschäftsfähigkeit gegeben ist. In den 113 BGB sind deshalb nur die Einschränkungen bzw. Ausnahmen von der vollen Geschäftsfähigkeit geregelt. Geschäftsunfähig sind nach § 104 BGB Kinder bis zur Vollendung des siebenten Lebensjahres und die an einer krankhaften Störung der Geistestätigkeit leidenden Personen (es muß sich aber um ein dauerhaftes Leiden handeln und nicht nur um eine vorübergehende Störung).

Willenserklärungen, die Geschäftsunfähige abgeben, sind nichtig (§ 105 BGB). Nichtig sind auch die Willenserklärungen, die Bewußtlose oder vorübergehend Geistesgestörte abgeben.

Beschränkt geschäftsfähig nach § 106 BGB sind die Minderjährigen, die das siebente Lebensjahr bereits vollendet haben, aber noch keine achtzehn Jahre alt sind. Rechtsgeschäfte, die ein Minderjähriger vornimmt, sind nur dann wirksam, wenn sie dem Minderjährigen lediglich einen rechtlichen Vorteil bringen (z.B. die Annahme eines Geldgeschenks). Alle anderen Rechtsgeschäfte sind in der Regel schwebend unwirksam, bis sie vom gesetzlichen Vertreter genehmigt oder abgelehnt werden. Lehnt der gesetzliche Vertreter die Genehmigung (siehe Zustimmung) ab, sind die vom Minderjährigen vorgenommenen Rechtsgeschäfte von Anfang an nichtig (109 BGB). Allerdings sind solche Geschäfte des Minderjährigen wirksam, die er mit Mitteln seines Taschengeldes oder mit Mitteln, die ihm zur freien Verfügung bereitgestellt worden sind, vornimmt. Dies regelt der sogenannte Taschengeldparagraph (§ 110 BGB). Betreibt der Minderjährige mit Genehmigung des gesetzlichen Vertreters und des Vormundschaftsgerichts ein Erwerbsgeschäft, so kann er natürlich im Rahmen dieses Geschäftes auch wirksam Rechtsgeschäfte vornehmen. Eine solche Ermächtigung kann der gesetzliche Vertreter nur mit Genehmigung des Vormundschaftsgerichtes wieder zurücknehmen (§ 112 BGB). Ist der Minderjährige von seinem gesetzlichen Vertreter ermächtigt, in ein Dienst- oder Arbeitsverhältnis zu treten, so ist er bezüglich aller Rechtsgeschäfte, die im Zusammenhang damit stehen, voll geschäftsfähig (§ 113 BGB).

Nach Einführung des neuen Betreuungsrechts im Jahre 1991 ist die Entmündigung weggefallen. Geistig Erkrankte werden nicht mehr entmündigt, sondern unter Betreuung gestellt (§§ 1896ff. BGB). Hinsichtlich der Geschäftsfähigkeit stehen sie einem Minderjährigen gleich.

aus: E. Götze, "Rechtslexikon",

Fischer – Heymanns

Capacité juridique

La capacité est le pouvoir de conclure un acte juridique valable ayant pour conséquence d'engager le patrimoine de celui qui le souscrit.

Bien qu'elles soient capables de faire d'autres actes, il est certains engagements que pour des motifs d'ordre public et de moralité, certaines personnes ne sont pas habilitées à contracter, par exemple, le mariage entre proche parents. Le droit français n'a pas trouvé d'expressions propres pour désigner ces situations.On parle donc, indifféremment d'incapacité, s'agissant des mineurs ou des majeurs qui font l'objet d'un protection légale, et d'incapacité dans le cas où la loi interdit à certaines personnes de donner ou de recevoir des dons ou des legs lorsque le donateur et le donataire se trouvent entre eux dans des rapports qui font présumer une fraude ou une pression sur le testateur ou sur l'auteur de la donation.( voir les articles 903 et suivants du Code civil )

Textes : C.civil art.216,388 et s., 481, 488 et s., 902 et s. , 978 et s., 1028 et 1030 , 1039 et ., 1123, 1238, 1990, 1398 et 1399, 2115, 2157, NCPC, art 197, 1243 et s., 1271 et s.,

http://perso.club-internet.fr/sbraudo/dictionnaire/cadre.html

Causation

The notion that one event leads to another. Law distinguishes between remote causes which while necessary were not sufficient and material causes i.e. necessary and sufficient causes. Those causes but for which the accident would not have occurred are necessary but not always sufficent. When a cause is both necessary (legal causation, i.e. sine qua non causation) and proximate, i.e. sufficient, that is legal causation, then a tort will exist in common law. See: prima facie tort.

