Comparative Tort Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 993-1030
Author(s):  
Gerhard Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Tort System ◽  
The Law ◽  
Scope Of Protection

Tort law has always been one of the major areas of comparative law. Whereas the law of property, even today, remains on the outskirts of comparative learning, the law of extra-contractual liability has attracted much interest from comparative law scholars. This article considers general clauses versus a variety of individual torts, the scope of protection, the liability for fault, strict liability, and tort law and insurance. It also discusses the choice between the tort system and no-fault insurance schemes. Finally, it addresses the challenges raised by digitalization. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the solutions offered, the principles and the commentaries thereon certainly provide a valuable starting point for further scholarly efforts and critical discussion.

Comparative Tort Law

2006 ◽  
pp. 1002-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Law ◽  
Scope Of Protection

Tort law has always been one of the major areas of comparative law. Whereas the law of property, even today, remains on the outskirts of comparative learning, the law of extra-contractual liability has attracted much interest from comparative law scholars. Endeavours in the comparison of the different systems of delict and tort have received a further boost from the objective of harmonizing European private law. This article consider general clauses versus a variety of individual torts, the scope of protection, the liability for fault, strict liability, and tort law and insurance. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the solutions offered, the principles and the commentaries thereon certainly provide a valuable starting-point for further scholarly efforts and critical discussion.

Introduction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Cooter ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cost

This book examines how the law of torts, contracts, and restitution can be improved by showing how private law reduces the cost of accidents, lubricates bargains, and encourages unrequested benefits. It considers the two pervasive rules of tort law that provide incentives for actors to reduce accident costs: strict liability and negligence. It also explains how contract law achieves effiency through the remedy of damages and how restitution law allows benefactors to recover gains that their beneficiaries wrongfully obtained from them. The book makes three central claims: misalignments in tort law should be removed; in contract law, promisee's incentives should be improved; and the law should recognize some right of compensation for those who produce unrequested benefits. Each claim is based on the desire to reform private law and to make it more effective in promoting social welfare.

17. Liability for Animals

2019 ◽  
pp. 510-527
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Social Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules

Liability for Animals raises further questions about the role, and future, of strict liability in the context of the law of tort. This chapter examines the special rules of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971, including those concerning liability for straying livestock, liability for ‘dangerous animals’, and liability for dogs. This is followed by discussions of defences, remoteness of damage and strict liability, and liability for dogs. The wording of the Animals Act 1971 is notoriously complex, and the law in this area is, for this reason, the object of must frustration for courts, and tort law students, alike. Even so, the law governing liability of animals concerns matters of social concern and, for the time-being at least, it seems that the Act is here to stay.

The Concept of Fault of the Tortfeasor in Estonian Tort Law: A Comparative Perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janno Lahe
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
European Model ◽  
Common Frame Of Reference

The fault of the wrongdoer is one of the preconditions for general tort liability. Nowadays, fault-based liability and strict liability are two equally important forms of liability that are not polar opposites but, rather, complement one another. This article focuses on the meaning of the fault of a tortfeasor. It considers the notion of fault in two European model rules (the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the Principles of European Tort Law), in the Estonian Law of Obligations Act, and also makes reference to German, French, English, and Russian tort law. We shall begin with a comparative discussion of the questions of general liability based on fault, fault capacity, various forms of fault, the burden of proving fault, and the importance of differentiating those forms of fault. Thereafter, we will treat the issues of fault in the context of liability for torts committed by another person and, also, borderline issues between fault-based liability and strict liability. This analysis seeks to offer the reader a basis for determining whether the regulations of Estonian tort law are justified or whether amendments should be considered within such a comparative-law framework.

The Adequacy of the Law of Torts

1961 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecil A. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Accidental Injury ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Any attempt to evaluate the adequacy or inadequacy of tort law in general is bound to fail unless the scope of inquiry is severely limited. All attempts to find some unifying principle have failed. In light of the diverse interests involved which may be political, domestic or economic, and the purposes to be achieved, which may range from the quasi-criminal to determination of title to property, it would be a miracle of intellectual abstraction if it were otherwise.To confine inquiry to “accidental” injuries, i.e., those arising as a by-product of some lawful activity carried on for reasons other than the invasion of a plaintiff's interest, is helpful but not satis-factory. For example, “accidental” injury to a person's privacy, honour or reputation could fall in this category. While issues of “strict liability” or liability for “fault” permeate this field and have, in England and Canada, been developed by the courts in favour of the former, public interest in freedom to disseminate news and the encouragement of freedom of speech is an important factor here which makes it impossible to compare other branches of the law where there is no counterpart. Here too legislation is playing an important role. By statute in England attempts have been made to mitigate some of the harsher features of strict liability by eliminating damages and substituting an “offer of amends” for accidental and non-negligent defamation. While legislation in Canada has been widespread, particularly with regard to the total or partial abolition of the distinction between libel and slander, such legislation has nowhere changed the strict liability of the common law.

