The
general structure of the law, being a series of rules often having exceptions
and even having exceptions to those exceptions. E.g. libel is a tort, but truth
is a defence.
-S-
Satisfaction
interest | Genugtuung
The
interest of a plaintiff to have remedied not only the physical or monetary
injuries inflicted by a tort-feasor but also their moral right to the integrity
of their person. Although the common law will generally not order an apology or
specific performance the moral interest of a plaintiff in the common law will
be remedied with nominal damages.
Schadenersatzanspruchen
Verstorbener regeln
At
common law thanks to the moritur doctrine the death of the plaintiff also
extinguished all of plaintiff’s rights. This of course led to the perverse
result that it would be better to kill than wound! Consequently survival
statutes were enacted which would permit the heirs of the decedent to recover
for the injuries of their legator. It is problematic to what extent the heirs
will be able to recover for the pain and suffering of the decedent.
Servant
| Arbeitnehmer
One
who works in the pay of another known as a master. The servant will be
responsible for any torts they commit but their master will also be
responsible. See: master and servant, respondeat superior.
Servant,
Public | Beamter
A
civil servant or professional employee of the government. They may enjoy a form
of immunity for negligent torts committed in the scope of their office. See:
immunity, governmental immunity, sovereign immunity.
Slander
| Beleidigung (durch schriftliche Äußerung) Mündliche Verleumdung; Beleidigung;
Üble Nachrede
Oral
defamation. Untrue statements communicated to a third party which tend to bring
the reputation of the plaintiff into the opprobrium of the community. While the
plaintiff does not need to prove that the slander is false if the defendant
proves the slander true that is an absolute defence. Damages for slander
(unlike libel) must however be proven. However in four cases damages will be
presumed: 1) false intimation of the unchastity of a woman, 2) false accusation
of professional incompetence, 3) false statements that the plaintiff suffers
from a loathesome disease, c4) alumny, that is false accusation of criminality
on the part of the plaintiff.
Sovereign
Immunity
See
Immunity, Sovereign; Governmental Immunity
Special
damages | eigenen Schäden
Special
damages are those damages which are not ordinary or usual. They would arise in
an action on the case or in an action in equity. While the byzantine pleading
of the common law has been replaced by state and federal rules of procedure,
plaintiffs must still be specifically plead, otherwise they are waived.
See
also: General damages
Standard
of Care | Verhaltens / Sorgfaltsstandard
See:
Negligence, Due Care, Ordinary Negligence, Mere Negligence, Slight Negligence,
Recklessness, Willful, Wanton and Indifferent
Standard
of Proof (onus probandi)| Beweismass
The
standard of proof in an ordinary trial is by a preponderance of evidence: that
is that the fact asserted be more likely than not. In a criminal trial however
the standard is higher: there the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The
standard of care refers to the degree of negligence required to hold the
tort-feasor liable. Strict liability cases require no showing of negligence.
The general standard of liability in tort is negligence, i.e. a failure to
exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise.
See
also: evidence et seq., burden of proof, due-care,
Stare
Decisis
The
rule that a court must follow the decisions of earlier courts. This rule does
not exist de jure in French civil law but is recognized de facto in German law.
Ballard
County v. Kentucky County Debt Commision, 290 Ky. 770, 162 S.W.2d 771, 773.
Statute
of Limitations | Verjährungsregel
At
common law rights do not extinguish: thus to prevent outdated or
"stale" lawsuits statutes of limitations were introduced which limit
the amount of time after an injury wherein a plaintiff may seek relief. Such
statutes can be justified as they prevent loss of evidence and remote claims.
Failure to bring lawsuit prior to expiration of the statute of limitations will
bar an action completely.
Statutory
duty | Gesetzliche Verhaltenspflicht
A
legally imposed duty as opposed to a duty at common law. For example physicians
may be held statutorily obliged to aid all injured persons due to their
specialized skills, competence and character despite the fact that at common
law rule is that there is no general duty to aid others.