Cause, Proximate / Legal Cause | Näheste verursachung( ?) | cause proche / cause prochaine | causa prossimale:

A causal event which was both necessary and sufficient to result in injury. There is some confusion in the field as to the distinction between factual and legal causation. Factual causation is properly called cause in fact or causa sine qua non. Legal causation is sometimes refered to as proximate causation. Though a cause be necessary, and thus a cause sine-qua-non it is not always sufficient. Careful use of language here can avoid much confusion. The confusion arises because of complex fact patterns. It can be dispelled with terminological discipline. While all results require a necessary cause, not all causes are sufficient, and in cases where there are several sufficient causes not all causes are necessary since the other cause/s would be sufficient. For example, imagine a man who takes his two friends hunting. He drives them to the site and leaves. Each of them then negligently shoots the decedent plaintiff mistaking him for a wild animal. Each wound would kill the decedent: each is thus a sufficient cause. However as they are independent causes neither is necessary for the occurrence of the other. As to the driver: his causation is clearly necessar but is itself insufficient. Thus even were he negligent there would be no liability for his causation while factual, i.e. sine qua non, is not also legal, i.e. proximate. Both hunters will be held liable jointly and severally but may also have a claim against each other for indemnification.

cause proche / cause prochaine

événement anormal se trouvant le plus proche de l'événement accidentel dans une chaîne causal

Arbejdslivets terminologi(HHK)

causa prossimale

Prof.Piero Mognoni,Università di Milano

Cause in fact / But-for causality | condicio sine qua non formel / sine qua non

The principle that the tort feasors action must have had a factual cause, i.e. a material cause, in bringing about the defendants misfortune. Note that the presence of material causation (cause in fact) is a necessary but insufficient condition to a determination of tortious liabilty. The defendant's act must also have been a proximate cause (also known as legal cause) - a sufficiently remote causa sine qua non will not lead to liability in tort.

On causa sine qua non see:

Hayes v. Railroad Co., 111 U.S. 228, 4 S.Ct. 369, 28 L.Ed. 410.

And for the legally synonymous cause in fact:

Medallion Stores, Inc. v. Eidt, Tex.Civ. App., 405 S.W.2d 417, 422.

Chattel | Bewegliche körperlicher Gegenstand | Propriété Mobilier

Movable things; personal property. Chattel are material objects, and not merely abstract rights or other non-corporeal property.

Children, Minor:

A person who while recognized by the law as having rights and duties has restricted rights due to their age. Minor children are under 21 years of age at common law but statutes have generally reduced the age of majority to 18.

Both the German and French law impute greater responsibility on children and on parents for the torts of minor children.

Haftung der Kinder

Grundlagen der Haftung: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB § 823 Absatz 1) Wortlaut: "Wer vorsätzlich oder fahrlässig das Leben, den Körper, die Gesundheit, die Freiheit, das Eigentum oder ein sonstiges Recht eines anderen widerrechtlich verletzt, ist dem anderen zum Ersatz des daraus entstehenden Schadens verpflichtet."

Einschränkung:

· Kinder unter 7 Jahren können nicht haftbar gemacht werden

· Kinder bzw. Jugendliche von 7-18 Jahren können nur dann begrenzt haftbar gemacht werden, wenn sie zur Tat die erforderliche Einsicht hatten und die schädigenden Folgen Ihres Tuns erkennen konnten.