CODIFYING TORT LAW: LESSONS FROM THE PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF THE FRENCH CIVIL CODE

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Private Law ◽  
European Level ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article deals with a topic at the heart of modern comparative law: codification of private law on a national and European level. It offers a critical assessment of the recent French attempt to redraft the obligations provisions of its civil code, focusing on the revisions to the law of tort or delict. There has been little analysis of these provisions within or outside France. This article examines the key changes proposed and identifies the implications in terms of tort policy.

No-Fault Versus Strict Liability Compensation Systems in Medical Malpractice Law in Vietnam in Comparision with Belgium, France, and England

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thi Bao Anh Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Compensation System ◽  
Compensation Systems ◽  
Malpractice Law ◽  
Tort System ◽  
Pain And Suffering ◽  
Fault Compensation ◽  
Uniform Manner

Abstract Medical malpractice is a form of professional negligence and such a negligence forms part of the law of tort. As an alternative to the tort or fault-based system in medical malpractice, a no-fault compensation system has been viewed as having the potential to overcome problems inherent in the tort system. This is through the provision of fair, speedy and adequate compensation for medically injured victims. A no-fault compensation system allows patients to be compensated without proof of provider’s fault or negligence. Similar to no-fault schemes, the strict liability system is not fault-based although it belongs to tort law. Successful claims are paid in a uniform manner using a fixed benefits schedule and include compensation for both economic and non-economic (pain and suffering losses) without the necessity of proving negligence through a tort claim. This study focuses on the comparison of no-fault compensation systems versus strict liability systems between Vietnam to Belgium, France, and England. The distinctions in Belgium, France, and England can be the lessons for the development of a no-fault compensation system as well as strict liability system in Vietnam.

1. Introduction: The Shape of Tort Law Today

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Material Damage ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter introduces the reader to tort law, with emphasis on its principles of liability and the approach taken to the interaction between parties. It first maps the various types of torts, including torts of strict liability and torts requiring intention, and the nature of the ‘wrongs’ with which they are concerned, in terms of protected interests, relevant ‘conduct’, and whether the tort requires ‘actual’ or ‘material’ damage. The chapter concludes by discussing two current challenges to the law of tort: ‘compensation culture’ and the costs of tort, and the influence of the Human Rights Act 1998.

scholarly journals Causing controversy: interpreting the requirements of causation in criminal law and tort law

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-444
Author(s):  
Gemma Turton ◽  
Sally Kyd
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Road Traffic Collision ◽  
Traffic Collision ◽  
The Law

The occurrence of a fatal road traffic collision may raise a number of legal issues and result in litigation both in the civil and criminal courts. The role of the different branches of law is distinct, with the aims of the litigation being quite different, but both require causation to be proved. Such cases are examined in this article as a vehicle for discussing how the principles of causation play out in each branch of law. It will be seen that the particular aims of the law dictate how doctrines of causation are applied, with particular problems caused by the legislature’s creation of strict liability offences. To resolve these problems, we propose that the criminal law borrow from negligence in adopting a test akin to the ‘harm within the risk’ test, adapting it to the role of the criminal law by formulating a ‘harm within the wrong’ requirement for causation.

Marx and the “law of value”: Critical appraisal on the occasion of his 200th birth anniversary

2018 ◽  
pp. 27-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. D. Kurz
Keyword(s):  
Karl Marx ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Use Value ◽  
Transformation Problem ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

The paper celebrates Karl Marx’ 200th birthday in terms of a critical discussion of the “law of value” and the idea that “abstract labour”, and not any use value, is the common third of any two commodities that exchange for one another in a given proportion. It is argued that this view is difficult to sustain. It is also the source of the wretched and unnecessary “transformation problem”. Ironically, as Piero Sraffa has shown, prices of production and the general rate of profits are fully determined in terms of the same set of data from which Marx started his analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document