Strict
liability, especially strict products liability | Gefährdungshaftung
A
tort-feasor is said to be strictly liable where no inquiry into their mental
state is made. That is, the negligence or willfullness of the tort-feasor's act
is irrelevant in torts of strict liability such as defective products. In cases
of auto accidents strict liability is often referred to as "no-fault"
liability since the inquiry does not focus on fault of the tort feasor but
remedy to the injured.
Davis
v. Gibson Products Co., Tex.Civ.App., 505 S.W.2d 682, 688.
Herbstman
v. Eastman Kodak Co., 342 A.2d 181 (N.J.),
See:
no-fault liability, absolute liability
Superseding
cause
In
intervening or superseding cause will be said to break the chain of causation
of an earlier necessary cause which is one of the factual causes of the accident.
An affirmative defence against a finding of proximate cause.
Hargrove
v. Frommeyer & Co., 229 Pa.Super. 298, 323 A.2d 300, 304.
See:
joint and several liability, prima facie tort
Survival
Statutes | Gesetze, die den Übergang von
See:
Wrongful Death
-T-
Thin
skull rule | Haftung auch bei unvorhersehbarer Verletzung wegen
konstitutionbedingter Überempfindlichkeit
The
principle of the common law that particularly fragile victims of torts shall
also be fully compensated for their losses, even where the damages arising out
of their predisposing condition were not forseeable to the defendant’s
particular susceptibility.
Tort
| Delikt / unerlaubte Handlung
A
tort is a violation of a legal duty resulting in damages to the plaintiff.
Delict is a synonymous though rarely used in English – despite the fact that it
is the term for tort both in French (délit) and in German (Delikt).
Coleman
v. California Yearly Meeting of Friends Church, 27 Cal.App.2d 579, 8I P.2d 469,
470.
James
v. Public Finance Corp., 47 C.A.3d 995, 121
Cal.Rptr. 670, 675.
Joseph
v. Hustad Corp., 454 P.2d 916, 918.
See
delict, prima facie tort
Tort,
Prima Facie
See
prima facie tort
Tort-feasor
| Deliktstäter
S/he
who does wrong to another which is recognized as a breach of a legally
recognized duty resulting in damages to the plaintiff.
Tort-feasor,
joint / concurrent | Mittäter Nebentäter [???]
Concurrent
tort-feasor and joint tort-feasor are synonymous. Either term is used to refer
to the situation where two or more persons simultaneously injure the same
plaintiff or the same plaintiffs. See: joint and several liability,
proportional liability
Tort
claims act
An
act of the government which waives its immunity to torts. These acts also
establish the procedures for making such claims. Absent such an act, the
government cannot be sued in tort because of sovereign immunity.
Federal
Tort Claims Act
The
federal statute which authorizes suits in torts against the federal government.
An example of a tort claims act.
Toxic
torts
Late
capitalism features a variety of noxious substances essentially unknown several
hundred years ago such as plutonium, PCPs, CFCs, asbestos, defective medicines
etc. – the chemical by products of a highly industrialized society.
Unfortunately the illness or illnesses caused by these products are generally
any of a variety of cancers. Thus proving the causal link between, say, toxic
waste dumping, and a particular plaintiff’s injury is difficult. Worse, the
same industrial processes that create those toxic substances also permits their
widespread diffusion which can lead to mass disasters. As yet society has not
developed a comprehensive solution to this problem nor a legal framework in
which to implement such solution.
The
problematic character of toxic torts lies first in the issue of causation and
second in the possibility of multiple victims. In both regards toxic torts
raise issues similar to those cases of mass-torts.
Trademark
At
common law a trade-mark is used to identify a producer’s goods. As such it
serves as a sign of quality for consumers. Thus trademark’s are protected both
at common law and under statutes. Trademarks must be distinct such that they
are recognisable, not overly general and only are protected with regard to the
products that the company makes.