· Das gleiche gilt für geistig und körperlich Behinderte, sowie für Taubstumme

ABC der Privaten Haftpflichtversicherung

http://www.aspect-online.de/prodinfo/abc_phv/haftung.htm

Beschränkte Haftung der Eltern

(1) Die Eltern haben bei der Ausübung der elterlichen Sorge dem Kind gegenüber nur für die Sorgfalt einzustehen, die sie in eigenen Angelegenheiten anzuwenden pflegen.

(2) Sind für einen Schaden beide Eltern verantwortlich, so haften sie als Gesamtschuldner.

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

Buch 4 - Familienrecht (§§ 1297 - 1921)

Abschnitt 2 - Verwandtschaft (§§ 1589 - 1772)

Titel 5 - Elterliche Sorge (§§ 1626 - 1698b)

§ 1664

Responsabilité

In French law, parents are liable for the torts of their children.

Le Code civil, dans Les articles 1382 à 1386, pose le principe de la responsabilité civile délictuelle, c'est-à-dire celle qui découle d'une faute ayant entraîné un dommage qui doit être réparé. L'article 1382 dispose, en effet/ «Tout fait quelconque de l'homme qui cause à autrui un dommage oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer.» D'autre part, l'article 1383 précise que «chacun est responsable du dommage qu'il a causé non seulement par son fait, mais encore par sa négligence et son imprudence». Autrement dit, la «faute» retenue peut être constituée non seulement par un fait proprement dit mais aussi par une simple négligence ou une imprudence. Enfin, il existe une autre forme de responsabilité civile plus particulière, qui ressort des dispositions de l'article 1384, alinéa 1: «On est responsable non seulement du dommage que l'on cause par son propre fait, mais encore de celui qui est causé par le fait des personnes dont on doit répondre, ou des choses que l'on a sous sa garde.»

La responsabilité civile

Responsabilité sans faute personnelle donc, responsabilité «du fait des choses», qui vise le père et la mère qui disposent du droit de garde et qui sont solidairement responsables des dommages causés par leurs enfants mineurs; les «maîtres et les commettants» qui doivent répondre du dommage causé par leurs domestiques et préposés; les «instituteurs et artisans» qui sont responsables du dommage causé par leurs élèves ou apprentis. La responsabilité ainsi décrite ne sera mise en jeu que si les père et mère et les artisans ne prouvent pas qu'ils n'ont pas pu empêcher le fait qui entraîne cette responsabilité.

Encyclopédie

http://fr.encyclopedia.yahoo.com/articles/sy/sy_978_p0.html

Children and attractive nuisance-

A potentially harmful object inviting or interesting to a child that would lure the child to investigate. Landowners are strictly liable for attractive nuisances.

Civil Law / Continental Civil Law / Continental Law | Kodifiziertes Privatrecht (in der Tradition des Codex Justinian)

No greater confusion exists for both layman and lawyer than in the innocent sounding terms “common law” and “civil law”. Both terms are polysemic and must be qualified with adjectives otherwise confusion is certain.

The common law corresponds roughly to the french notion of “droit commun”. It is the customary i.e. traditional law of England as expressed in the decisions of judges. Just as “droit commun” may be derogated by statute so to can the common law, that is statutes may abrogate or supplement the common law and much of modern law is statutory.

Civil law must first be distinguished from civil procedure – they are very different concepts. The civil law refers to continental European law in its narrowest sense the private law of torts and contracts and accessory laws appurtenant thereto. This is the sense generally ascribed to the term in French. However in the English sense the term is broad and refers to the system of statutory law and interpretation via non-binding judicial precedent and strongly influenced by academia which characterises the law of the continent of Europe.

These confusions arise not only due to similar and polysemic terms but also due to the fact that both the common law and civil law are derived from Roman law with however many local customary deviations. Thus while these terms often confuse their ultimate meanings stem from the same source.

Civil Liability | Privatrechtliche Haftung

Liability in tort for negligent, reckless, or imputed liability due to strict negligence. Liability not on the bases of private contract or other promise but because of social relations.

Class Action Lawsuit

A lawsuit instituted by one person or group of persons on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. It arises for example in the case of mass torts and toxic torts (q.v.).

