scholarly journals TORT LAW AND THE MORAL LAW: ANGLO-FRENCH DIVERGENCES

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (S1) ◽  
pp. S33-S60
Author(s):  
John Bell
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Social Solidarity ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
French Law ◽  
Moral Law ◽  
State Action ◽  
Inaugural Lecture ◽  
Private Charity

AbstractTunc's inaugural lecture “Tort Law and the Moral Law” in 1972 aimed to set out the moral foundations of tort liability in common law and French law. It triggered exchanges in this Journal with Hamson who challenged Tunc's views. This article explores the context of the debate and then reviews the subsequent developments of English and French law. Both systems have continued on the same path as the protagonists set out in their debate with France deepening its grounding in social solidarity as a justification for tort liability while English law sees its place only in state action or private charity.

scholarly journals Liability from the use of medical artificial intelligence: a comparative study of English and Taiwanese tort laws

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1294
Author(s):  
Dennis W. K. Khong ◽  
Wan-Ju Yeh
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Safety Regulations ◽  
Advisory Systems ◽  
Negligence Rule

Background: Modern artificial intelligence applications are appearing in healthcare and medical practices. Artificial intelligence is used both in medical research and on patients via medical devices. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare English and Taiwanese tort laws in relation to medical artificial intelligence. Methods: The methodologies employed are legal doctrinal analysis and comparative law analysis. Results: The investigation finds that English tort law treats wrong diagnostic or wrong advice as negligent misstatement, and mishaps due to devices as a physical tort under the negligence rule. Negligent misstatement may occur in diagnosis or advisory systems, while a negligent act may occur in products used in the treatment of the patient. Product liability under English common law applies the same rule as negligence. In Taiwan, the general principles of tort law in Taiwan’s Civil Code for misstatement and negligent action apply, whereas the Consumer Protection Act provides for additional rules on product liability of traders. Conclusions: Safety regulations may be a suitable alternative to tort liability as a means to ensure the safety of medical artificial intelligence systems.

scholarly journals The Influence of "Reasonableness" on the Element of Conduct in Delictual or Tort Liability - Comparative Conclusions

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raheel Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
French Law ◽  
Human Conduct ◽  
American Law ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Mentally Impaired ◽  
Law Of Delict

In this contribution the influence of reasonableness on the element of conduct in the South African law of delict will be analysed and compared with the requirement of some form of conduct in English tort law, American tort law and the French law of delict. Fundamental similarities and differences among the different legal systems must be considered. France and South Africa follow a generalising approach to determining a delict while English and American law have a system of separate torts. Even though English and American law do not explicitly refer to the requirement of conduct in tort law, it is generally implicitly required. This is the case whether one is dealing with the tort of negligence or the intentional torts. In French law too, a fait générateur (a generating, triggering, wrongful act or event) generally must also be present in order to ground delictual liability. The concept of fait générateur is broader than the concept of conduct found in the other jurisdictions in that it extends beyond what is regarded as human conduct. The conduct in all the jurisdictions may be in the form of a commission (a positive, physical act or statement) or an omission (a failure to act). The requirement that conduct must be voluntary is generally found in South African, English and American law (with an exception applying to mentally impaired persons) but not in France. Naturally, it is unreasonable to hold a person liable without conduct which results in the causing of harm or loss. In all the above-mentioned jurisdictions, it would generally be unreasonable to hold the wrongdoer liable in delict or tort law if the omission or commission does not qualify as some form of conduct. Thus the influence of reasonableness on the element of conduct in all the above-mentioned jurisdictions is implicit.

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

scholarly journals Treating Wrongs as Wrongs: An Expressive Argument for Tort Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Hershovitz
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Reform ◽  
Corrective Justice ◽  
Social Standing ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Expressive Function ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe idea that criminal punishment carries a message of condemnation is as commonplace as could be. Indeed, many think that condemnation is the mark of punishment, distinguishing it from other sorts of penalties or burdens. But for all that torts and crimes share in common, nearly no one thinks that tort has similar expressive aims. And that is unfortunate, as the truth is that tort is very much an expressive institution, with messages to send that are different, but no less important, than those conveyed by the criminal law. In this essay, I argue that tort liability expresses the judgment that the defendant wronged the plaintiff. And I explain why it is important to have an institution that expresses that judgment. I argue that we need ways of treating wrongs as wrongs, so that we can vindicate the social standing of victims. Along the way, I consider the continuity between tort and revenge, and I suggest a new way of thinking about corrective justice and the role that tort plays in dispensing it. I conclude by sketching an agenda for tort reform that would improve tort’s ability to serve its expressive function.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

scholarly journals German Transplants in Estonian Tort Law: General Duties to Maintain Safety