At
common law a trademark can be lost through disuse and did not need to be
registered. Statutes may or may not have changed this fact depending upon the
jurisdiction in question.
Jantzen
Knitting Mills v. West Coast Knitting Mills, Cust. & Pat.App., 46 F.2d 182,
Trade-Mark
Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 87, 25 L.FA. 550. L.Ed
15
U.S.C.A. § 1127.
Trade
Name
A
trade name is any designation used by a person to indicate their markets or
services Walters v. Building Maintenance Service, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 291
S.W.2d 377, 382. To avoid confusion and
mark the goods origin but relates more to the business and its goodwill than
any of its specific products. Mary Muffet, Inc. v. Smelansky, Mo.App., 158
S.W.2d 168, 170. The trade name is not however a trade mark, either because it
is not affixed to a specific product or because it is a word incapable of being
appropriated as a trade mark.
Trade-names
may, or may not, be exclusive.
15
U.S.C.A. § 1127.
Trespass
| Vorsätzlich rechtswidriges eindringen
Wrongful
entry onto the land, property, person or right of another. Trespass may be to land, known as trespass to
land, to goods, known as trespass to chattels, or to the person, known as
trespass vi et armis. Finally for cases of injury to the person or property an
action for trespass on the case, on the specific facts of the case may be had
and is sometimes simply called ‘case’. While action on the case is archaic it
does still exact.
King
v. Citizens Bank of De Kalb, 88 Ga.App. 40, 76 S.E.2d 86, 91.
Waco
Cotton Oil Mill of Waco v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d
1071,
1072.
Mawson
v. Vess Beverage Co., Mo.App., 173 S.W.2d 606, 612, 613. 614.
Trespass
and battery and trespass vi et armis (vie-et-armes)
With
the elimination of the common law writ system and the introduction of code
pleading one could argue that these torts have been legally subsumed into
battery. In in practice, de facto, they have been.
Among
lay persons the understanding is that trespass refers to a wrongful entry onto
the land of another – though in fact its legal definition was wider.
Significations other than wrongful entry onto land are however fading even in
legal discourse. At any rate the term “battery” is used rather than “force and
arms” “vi et armis” or “trespass and battery”. Though as we see in trespass on
the case there are valid reasons for making distinctions which formerly turned
as much on the writ, i.e. procedure, as on substance. Caveat lector.
Trespass
to goods
See
trespass to chattels
Trespass
to land
Trespass
is the wrongful entry onto the land of another or causing an object or person
to wrongfully enter the land of another or failing to remove an object from the
land of another which that person (the defendant) is under a legal duty to
remove.
The
wrong exists without a showing of damages.
Zimmer
v. Stephenson, 66 Wash.2d 477, 403 P.2d 343.
Trespass
to the person | Trespass vi et armis (vie et armes) / tresspass force and arms
Trespass
vi-et-armis also known as trespass force and arms is an archaic form for a
claim of battery. It was concurrent form of action to trespass on the case but
possibly only because the common law did not allow pleading in the alternative
under the writ system. As code pleading permits pleading in the alternative
this tort may have merged into that of battery. The distinction turned on
pleading forms which have been abandoned for over a century and yet which
subsist at least in theory.
Mawson
v. Vess Beverage Co., Mo.App., 173 S.W.2d 606, 613.
Trespass
to chattels
Intentional
interference with a chattel in possession of another which results in any of
the following:
Permanent
loss of the chattel, or
Temporary
loss of the chattel but for a long period of time, or
Damage
to the quality or fitness of the chattel, or
Harm
to the owner of the chattel resulting from its deprivation.
Trespass
on the case
An
action for trespass on the case is in fact a “catch-all” tort, which must be
plead and proven as special damages since by definition it does not fit into
any of the standard legal forms of action. The plaintiff is allowed to attempt
to defend their rights on the facts of the case, and hence the terms “on the
case”, “action on the case” or even simply “case”. See Jovitt’s law dictionary.