See also: Epedemiological proof, mass tort, toxic torts

Clear and Convincing Evidence

A standard of proof somewhat higher than the ordinary civil standard of preponderance of evidence/beyond a reasonable doubt, yet lesser than the standard of a criminal trial where proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt.

Constitutional Tort

See Bivens claim

Company | Handelsgesellschaft | Société

Company law generally permits shareholders in the company limited liability for the torts of the company. Thus company’s must be distinguished from partnerships or other unlimited liability companies.

Collateral Source Rule : ~Vorteilsausgleichung

The collateral source rule holds that where a plaintiff is compensated by a third party that third party compensation shall not be used to reduce the award to the plaintiff.

See: Cortland & Packard v. Superior Court for County of Los Angeles, 59 Cal.App.3d 140, 131 Cal. Rptr. 418, 421.

Common Carrier | Oeffentlicher Transportunternehmer | transporteur public | imprenditore di trasporto pubblico:

A common carrier is a transporter who offers their services to the general public over a definite route and according to a regular schedule.

Common carriers are ordinarily liable for all property losses which occur to the objects they are entrusted with unless they can prove that the loss was the result of an act of God or the owner of the property. Common carriers are liable to use utmost care in the transportation of passengers but if non-negligent will not be required to act as insurors of their passengers.

Tilson v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Mich., 130 F.Supp. 676, 678.

Comparative fault:

A modern doctrine of tort law which permits plaintiff and defendant to compare their liability for the accident. The plaintiffs award for damages will be reduced in proportion to their negligence. See e.g.

Huerta v. New York City Transit Authority,

735 N.Y.S.2d 5; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139

(comparative fault reducing plaintiff’s award in damages).

The rule of comparative fault replaces the all-or-nothing rule (q.v.). See contributor negligence.

Compensatio lucri cum damno / Set-off

The principle that advantages (positive externalities) which accrue to the victim of the defendant's torts shall offset the award in damages which the defendant shall receive to compensate their loss. This is similar to the collateral source rule but not the same since the diminution of the damages is not due to some exteranl source but due to the positive effect of the damage. It is also similar to, but not exactly the same as the Bereicherungsverbot / Prohibition of enrichment to the plaintiff. Both prevent overcompensation but using different methods. Compensatio lucri cum damno looks at the benefit to the plaintiff in measuring each element of the damages, whereas the prohibition of enrichment looks at the entire damage award and compares it with the entire damages suffered.

For example, the tortfeasors action destroys an old house and shed. The shed could not be repaired and was to be removed: the cost of removing the shed would be deducted from the damages for destroying the house.

Compensation, equitable, fair | Billige Entschädigung in Geld

The German principle of Billige Entschädigung in Geld holds that losses of a non pecuniary nature, i.e. losses for pain and suffering, shall only be compensated to a reasonable degree. This principle of law does not express itself as exactly in the common law, and as a result leads to excessive damage awards. Judicial over-compensation at common law is however sometimes corrected by statutory ceilings on damages.

On compensation see: Hughson Condensed Milk Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 23 Cal.App.2d 281, 73 P.2d 290, 292.

Compensation in kind | Naturalrestitution | Restitution in natura / : Restitution en nature

The remedy to the victim of the tort of replacement of that which was destroyed or removed by the tort feasor. Rather than restoring the victims loss with money the loss is repaired by restitution of the thing injured. E.g. a court orders a defendant to repair the car of the victim.

Natural restitution seeks to restore the injured object to the condition it had prior to injury.

Compensation | Ausgleich

One of the grand rationales of tort law. The remedy of the defendant shall be measured by their loss (rather than by the benefit to the plaintiff or by the social desirability of that compensation or out of a desire to punish or deter).

Compensatory damages : Immaterialler Einbussen und Vermögensschäden

Compensation seeks to remedy not merely the injured economic value but also the pain and suffering to the defendant. The former is known as pecuniary losses (Vermögenscschäden) and the latter as non-material damages (Immaterieller Einbussen)

See: Northwestem Nat. Cas. Co. v. McNulty, C.A.Fla., 307 F.2d 432, 434.