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 132-139
Author(s):  
Janno Lahe
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Remarkable Change ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
German School ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
The Individual

The jurisprudence and case-law approach of German tort law – and, more broadly, German-school legal thinking in general – has found its way into Estonian case law on torts and into Estonia’s scholarly texts on jurisprudence. From among the catalogue of transplants from German tort law that have reached Estonian law or legal practice, the paper focuses on one whose importance cannot be overestimated: the concept of tort liability based on breach of the general duty to maintain safety. This domain has witnessed remarkable change since the beginning of the 2000s, when an analogous concept of liability was still unfamiliar to many Estonian lawyers. The article examines whether and to what extent the concept of liability based on the general duty to maintain safety has become recognised in Estonian legal practice in the years since. Also assessed is the relevant case law to date, for ascertainment of whether any adoption of an equivalent concept of liability has been successful and, in either event, what problems remain to be resolved. The importance of this issue extends far beyond that of individual questions: the recognition of general duties to maintain safety affects our understanding of the very structure of tort law, of that of the general composition of tort, and of the connections that link the individual prerequisites for tort liability. Furthermore, this constellation influences our thought in the field of tort law more generally and our approach to the cases emerging in real-world legal practice.

scholarly journals La réserve héréditaire dans le re`glement 650/2012 sur les successions

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-14
Author(s):  
Paul Lagarde
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
French Law ◽  
International Context ◽  
French Case ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issues relating to the protection of forced heirs in international context with a particular focus on the provisions of the EU Succession Regulation pertaining thereto. It contrasts common law tradition with the solutions adopted in French law, whereby certain relatives are entitled to the hereditary reserve (la réserve héréditaire). The author discusses selected examples taken from a body of French case-law dealing with the issue in question. Amongst the cases touched upon by the author are those concerning the successions of Johnny Hallyday and Maurice Jarre, which were two cases widely discussed in the recent French jurisprudence.

MODERN THEORIES OF WRONGFULNESS: THE SWISS APPROACH

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-253
Author(s):  
S.K. STEPANOV
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of

This paper provides an overview of key concepts of wrongfulness in Tort law. The Swiss approach to the definition of wrongfulness has been analyzed. In addition, the article discusses the subjective and objective theories of wrongfulness. The author addresses the modern concepts of wrongfulness, allowing to achieve maximum flexibility in establishing tort liability.

Distribution of Risk of Harm in Delictual Responsibility From the Standpoint of Economic Analysis of Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-130
Author(s):  
Maryna Velykanova
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Basis Property ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Systematic Analysis

Damage to property and (or) non-property rights of persons occurs quite often. The right to compensation for such damage is indisputable. However, civil doctrine ambiguously addresses the issue of risk sharing in tort obligations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss approaches to the distribution of risk of harm in delictual responsibility and to determine their effectiveness from an economic and legal standpoint. The paper, based on economic and systematic analysis using dialectical, comparative, logical-dogmatic and other methods, including economics, describes the approaches to determining the purpose of tort law and its ability to ensure effective distribution of risk of harm. It has been proven that tort law can have direct regulatory consequences by restraining behaviour and sharing risks. It is concluded that the task of tort law is the optimal distribution of risk of harm between the perpetrator and the victim and to ensure the implementation of risky activities only if its social value justifies the risk. Based on the economic analysis of tort law, it has been substantiated that the distribution of the risk of damage in tort liability is carried out through the institutions of insurance and liability. Insurance is cost-effective when it comes to compensation for damage. However, only liability, in addition to the function of compensation, can also perform the function of preliminary prevention of harm. Therefore, the risk of causing harm in tort liability is mainly borne by the person who caused the damage. In obligations to compensate for damage caused by a source of increased danger, a person who on the appropriate legal basis (property rights, other property rights, contracts, leases, etc.) owns a vehicle, mechanism, other object, the use, storage or maintenance of which creates an increased danger, bears such risk even in the absence of guilt in causing harm. The grounds for imposing such risk on the victim are his intention or force majeure. It is this approach to the distribution of harm risk in tort liability that is fair and cost-effective and contributes to public well-being

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document