For a more recent reference see:
“Limitation
of Tort Actions Under Alabama Law: Distinguishing Between the Two-Year and the
Six-Year Statutes of Limitation”
ALABAMA
LAW REVIEW VOLUME 49 SPRING 1998
http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/webb.htm
Which
states:
“Under
English common law, trespass on the case was a catch-all remedy for any cause
of action for which there was not an existing legal form. [ See John Jay
McKelvey, Principles of Common-Law Pleading õ 80 (2d ed. 1917).”
Trespasser
A
trespasser is one who commits trespass, that is wrongfully entering upon the
land or property of another.
Fitzgerald
v. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed., 25 Md.App. 709, 336 A.2d 795, 797.
Regarding
liability of landowners for injuries to trespasser see, e.g. Morris v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 198 Kan. 147, 422 P.2d 920, 927, 928.
-U-
Unavoidable
Accident | Unvermeidbares Ereignis
An
accident which could not have been prevented by any action of the parties.
Strictly speaking then negligence, if any, is causally irrelevant, for the
accident would have happened without the defendants act or ommission. Thus
there is no sine qua non causation in such cases and logically speaking there
should be no liability. Such cases must be strictly distinguished from cases of
joint-tortfeasors, where sine qua non causation is found and applied to both
tortfeasors.
Sabin
v. Sunset Garden Co., 85 P.2d 294, 295 (Oklahoma)
Unity
of injury and damage in the same person | Tatbestandprinzip
Principle
of German law, with exceptions, that holds that the injured victim must also be
s/he who suffers damages from the victim. It is similar to proximate cause in
that it permits determination of the extent of liability. In cases where there
is an injury but no damages nominal damages will be awarded, as damnum sine
injuria.
Unjust
enrichment | Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung
Unjust
enrichment occurs where a defendant has wrongfully profited at plaintiff’s
expense. There would clearly be a remedy at equity for unjust enrichment.
Statutes may also fashion legal remedies. The court regards the unjust
enrichment as held in constructive trust by the defendant.
To
prove unjust enrichment plaintiff must show a deprivation of their property
corresponding to an enrichment, that is an augmentation in the plaintiff’s
wealth without however any legal reason for that enrichment.
Tulalip
Shores, Inc. v. Mortland, 9 Wash. App. 271, 511 P.2d 1402, 1404.
Hummel
v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520, 14 N.E.2d 923, 927.
Unlawfulness
| Rechtswidrigkeit
Quality
of being illegal as opposed to immoral. Failure to conduct oneself within the
bounds of the law. Wrongfulness is not confined to criminal acts and includes
torts.
State
v. Hailey, 350 Mo. 300, 165 S.W.2d 422, 427.
Unlawfulness,
knowledge thereof | Unrechtsbewußtsein
-V-
Versanti
in re illicita imputantur omnia quae sequntur ex delicto (Who acts contrary to
the law will be held responsable for all consequences which follow therefrom).
The
latin maxim which describes the principle of consequential damages: that
principle holds that a tort feasor shall be held liable not only for the
immediate and obviousl damages resulting from his tortious misconduct but also
for all for all consequential damages which follow therefrom. Naturally
economic consequential damages are more easily proved in practice than
non-economic consequential damages.
Vicarious
liability | Arbeitgeberhaftung für Arbeitnehmerdelikte (ohne
Arbeitgeberverschulden)
Vicarious
liability is that liability which is imputed to a person who should presumably
be in position to control the actions of another person where that other person
is a tort-feasor. Thus parents are responsible for the torts of their children.
Guardians are responsible for the torts of their charges. Employers are
responsible for the torts of their employees committed in the scope of the
duties of the employee. Products liability is not an example of vicarious
liability but rather of strict liability, though the common aspect of capacity
to control tortious conduct exists there as well.
See:
Respondeat superior. Master and Servant.
-W-
Warranty
| Garantie
A
promise, whether express or implied, that a good shall be free of defect. Thus
cases of products liabilities may be founded on a theory of warranty as well,
either as an independent or alternative theory of liability.
The
Fred Smartley, Jr., C.C.A.Va., 108 F.2d 603
Implied
warranty.
A
warranty which the law imputes to the contracting parties based not on the
express terms of the contract but on the conduct and circumstances which give
rise to implicit assurances of protection and usefulness of the product.
Implied warranties may be a foundational or alternative theory to products
liability (q.v.) claims
Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Walker Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 627, 632.
Willful
Wanton and Malicious
Conduct
manifesting intent or callous indifference to the lives of others. Sufficient
negligence to justify a finding of punitive damages (q.v.). See: recklessness.
Worker’s
compensation | US-Gesetze zur Regelung von Arbeitnehmeransprüchen bei
Arbeitsunfällen
The
industrial revolution led to mechanisation of the work place and a
corresponding rise in serious injuries. To correct the worst excesses of
laissez faire capitalism, comprehensive schemes of social insurance based on
employee and state contributions arose. Under a system of worker’s
compensation, the victim of a workplace accident will have a right to a
definite fixed compensation. The advantage of such a system is not only in loss
spreading but also economy. Fewer costs are spent on lawsuits in such systems.
Further they reduce the “roulette” aspects of tort law. While plaintiffs
recover lower damages under worker’s compensation than they might have at trial
their legal costs may be lower and the standards of proof are in practice lower
such that an employee injured at the work place in the scope of his or her
duties will nearly certain to recover, even without finding of fault.
See
also: Master and Servant, Respondeat Superior, no-fault liability, strict
liability, fellow servant rule-
Wrongful
See,
wrongfulness. Also see:
Mathes
v. Williams, Tex. Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 853, 858.
County
of DuPage v. Kussel, 12 Ill.App.3d 272, 298 N.E.2d 323. 326.
Wrongful
death cases | fahrlässige Tötung (possibly: Unerlaubte Tötung)
Since
at common law the death of the victim extinguished their legal rights (q.v.
moritur doctrine) the statutory action of wrongful death was instituted in
order to permit remedies to the heirs of the victim.
See
also: survival statutes, statute of limitations
Barragan
v. Superior Court of Pima County, 12 Ariz.App. 402, 470 P.2d 722, 724.
Wrongful
Birth/Wrongful life
Wrongful
birth and wrongful life are both recent actions and thus sometimes confused and
indistinct from one another. In both cases parents seeks to recover the costs
involved as a result of the birth of an unwanted child. Wrongful life claims
arise out of negligent sterilisation (e.g. vasectomy: Sherlock Stillwater
Clinic, 260 N.W.2d 169) and negligent abortion and are usually founded on a
theory of negligent diagnosis or treatment
(Lane
v. Cohen, 201 So.2d 804). The action has been held to include cases where a
physician advises a couple that they may have a second childe where the second
child suffers from the same hereditary disease as the first (Park v. Chessin,
60 A.D.2d 80).
Wrongful
birth | Farhlässig verursachte Gebeurt (eines gesunden Kindes)
Wrongful
birth and wrongful life are similar terms but are not at all synonymous.
Wrongful birth concerns the case where a healthy child is born due to the
negligence of a physician in failing to diagnose a pregnancy within the time
the law allows for abortion. While such claims may be permissible the extent of
damages will in no way equivalent to the cost of raising a child. The rationale
of the courts is that the burden of raising a child is a mixed one which
offsets the damages to the plaintiff.
Wrongful
life | fahrlässig nicht ermöglichte Abtreibung eines (genetsich kranken) Fötus
Cases
of wrongful birth or wrongful life can arise in the following fact patterns:
1)
Negligent sterilisation: One of the parents is negligently sterilised, and then
has a child.
2)
Negligent diagnoses of pregnancy, that is a diagnosis of pregnancy does not
occur prior to the legal limit for abortion.
3)
Negligence in performing an abortion. In such cases the child may be born
crippled or in good health.
It
is clear that an injured child injured as a result of a negligent abortion has
a right of compensation. Whether the parent or parents of the child also have
an independent claim is less clear.
Also
controverted is whether the parents have a claim in cases where the abortion
does not succeed for the costs of raising the child (so called “wrongful life”
claims). Such claims are recognized in California, however the right is the
child’s right. In cases where a
sterlisation is negligently performed and a child is born English courts do
impute tortious liability to the physician. Damages both in America and the UK are normally limited to those
arising out of birth defects or other abnormal costs though there is controversy.
French
law recognizes the claim of an injured child in cases of a negligent abortion.
French law does not however recognise a claim of negligence where the abortion
neither succeeds in destroying the fetus nor in fact injures the fetus at all.
Wrongful
injury | unrechte / farlässige Verletzung eines rechtlich geschützten
Interesses
A
synonym for tort which would be understandable by a lay-person. See: tort.
Wrongful
behavior | unrechtes / fahrlässiges Verhalten
Imputation
of moral sanction for failure to comply with social obligations. Wrongful acts
may be excused however due to incapacity (see: capacity) resulting from
minority, infirmity, or mental defect. (see: defences)
Wrongfulness
| Unrecht, Fahrlässigkeit, Vorwerfbarkeit
Quality
of being immoral as opposed to illegal. A wrongful act is not necessarily
against the law, though one definition of justice is the congruence of law and
morality.
While
natural justice holds that all laws must also be moral that does not indicate
that all morality is legislated. A thing may be immoral yet not illegal. In an
injust state a law may even be immoral.
Wrongfulness
can also be defined as conduct which fails to rise to the level of moral (as
opposed to legal) responsibility that society demands of adult persons in
possession of their faculties. Wrongfullnes is not alone sufficient to
constitute a prima facie tort. While a negligent action is wrongful not all
wrongful actions cause damages. Wrongfullness can be understood as a synonym
for breach of one’s legal duty and thus would correspond to a finding of two of
the necessary for elements of a tort.
NOTES:
Narducci
v. Manhasset Bay Assocs., 96 N.Y.2d 259;
750 N.E.2d 1085; 727 N.Y.S.2d 37; 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1108.
Ҥ
7 Abs. 1 StVG verpflichtet den Halter zum Ersatz des Schadens, der beim Betrieb
des Kraftfahrzeugs angerichtet wird. Nach § 18 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StVG trifft
dieselbe Haftung den Führer des Kraftfahrzeugs. Der Führer kann sich allerdings
durch den Beweis des Nichtverschuldens nach § 18 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StVG entlasten,
während der Halter nur bei einem unabwendbaren Ereignis, das er beweisen muß,
von der Haftung frei wird (§ 7 Abs. 2 StVG). Entsteht der Schaden an einem
anderen Kraftfahrzeug, findet eine Abwägung unter den Betriebsgefahren der
beteiligten Fahrzeuge statt, die zu einer Anrechnung (=Kürzung) auf den
Schadensersatzanspruch nach § 17
Satz
2 StVG führen kann.“
Prof.
Dr. Helmut Rüßmann
„Gefährdungshaftung“
http://ruessmann.jura.uni-sb.de/rw20/haftung/hiif.htm
«
En outre, la loi du 19 mai 1998 a consacré une responsabilité de plein droit à
la charge des fabricants et des fournisseurs de produits défectueux, dont les
médicaments défectueux.
…
La
loi du 19 mai 1998 transpose en droit français la directive européenne du 25
juillet 1985 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux. Son régime
juridique s'ajoute à celui dégagé par le droit commun ou d'autres régimes
juridiques spécifiques (transfusions sanguines par exemple).
Elle
pose le principe d'une responsabilité de plein droit dès lors que sont
constatés le défaut du produit et un dommage en résultant, indépendamment d'un
contrat ou d'une faute. … Le défaut de
sécurité du produit n'est pas présumé. »
Médicaments
et produits dangereux pour la santé
Me
DURRIEU-DIEBOLT, Avocat
http://sos-net.eu.org/medical/medic.htm#3-2
force
majeure
Definition
[French, superior force]
1 superior or insuperable force
2 an event (as war, labor strike, or extreme
weather) or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled
Lawyers.com
„Unvorhergesehenes,unvorhersehbares,aussergewöhnliches
Ereignis,das mit unabwendbarer Gewalt von aussen hereinbricht.“
Obligationenrecht,Art.487
Abs.1(SR 220):(DF)Keller/Syz,Haftpflichtrecht,1990,S.42
La
"force majeure" est la circonstance exceptionnelle étrangère à la
personne de celui qui l'éprouve qui a eu pour résultat a été de l' empêcher
d'exécuter les prestations qu'il devait à son créancier.Pour que la force
majeure entraîne un tel effet il est nécessaire que le juge constate que
l'événement dont le débiteur se prévaut a été d'une intensité telle ,qu'il ne
pouvait y résister.
Il
s'agit d'un principe général du droit français qui est applicable à la fois au
domaine de la responsabilité et ce, qu'elle soit contractuelle , délictuelle ou
quasi-délictuelle .On cite le cas de la tempête d'une exceptionnelle intensité
,de celui de l'accident de la circulation produit par le dérèglement du système
de signalisation ou du cas encore,où une voiture en a heurté une autre en
raison de la présence d'huile répandue sur la chaussée qui n'a pas permis à
l'un des conducteurs de maîtriser sa
direction
.
Code
civil art.607, 1148, 1302, 1348, 1722 .
L.n°85-677
du 5 juillet 1985, art.2. (accidents de la circulation)
http://perso.club-internet.fr/sbraudo/dictionnaire/F.html
Freelang
Dictionnaire Juridique Bilingue
(http://www.freelang.com/freelang/dictionnaire/html/allemand_juridique2.htm)
C.T.T.J.,Université
de Moncton,1986;Common Law,Délits civils
„Strafbare
Handlung gegen Leib und Leben,die darin besteht,dass eine Person einen Menschen
an Körper oder Gesundheit schädigt oder
gegen diesen eine Tätlichkeit verübt.“ -Eurdicautom
La
violence est l'acte délibéré ou non ,provoquant chez celui qui en est la
victime , un trouble physique ou moral comportant des conséquences dommageables
pour sa personne ou pour ses biens.
Dans
le domaine contractuel ,la violence exercée sur une personne ayant eu pour
résultat de l'amener à s'engager ou de l'amener à renoncer à un droit,
constitue un vice du consentement.
Quand
elle est appliquée aux choses ,lorsqu'elle est faite sans droit ,par exemple la
coupe d'un arbre planté sur un fonds voisin,ou la saisie d'un bien faite en
vertu d'un jugement qui n'est pas devenu exécutoire ,la violence constitue une
"voie de fait".
L'action
possessoire destinée à replacer dans la situation dans laquelle ,avant les
faits, se trouvait ,le possesseur victime d'un acte de violence , se nomme la
" réintégrande"
See
: Code civil art. 887, 1111 et s., 2233.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/sbraudo/dictionnaire/cadre.html
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers-com/executable/glossary/defpage.asp?SEQNO=145
Nelson
v. Freeland, 1998 N.C. LEXIS 849, *; 349 N.C. 615;
507
S.E.2d 882
I.
Wrongful Life
California
recognizes an impaired child's right to recover damages for "wrongful
life." ( Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 220, 182 Cal. Rptr. 337, 643
P.2d 954.) The essence of a wrongful life action is that "if defendants
had performed their jobs properly, [plaintiff] .. would not have been born at
all." ( Id. at p. 231.) In such a case, an impaired child may recover special damages for the extraordinary
expenses [*18] necessary to treat the hereditary ailment
from which he or she suffers. ( Id. at p. 239, 182 Cal. Rptr. 337, 643
P.2d 954.) Wrongful life is basically
one form of a medical malpractice action. ( Id. at p. 229.)
NATHANIEL
GALVEZ, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL FRIELDS, Defendant
and Respondent. COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
88
Cal. App. 4th 1410; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 355; 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 50;
See,
e.g. .A., individually and as parent and next friend to J.A., and N.A., as
parent and next friend to J.A., a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. United States of
America, Defendant. SUPREME COURT OF
ALASKA 951 P.2d 851;
For
a discsusion of the English jurisprudence (and comparison to the American) see
:
http://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/institute/oerecht/verwaltr/lehre/wintersemester2001-2002/rechtsterminologie/text09.pdf
E.g.,
ALICE WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HOSPITALS et al.,
Appellees.
SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS 179 Ill. 2d 80; 688
N.E.2d 130; 1997 Ill. LEXIS 461; 227 Ill. Dec. 793
La
naissance d'un enfant après échec d'une interruption volontaire de grossesse ou
stérilisation constitue-t-elle un préjudice ?
Non,
sauf circonstances particulières produisant un préjudice particulier distinct
de la seule survenance de l'enfant.
La
même question a été posée s'agissant de la naissance d'un enfant handicapé :
C'est l'hypothèse où la mère n'a pas été informée de l'affection très grave de
son enfant à naître, ce qui l'a empêché de solliciter une interruption
volontaire de grossesse.
La
jurisprudence a longtemps été relativement floue quant à l'indemnisation des
parents et de l'enfant à cet égard.
Il
est admis que le médecin ne doit pas répondre du préjudice relevant du handicap
lui-même si ce handicap n'est pas causé par la faute du médecin. Mais quid dans
le cas d'une erreur de diagnostic ? Le médecin doit-il indemniser la famille
et/ou l'enfant ?
Le
17 novembre 2000 (Jurisdata n°006884), par un arrêt de principe (arrêt
PERRUCHE), la Cour de cassation en assemblée pleinière a retenu la
responsabilité, à l'égard d'un enfant atteint d'un handicap, du médecin et du
laboratoire dont les fautes contractuelles ont empêché la mère enceinte
d'interrompre sa grossesse afin d'éviter la naissance de l'enfant. En l'espèce,
le médecin et le laboratoire de biologie médicale avaient commis des fautes à
l'occasion
de la recherche d'anticorps de la rubéole chez la mère enceinte. Cette dernière
avait décidé de recourir à une IVG en cas d'atteinte rubéolique. Les fautes commises
lui avaient laissé croire à tort qu'elle était imunisée contre cette maladie.
L'enfant avait développé de graves séquelles consécutives à une atteinte in
utéro par la rubéole. La Cour de cassation le 17 novembre 2000 a cassé la
décision par laquelle il avait été jugé que les séquelles de l'enfant avaient
pour seule cause la rubéole et non les fautes médicales. C'est admettre que le
handicap est causé par les fautes retenues et que les victimes peuvent obtenir
réparation du préjudice en résultant sur
ce fondement. La nouveauté réside dans l'indemnisation de l'enfant. Auparavant,
l'indemnisation des parents (préjudice moral et troubles dans les conditions
d'existence) était déjà acquise. En l'espèce, la Cour de cassation a adopté une
notion large du lien de causalité (tout ce qui n'a pas empêché le handicap y a
contribué) pour indemniser l'enfant. »
La
réparation des préjudices spécifiques, Me. Durrieu-Diebolt,
No comments:
Post a Comment