Compensation in-kind | Naturalrestitution | en nature:

Restitution or compensation of the thing injured in a form other than money but not including the right of satisfaction. E.g. a defendant who has lost their crop due to a neighboring farmer’s negligence might be compensated in grain rather than cash.

Concurrent tortfeasor / Joint tortfeasor | Gesamtschuldner | co-auteur du fait dommageable / auteur conjoint de délit:

Two or more persons whose negligence brings about the misfortune of another. At common law each of the joint tort-feasors is liable in the entirety for the damages to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff cannot recover more than their damages they can choose to recover all or part of their damage from any of the joint tort-feasors regardless of their actual proportion of liability for the accident. Joint tort-feasors however will have an action against each other if the injury committed by one was less than the restitution that they paid. Some jurisdictions tend to abandon this rule in favor of allowing recovery against either tort feasor only to the extent of the injury they inflict.

See, e.g. Fancyboy v. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, 984 P.2d 1128; 1999 Alas.

“By popular initiative, Alaska has abolished the system of joint and several liability, in which each tortfeasor could be fully liable for the injured party's damages and seek contribution or indemnity from any other joint tortfeasor. See Robinson v. Alaska Properties and Inv., Inc., 878 F. Supp. 1318, 1321 (D. Alaska 1995); Benner v. Wichman, 874 P.2d 949, 955 (Alaska 1994). Thus, a plaintiff "[can] only recover from each tortfeasor in the proportion that his fault played to the total fault of all the persons and entities at fault including the plaintiff herself."

Robinson, 878 F. Supp. at 1321.

Also see: Radford-Shelton & Associates Dental Laboratory, lnc. v. Saint Francis Hospi- tal, lnc., Okl.App., 569 P.2d 506, 509.

American Tobacco Co. v. Transport Corp., O.C.Va., 277 F.Supp. 457, 461.

Bowen v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 270 N.C. 486, 155 S.E.2d 238, 242.

Consent | Einwilligung | Consentement:

The free choice of a person posessing their mental faculties to undertake an act.

Consent can be express or implied. It is express when manifested with words whether written or oral and implied when not expressed by words but by actions.

Fraudulent consent is no consent and so to is the consent of those who are legally not in posession of their faculties due to youth, age, or mental infirmity.

Consent is an affirmative defense against an accusation of tortious conduct.

Einwilligung

Erforderliche Zustimmung zu einem von einer anderen Person vorzunehmenden Rechtsgeschäft,wenn diese vor dessen Abschluß erteilt wird

(ablers Lex des Wirtschaftsrechts,1972)

EuroDicAutom

Consentement

Le consentement peut se définir comme la volonté d'engager sa personne ou ses biens, ou les deux à la fois . Cette approbation peut conditionner la validité de l'engagement d'une autre , comme c'est le cas du mariage des mineurs . Cette adhésion est dite "expresse" , lorsque la volonté de celui qui s'engage se manifeste d'une manière apparente , par exemple par la signature d'un écrit ou par une déclaration faite en public , et elle est dite " tacite" quand l' accord de la personne résulte d'une attitude non équivoque de laquelle on peu le déduire comme la prise de livraison d'une chose achetée.

Sa preuve est quelquefois soumises à des conditions de formes destinées à constituer une preuve irréfutable de l'engagement , par exemple lorsque la validité d'un acte est subordonnée à sa réception par un notaire tel qu'un legs , ou par le Maire de la Commune lorsqu'il est appelé à constater l'accord des futurs époux à leur mariage . Pour esxprimer cette notion, les textes juridiques utilisent des expressions équivalentes telles que , "Acceptation", "Acquiescement" , " Agrément",ou "Ratification" qui cependant ,s'ils ont un sens approchant n'est cependant pas toujours identique à la signification du mot "consentement ".

Law Philospher

Monday, October 21, 2013

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY / STRICT LIABILITY PPC and Tort paper 5 and 6 for LLB part I Punjab Universty

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive