Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Essential Cases on Natural Causation pp 9–101Cite as

Conditio sine qua non in General

  • Chapter

  • 438 Accesses

Part of the book series: Digest of European Tort Law ((DIGEURO,volume 1))

Abstract

The tortfeasor had provided the victim with a poisonous drink instead of a medicine, and the victim died as result of consuming the drink.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. This is so despite the fact that in the Roman sources, most discussions of the idea of a conditio sine qua non are to be found outside this action; cf. R. Willvonseder, Die Verwendung der Denkfigur der „condicio sine qua non“ bei den römischen Juristen (1984) 12 ff. Nonetheless, the focus shall be on texts on extracontractual liability, because it is not the abstract idea of causation, but, more specifically, its function in extracontractual liability that is the subject of the present project.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For details R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (paperback ed. 1996) 953 ff.; N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz (2003) 185 ff., 202 ff. The first chapter of the lex Aquilia made the tortfeasor liable for killing slaves or four-footed grazing animals (Gaius, D. 9,2,2 pr.: “[Si quis] servum servamve alienum alienamve quadrupedem vel pecudem iniuria occiderit, quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum aes dare domino damnas esto”). Whereas the second chapter apparently never became widely relevant, the third chapter applied more generally for all cases in which physical damage had been caused by burning, breaching or else destroying (Ulpian, D. 9,2,27,5: “Ceterarum rerum praeter hominem et pecudem occisos si quis alteri damnum faxit, quod usserit fregerit ruperit iniuria, quanti ea res erit in diebus triginta proximis, tantum aes domino dare damnas esto”).

    Google Scholar 

  3. N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 222 ff., 266 ff., 272 ff.; H. Kaufmann, Rezeption und Usus Modernus der Actio Legis Aquiliae (1958); R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 1004 ff., 1017 ff.; B. Winiger, La responsabilité aquilienne en droit commun. Damnum Culpa Datum (2002) all with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Inst. 4,3,16; later S. Stryk, Specimen usus moderni pandectarum (Halle 1713 ff.) lib. IX, tit. II, § 1: “Tituli praesentis usus amplissimus est, cum omnium damnorum reparatio ex hoc petatur, si modo ulla alterius culpa doceri possit”.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, vol. II (transl. by S.E. Thorne, Bracton and the Laws of England, 1968) fol. 155–155 b (at 437–439); cf. D. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (1999) 16, 100, 164 ff.; N. Jansen, Duties and Rights in Negligence: A Comparative and Historical Perspective on the European Law of Extracontractual Liability, OJLSt. 24 (2004) 443, 450 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  6. These latter two concepts were, however, never clearly distinguished; cf. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 1004 ff.; N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 252 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. MacCormack, Juristic Interpretation of the Lex Aquilia, in: Studi Sanfilippo, vol. I (1982) 253, 263 ff., 282 f.; H. Kaufmann, Rezeption und Usus Modernus der Actio Legis Aquiliae (1958) 64 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 991 f.

    Google Scholar 

  9. W. Selb, Kausalität in der dogmengeschichtlichen Betrachtung, in: Festgabe für Arnold Herdlitczka (1972) 215 ff., 221 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 976 ff., 988 ff.; N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 249 ff. For a comprehensive analysis D. Nörr, Causa mortis (1986) passim.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. W. Selb, Kausalität in der dogmengeschichtlichen Betrachtung, in: Festgabe für Arnold Herdlitczka (1972) 215 ff. passim

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte I (1988) 554 ff., 560 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. Wieacker, Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit (2nd ed. 1967) 181 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meditationes ad Pandectas quibus praecipua juris capita ex antiquitate explicantur, cum juribus recentioribus conferuntur, atque variis celebrium collegiorum responsis et rebus judicatis illustrantur (3rd ed., Leipzig and Wolfsburg) 1741 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Above no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. On these D. Nörr, Causa mortis (1986) 25 ff. and passim.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 976 ff., surveying the reported caselaw.

    Google Scholar 

  19. For details N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 250 f., further references within.

    Google Scholar 

  20. The facts are insufficiently reported in this respect; this is the most likely reconstruction; see A. Rodger, Damages for the Loss of an Inheritance, in: A. Watson (ed.), Daube Noster (1974) 289, 290.

    Google Scholar 

  21. On this highly disputed case see R. Willvonseder, Die Verwendung der Denkfigur der „condicio sine qua non“ bei den römischen Juristen (1984) 40 ff.; more detailed A. Rodger, Damages for the Loss of an Inheritance, in: A. Watson (ed.), Daube Noster (1974) 289 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Gaius, Institutiones, II, 185 ff.; Inst. 2,14 pr. ff.; Ulpian/Neratius, D. 9,2,23 pr.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Above no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. Mommsen, Beiträge zum Obligationenrecht. Zweite Abteilung: Zur Lehre von dem Interesse (Braunschweig 1855) 141 ff., 146 ff.; B. Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, vol. II (7th ed., Frankfurt a.M. 1891) 36 f. (§ 258, fn. 15); further references in N. Jansen, in: M. Schmoeckel/J. Rückert/R. Zimmermann (eds.), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol. II (2007) §§ 249–253, 255, no. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  25. N. Jansen, in: M. Schmoeckel/ J. Rückert/ R. Zimmermann (eds.), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol. II (2007) §§ 249–253, 255, no. 74; see also Germany (1/2 no. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  26. RGZ 91, 164 f.; 117, 287, 293; BGHZ 72, 328, 329 f.; BGH, NJW 1996, 48, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf. G. Mäsch, Comment, JZ 2003, 420 ff., further references within.

    Google Scholar 

  28. N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 271, 274.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf. e.g., H. Oetker, in: K. Rebmann/ F. J. Säcker/ R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. IIa (4th ed. 2003) § 249 no. 212 with further references, with E. Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd ed. 1996) no. 186; for a general overview, see H. Lange/G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 199.

    Google Scholar 

  30. For examples, see H. Oetker, in: K. Rebmann/ F. J. Säcker/ R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. IIa (4th ed. 2003) § 249 no. 213 f.; H. Lange/G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 201 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  31. The same view prevails among academic writers: cf. H. Lange/ G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 205; D. Medicus, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB-§§ 243–254 (revised ed. 1983) § 249 no. 111; G. Schiemann, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB-§§ 249–254 (revised ed. 2005) § 249 no. 105; E. Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd ed. 1996) no. 188; for a slightly different view, see H. Oetker, in: K. Rebmann/F. J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. IIa (4th ed. 2003) § 249 no. 215.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See for example, H. Heinrichs, in: O. Palandt (ed.), BGB (64th ed. 2005) Vorb v § 249 no. 105 ff.; H. Oetker, in: K. Rebmann/F. J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. IIa (4th ed. 2003) § 249 no. 215 with numerous references on the problem of lawful alternative behaviour at no. 201 fn. 753. A division of the loss depending on the protected interest and the type of fault is suggested by H. Koziol, Rechtmäßiges Alternativverhalten — Auflockerung starrer Lösungsansätze, in: H.-J. Ahrens/C. von Bar/A. Spickhoff/J. Taupitz (eds.), Festschrift für E. Deutsch (1999) 179 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See, for example, BAG 23 March 1984, NJW 1984, 2846; BAG 26 March 1981, NJW 1981, 2430. Previously, the Federal Labour Court had taken a different view. For the development, see D. Medicus, Bürgerliches Recht (20th ed. 2004) no. 852.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See, for example, BGH 14 June 1994, NJW 1994, 2414, where, however, stringent requirements have been established concerning the proof of this defence.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See, for instance, BGH 26 October 1999, NJW 2000, 661; BGH 25 November 1992, BGHZ 120, 281.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See generally H. Koziol, Causation under Austrian Law, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000) 11 f.

    Google Scholar 

  37. E.g. R. Brehm, in: H. Hausheer (ed.), Berner Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Das Obligationenrecht (2nd ed. 1998) Art. 41 no. 105 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  38. E.g. ATF 123 III 110. See also Brehm in: H. Hausheer (ed.), Berner Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Das Obligationenrecht (2nd ed. 1998) Art. 41 no. 120 ff. For questions of proof, see ATF 122 V 415/417. As an example concerning the adequate causality between accident and psychological health disturbances, see ATF 115 V 133/138–141. See in detail M. Schmid, Natürliche und adäquate Kausalität im Haftpflicht-und Sozialversicherungsrecht, in: A. Koller (ed.), Haftpflicht-und Versicherungstagung 1997 (1997) 183 ff., 202 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Brehm, in: H. Hausheer (ed.), Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Das Obligationenrecht (2nd ed. 1998) Art. 41 no. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  40. A. Litzeropoulos, Elements of the Law of Obligations (1968, in Greek) § 96; Ap. Georgiades, Law of Obligations — General Part (1999, in Greek) 141; M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 479–480, no. 121–122; P. Filios, Law of Obligations — General Part (3rd ed. 2004, in Greek) 350.

    Google Scholar 

  41. The example is given by A. Litzeropoulos, Elements of the Law of Obligations (1968, in Greek) § 96.

    Google Scholar 

  42. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 479, no 121; Ap. Georgiades, Law of Obligations — General Part (1999, in Greek) 141, § 29.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Filios, Law of Obligations — General Part (3rd ed. 2004, in Greek) § 93 A II.

    Google Scholar 

  44. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 480–481, no. 123; Ap. Georgiades, Law of Obligations — General Part (1999, in Greek) 141, § 29.

    Google Scholar 

  45. I. Deliyannis/ P. Kornilakis, Law of Obligations — Special Part, vol. III (1992, in Greek) 171. See also A. Litzeropoulos, Elements of the Law of Obligations (1968, in Greek) § 96.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 480, fn. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Alternative légitime/rechtmatig alternatief.

    Google Scholar 

  48. J. du Jardin, Audiences plénières et unité d’interprétation du droit, JT 2001, 646.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See A.S. Hartkamp, Verbintenissenrecht, vol. I — de Verbintenis in het algemeen (Mr. C. Asser’s handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk recht) (11th ed. 2000) (hereafter: C. Asser/A.S. Hartkamp, Verbintenissenrecht, vol. I) no. 438; Schadevergoeding (Boonekamp) Art. 6:98, aant. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See C. Asser/ A.S. Hartkamp, Verbintenissenrecht, vol. I (11th ed. 2000) no. 438; Schadevergoeding (Boonekamp) Art. 6:98, aant. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See, with further references, C. Asser/ A.S. Hartkamp, Verbintenissenrecht, vol. I (11th ed. 2000) no. 440 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  52. For a general discussion and critical remarks see: M. Franzoni, Dei fatti illeciti, Art. 2043–2059, in: F. Galgano (ed.), Commentario del codice civile Scialoja-Branca (1993) 95 ff.; G. Alpa, M. Bessone, V. Zeno-Zencovich, I fatti illeciti, in: P. Rescigno (ed.), Trattato di diritto privato, 14, (1995) 63 ff.; P.G. Monateri, La responsabilità civile, in: Sacco (ed.), Trattato di diritto civile (1998) 48 ff., 144 ff.; C. Salvi, La responsabilità civile, in: G. Iudica and P. Zatti (eds.), Trattato di diritto privato (1998) 169 ff.; The classical work is by P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) 5 ff., 194 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See, e.g., Cass., 20 February 1998, no. 1857, Giust. civ., 1998, I, 1259. On the distinction between causation doctrines applicable in criminal and civil cases: P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) 197 ff.; V. Zeno Zencovich, La responsabilità civile da reato (1989) 39.

    Google Scholar 

  54. This criticism was first advanced by K. Engisch, Die Kausalität als Merkmal der strafrechtlichen Tatbestände (1931) 21; F. Stella, Leggi scientifiche e spiegazione causale (2nd ed. 2000). For a graphical illustration of the problem see below, 6b/9.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See P.G. Monateri, La responsabilità civile, in: Sacco (ed.), Trattato di diritto civile (1998) esp. 151 ff.; P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) passim; G. Gorla, Sulla cosiddetta causalità giuridica: “fatto dannoso e conseguenze”, Riv. dir. comm. 1951, I, 405.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cf. Cass., 6 December 1990, Bonetti, Foro it. 1992, II, 36. See F. Stella, Giustizia e modernità (3rd ed. 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  57. For criminal convictions based on such approach see: Cass., 11 July 2002, Macola, Foro it. 2003, II, 324, note by R. Guariniello (company managers convicted of manslaughter of workers exposed to asbestos); Cass., 17 September 2002, Marinari, Dir. giust. 2003, 99 (doctor condemned because patient who did not promptly recover from anesthesia was not sent immediately to emergency unit); Cass., 18 February 2003, Trioni, Dir. prat. lavoro 2003, 1685 (worker’s death caused by mesothelioma). On the relevance of epidemiological data in asbesto litigation: Cass., 11 June 1999, no. 5794, Toscana giur. 1999, 953.

    Google Scholar 

  58. M. Bona, Il nesso di causalità nella responsabilità civile del medico e del datore di lavoro a confronto con il decalogo delle sezioni unite penali sulla causalità omissiva, Riv. dir. civ. 2003, II, 362, 384 ff. See also S. Landini, Causalità giuridica e favor veritatis, Riv. dir. civ. 2003, II, 416 ff.; with specific regard to the standard of proof issue: E. Falletti, note to Cass., 20 February 2003, no. 2582, Giur. it. 2003, 2252, with extensive references to cases and authors.

    Google Scholar 

  59. On causation in suicide cases see: P. Cendon (ed.), Trattato breve dei nuovi danni, II (2001) 1221 ff.; L. Gaudino, Condotte autolesive e risarcimento del danno (1995). Cass., 7 February 1996, no. 96, the “shattered leg” decision cited by C. von Bar, Common European Law of Torts, vol. II (2000) § 483, held that the traffic accident caused the suicide of the victim who was maimed in that accident (contrary to what von Bar reports). The finding of a causal link in cases of suicide following an accident goes back at least to the first decades of the twentieth century: Cass., 5 April 1937, no. 976, Resp. civ. prev. 1937, 261; Cass., 29 January 1919, Foro it. 1919, II, 166.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cass., 24 April 2001, no. 6023, Danno e resp. 2001, 814; Arch. circolaz. 2001, 547; Dir. e giustizia 2001, fasc. 20, 71, note by M. Rossetti; the first case of this kind is: Trib. Perugia, 8 June 1991, Resp. civ. prev. 1993, 630, note by G. Giannini; Arch. circolaz. 1992, 458.

    Google Scholar 

  61. P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) 39 (there is no reason to employ the foreseeability test if the norm which is violated prescribed specific conduct to prevent harm, as in the case of instructions on the use of medication, machines etc.) 160–163 (for the wider argument); P.G. Monateri, La responsabilità civile, in: Sacco (ed.), Trattato di diritto civile (1998) 175–176.

    Google Scholar 

  62. P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) 57.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Art. 41, par. 2, of the Italian Penal Code, which is often cited in civil cases as well, provides that intervening causes only exclude a causal connection if they are by themselves sufficient to determine the event. P.G. Monateri, La responsabilità civile, in: Sacco (ed.), Trattato di diritto civile (1998) 168 ff., highlights the policy arguments implicated in the decision over this issue.

    Google Scholar 

  64. C. Salvi, La responsabilità civile, in: G. Iudica/ P. Zatti (eds.), Trattato di diritto privato (1998) 173.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cf. Trib. Roma, 4 April 1997, with respect to damage suffered by a smoker who died of cancer. On appeal, the court appointed experts to investigate the assumption by the lower court that smoking is not constrained by addiction: ord. App. Roma, 2 October 2000, note by G. Giacchero, Causalità e danni da fumo, Danno e resp. 2001, 854.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cass., 7 April 1988, no. 737, Nuova giur. Civ. comm. 1988, I, 627; Trib. Lucca, 27 September 1990, no. 948, Arch. civ. 1991, 459; Trib. Torino, 25 June 1979, Arch. civ. 1980, 490. Cf. F. Cafaggi, Profili di relazionalità della colpa (1996) 335, 439 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See J.L. Lacruz/ F. Rivero, Elementos de Derecho civil, vol. II?2 (2nd ed. 2002) 487 ff.; L. Díez-Picazo, Derecho de daños (1999) 333; C.I. Asúa, La responsabilidad (I), in: L. Puig Ferriol et al. (eds.), Manual de Derecho Civil, vol. II (3rd ed. 2000) 485; M. Yzquierdo Tolsada, Sistema de responsabilidad civil, contractual y extracontractual (2001) 187.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Among many others, Sentencia Tribunal Supremo ( Decision of the Supreme Court) 29 December 1997 (RJ 1997, 9602) and 30 June 1998 (RJ 1998, 5286).

    Google Scholar 

  69. M.A. Parra Lucán, Responsabilidad por hecho propio, in: C. Martínez de Aguirre y Aldaz (eds.), Curso de Derecho civil, vol. II (2000) 818.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Instead of many, F. Pantaleón Prieto, Comentario del artículo 1902, in: L. Díez-Picazo et al. (eds.), Comentario del Código Civil (1991) 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Among all these criteria the most salient ones are adequate causation, the general risk associated with existence, prohibition to go back to a prior cause when there has been interference, the scope of protection of the infringed rule, provocation and the increase of risk. See about these criteria F. Pantaleón Prieto, Causalidad e imputación objetiva, in: Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Civil, Centenario del Código Civil, II (1990) 1561 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  72. However, some references to the distinction between material causation or causation in fact and legal causation or legal imputation can be found in some decisions. So, for instance, STS 19 June 2000 (RJ 2000, 5291) affirms that “the causal link that connects the other two elements of tort liability — act or omission by the defendant and damage suffered by the claimant and by other victims — is out of the question, both within the framework of material causation and within the framework of legal causation”. STS 19 December 1992 (RJ 1992, 10703) and STS 24 October 2003 refer to “objective imputation” and STS 23 November 1994 (RJ 1994, 8772) and STS 20 October 1997 (RJ 1997, 7272) set out that “adequate causation... is more a question of imputation”. An updated account of recent case law may be found in M.L. Arcos Vieira, Responsabilidad civil: Nexo causal e imputación objetiva en la jurisprudencia (con especial referencia a la responsabilidad por omisión) (2005) passim.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See, among many others, STS 27 September 1993 (RJ 1993, 6746); 24 January 1995 (RJ 1995, 165); 1 April 1997 (RJ 1997, 2724); 14 February 2000 (RJ 2000, 675); 2 March 2000 (RJ 2000, 1304). In the same sense, see R. de Ángel Yagüez, Comentario del artículo 1902, in: I. Sierra Gil de la Cuesta (ed.), Comentario del Código Civil, vol. VIII (2000) 416.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Moreover, they consider this aspect as a legal aspect that can be reviewed in cassation. In this sense, among many others, see STS 3 July 1998 (RJ 1998, 5411); 8 October 1998 (RJ 1998, 7559); 30 November 1999 (RJ 1999, 8607). By contrast, STS 13 June 1988 (RJ 1988, 4872) considers causation as a question of fact.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Among others SSTS 8 July 1998 (RJ 1998, 5544); 9 October 1999 (RJ 1999, 7245); 25 February 2000 (RJ 2000, 1017).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Among many others, STS 27 September 1993 (RJ 1993, 6746); 29 April 1994 (RJ 1994, 2983); 24 January 1995 (RJ 1995, 165); 1 April 1997 (RJ 1997, 2724); 31 July 1999 (RJ 1999, 6222); 14 February 2000 (RJ 2000, 675) and 2 March 2000 (RJ 2000, 1304).

    Google Scholar 

  77. On these limitations see in Spanish legal scholarship F. Pantaleón Prieto, Comentario del artículo 1902, in: L. Díez-Picazo et al. (eds.), Comentario del Código Civil (1991) 1982 and L. Díez-Picazo, Derecho de daños (1999) 338–340.

    Google Scholar 

  78. RJ 2000, 9445.

    Google Scholar 

  79. RJ 1998, 5411.

    Google Scholar 

  80. In a similar sense, STS 8 October 1998 (RJ 1998, 7559).

    Google Scholar 

  81. J.L. Lacruz/ F. Rivero, Elementos de Derecho civil, vol. II?2 (2nd ed. 2002) 469.

    Google Scholar 

  82. RJ 1988, 1961. Commented on by S. Cavanillas Múgica, Comentario de la sentencia de 11 de marzo de 1988, CCJC 1988, 388 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  83. A rule known by German lawyers as Regressverbot. In Spanish legal scholarship, see among others, F. Pantaleón Prieto, Causalidad e imputación objetiva, in: Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Civil, Centenario del Código Civil, II (1990) 1570 and M. Yzquierdo Tolsada, Sistema de responsabilidad civil, contractual y extracontractual (2001) 194.

    Google Scholar 

  84. See F. Pantaleón Prieto, Causalidad e imputación objetiva, in: Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Civil, Centenario del Código Civil, II (1990) 1585. In the same vein STS Criminal Chamber 15 March 1976 (RJ 1976, 1155) held that “the accident would have taken place equally had the defendant respected the speed limits” and exonerated him from liability. See F.J. Infante Ruiz, La responsabilidad por daños: Nexo de causalidad y “causas hipotéticas” (2002) 204. Since STS 5 April 1983 (RJ 1983, 2242), the Criminal Chamber of the TS distinguishes between issues of natural causation and “objective imputation”. See L. Díez-Picazo, Derecho de daños (1999) 345 and L. F. Reglero Campos, El nexo causal, in: L. F. Reglero Campos (ed.), Tratado de responsabilidad civil (2nd ed. 2003) 309–310, with more references therein. As mentioned above in our comments (no. 3–6), the Civil Chamber still analyses both aspects under a causal perspective.

    Google Scholar 

  85. See M. Almeida Costa, Direito das Obrigações (9th ed. 2001) 510. For a doctrinal analysis of the issue of causation in Portuguese law, see also M. Andrade, Teoria Geral das Obrigações (3rd ed. 1966) 351 ff.; J. Antunes Varela, Das Obrigações em Geral (9th ed. 1996) 916; L. Menezes Leitão, Direito das Obrigações (3rd ed. 2003) 346; L. Menezes Leitão, Responsabilidade do Gestor (1991) 281 and A. Menezes Cordeiro, Da Responsabilidade Civil dos Administradores das Sociedades Comerciais (1997) 532 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Art. 721 (2) and 722 (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In case law, see, among many others, Supreme Court of Justice decision of 23 April 1987 and Supreme Court of Justice decision of 18 December 2003 at www.dgsi.pt and Decision of the Supreme Court of 3 December 1992 in Boletim do Ministério da Justiça (BMJ) 1993, 422, 365 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  87. [1952] 2 All ER 402.

    Google Scholar 

  88. [1952] 2 All ER 402, 407.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See e.g., Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750, 788 per Lord Mackay.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA [1997] AC 254, 285 per Lord Steyn.

    Google Scholar 

  91. H.L.A. Hart/ T. Honoré, Causation in the Law (2nd ed. 1985) 113.

    Google Scholar 

  92. [2003] 1 AC 32, 69 per Lord Nicholls.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  94. See Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232.

    Google Scholar 

  95. For further discussion, see J.L. Mackie, The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation (1974) 129–30 and 265-6, and H.L.A. Hart/T. Honoré, Causation in the Law (2nd ed. 1985) lviii-lxi and 119-20.

    Google Scholar 

  96. H.L.A. Hart/ T. Honoré, Causation in the Law (2nd ed. 1985) lix.

    Google Scholar 

  97. South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191, 213.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Per Lord Chancellor (Viscount Kilmuir) 1962 SC (HL) at 77.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd 1956 SC (HL) 26, discussed below (6b/13 no. 1–6).

    Google Scholar 

  100. See McGhee v National Coal Board 1973 SC (HL) 37, discussed below (6b/13 no. 7–14).

    Google Scholar 

  101. The claim was for a breach of Regulation 7(4) of the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1959 (SI No 227); the plaintiff also claimed for a breach of Regulation 4(3), which required employers to provide scaffolding for building operations which cannot be safely carried out without it. This latter claim failed, as the task of painting an upstairs window was not deemed sufficiently dangerous to require the provision of scaffolding rather than a ladder.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Jury trials in civil claims were abolished for Circuit Court cases by sec. 6 of the Courts Act 1971; in High Court personal injury cases, they were abolished by sec. 1 of the Courts Act 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  103. On the doctrine of precedent, see R. Byrne/ J.P.M. McCutcheon, The Irish Legal System (4th ed. 2001) ch. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee 1 Law Reports, QB 1969, 428.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Such cases include Skinner v Hartnett & Cork Corporation unrep. HC, 3 February 1995; in this case the plaintiff was hit by a car when cycling across a junction; the traffic lights did not allow a cyclist enough time to get across the junction, but the second defendant was not liable, as the cyclist had begun to cross when a red light was showing; see also CIE v Carroll & Wexford County Council ILRM 1986, 312 and Duffy v Rooney & Dunnes Stores (Dundalk) Ltd. unrep. SC, 23 April 1998, both of which are considered in the discussion of omissions infra (2/14 no. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  106. See L v The Minister for Health & Children 1 IR 2001, 745, (discussed under 8a/14) noted in E. Quill, Ireland in: H. Koziol/B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2001 (2002) 310 f.; R. Byrne/W. Binchy, Annual Review of Irish Law 2001 (2002) 606–610; see also E. Quill, Torts in Ireland (2nd ed. 2004) 399–402; B.M.E. McMahon/W. Binchy, Law of Torts (3rd ed. 2000) §§2.14–2.15.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Conole v Redbank Oyster Co. IR 1976, 191; Connolly v South of Ireland Asphalt Co. Ltd. IR 1977, 99; Quinn v Kennedy Brothers Construction Ltd. and Kennedy unrep. HC, 4 March 1994; Kenny v Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland and Minister for Environment unrep. SC, 3 April 1995; Clabby v Global Windows and An Post unrep. HC, 21 January 2003, noted in E. Quill, Ireland in: H. Koziol/B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) 260 f.

    Google Scholar 

  108. For example, sec. 11(3) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 provides that concurrent liability is to be imposed where one of several wrongdoers has caused harm and the other or others have not, but it is impossible to identify which one of the wrongdoers caused the harm. Legal responsibility may be imposed in other cases of evidential uncertainty, where as a matter of law, the courts place the burden of that uncertainty on the defendant, rather than adhering to a strict application of the sine qua non approach. See, for example Best v Welcome 3 IR 1993, 421, at 488-9 per O’Flaherty J in support of the House of Lords decision in McGhee v National Coal Board 1 WLR 1973, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  109. ILRM 1988, 629 at 635 per Henchy J (delivering the judgment of the court).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Id. at 644-5.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Daniels v Heskin IR 1954, 73 at 79 per Lavery J; Griffin v Patton unrep. SC, 27 July 2004 per Geoghegan J.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Lavery J in Daniels v Heskin IR 1954, 73 at 79.

    Google Scholar 

  113. B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Lærebog i erstatningsret (5th ed. 2003) 217. A Vinding Kruse, Erstatningsret (2nd ed. 1989) 137–142. The principle is not codified anywhere and consequently it has been left to the courts and to legal theory to form the concept of causation.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Sometimes it is necessary to make exceptions to the rule for instance by regarding the requirement of causation as fulfilled if the act of the tortfeasor is sufficient (as opposed to necessary) for the loss to occur, see B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Lærebog i erstatningsret (5th ed. 2003) 218 ff. In particular, modifications are required in the cases concerning cumulative causation (below under 6a-c/15). In earlier legal literature the need for modifications led to a general critique of the rule and a debate as to which concept to apply. There seem to have been three suggestions as alternatives to the conditio sine qua non test: 1) a test according to which there is causation if the factor “has actually” formed part of the chain of events that led to the loss (medvirken), 2) the application of an individualised test that focuses on the purpose behind the rules, 3) a rule according to which only the main cause is to be considered causal. See in general A. Vinding Kruse, Erstatningsret (2nd ed. 1989) 139 ff. with references.

    Google Scholar 

  115. B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Lærebog i erstatningsret (5th ed. 2003) 217. Although the alternative correct behaviour (rechtmäßiges Alternativverhalten) of A is regarded decisive by the court, the case is not seen as belonging to a special category. The case is seen as a straightforward application of the conditio sine qua non rule.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Cf. HR 20 December 1996, Rt. 1996, 1718 and HR 17 February 1998, Rt. 1998, 186.

    Google Scholar 

  117. N. Nygaard, Skade og ansvar (5th ed. 2000) 318–322.

    Google Scholar 

  118. M. Hemmo, Vahingonkorvausoikeuden oppikirja (Tort Law Reader) (2002) 89 ff.; E. Routamo/P. Ståhlberg, Suomen vahingonkorvausoikeus (Finnish Tort Law) (2000) 245 ff.; H. Saxén, Adekvans och skada (1962) 13 ff.; H. Saxén, Skadeståndsrätt (The Law of Torts) (1975) 53 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Cf. e.g. KKO 1991:13 and KKO 2000:106.

    Google Scholar 

  120. E.g. KKO 1997:51.

    Google Scholar 

  121. For the liability of the members of the board of directors under similar circumstances, see KKO 2000:106.

    Google Scholar 

  122. See A. Savela, Vahingonkorvaus osakeyhtiössä (Liability in Damages in a Company) (1999) 124 f.

    Google Scholar 

  123. According to § 127 (4) of the Law of Obligations, a person shall compensate for damage only if the circumstances on which the liability of the person is based and the damage caused are related in such a manner that the damage is a consequence of the circumstances (causation). Not much literature is available in Estonia about causal relationships as, with the entry into force of the Law of Obligations Act in 2002, the earlier Soviet literature largely lost its meaning; the newer writings by Estonian authors have touched on the question of causal relationships only in relation to other issues. The following works should be mentioned: 1) M. Kingisepp, Causal teachings and the law of obligations, Juridica (Juridica is the only Estonian law journal which is also available on the Internet at http://www.juridica.ee/) 2002, No. 3, 154–160; 2) M. Kingisepp, Fixing damages in post-modern delictual law. Doctoral thesis. (Tartu: Tartu University Press, 2002); 3) T. Tampuu, Tort law in the Law of Obligations Act. General problems and liability based on the general elements of delict, Juridica 2003, II, 71–82; 4) J. Lahe, The fault in law of delict. Doctoral thesis. (Tartu: Tartu University Press, 2005) (All these sources are in Estonian with short English summaries).

    Google Scholar 

  124. K. Torgans, Komentāri saistĪbu tiesĪbām Civillikumā (1994) 94.

    Google Scholar 

  125. See, for instance, Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Civillietu tiesu departamenta spriedumi un lēmumi 1999 (2000) 348 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  126. The Civil Law of Latvia. Translation and Terminology Center (2001) 328.

    Google Scholar 

  127. The only one significant course dedicated for questions of tort and contractual liability is V. Mikelėnas, Civilinės atsakomybės problemos: lyginamieji aspektai (1995) 196 ff. Nevertheless while analysing causality it deals only with a description of existing theories of causal relationship and does not describe which theory (theories) prevails (prevail) in the Republic of Lithuania, or presents any analysis of judicial practice. Some questions of causality are also analysed, although very superficially, in the Commentary of Lithuanian Civil Code (Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso komentaras. Šeštoji knyga. Prievoliu teisė (I), (2003) 337 ff. and in D. Ambrasienė, A. Norkunas, Civilinė atsakomybė, in: D. Ambrasienė, et al. (eds.), Civilinė teisė. Prievoliu teisė (2004) 177 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  128. See A. Koch, Causal link as a prerequisite for the liability for damage in civil law (1975) 116 ff.; T. Dybowski, in: System of Civil Law, vol. III, part 1 (1981) 253 ff.; T. Wiśniewski, in: Commentary to the civil code, Book III, Obligations, vol. I (2003) 62. Contrary opinion was in minority: A. Ohanowicz, Obligations. General Part (1955) 35, advocated the theory of a necessary and accidental causal relationship.

    Google Scholar 

  129. SN 10 December 1952, C 584/52, PiP 1953, no. 8–9, 366; SN 21 June 1960, 1 CR 592/59, OSN 1962/III, at 84.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Cf. SN 21 June 1960, ICR 592/59, OSN 1962/3, at 84; SN 4 November 1960, 2 CR 411/59, OSPiKA 1962/9, at 251 cmt. A. Szpunar; SN 12 December 1961, 1 CR 974/60, OSN 1963/1, at 20.

    Google Scholar 

  131. J. Krčmář, Právo obligační (Contract law) (3rd ed. 1932) 324 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  132. A. Randa, O závazcích k náhraděškody (Obligation to damages) (6th ed. 1899) 44 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  133. J. Sedláček in: Rouček/ Sedláček, Komentář k československému obecnému občanskému zákoníku, vol. V. (Commentary of ABGB) (1937) 683 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  134. J. Švestka in: M. Knappová/ J. Švestka, Občanské právo hmotné, vol. II. (Civil law) (2002) 458, 459.

    Google Scholar 

  135. J. Švestka (supra J. Švestka, Občanské právo hmotné, vol. II. (Civil law) (2002) fn. 192), 459.

    Google Scholar 

  136. J. Švestka (supra J. Švestka, Občanské právo hmotné, vol. II. (Civil law) (2002) fn. 192), 458, 459.

    Google Scholar 

  137. M. Holub/ J. Bičovský/ M. Pokorný/ J. Hochman/ I. Kobliha/ R. Ondruš, Odpovědnost za škodu v právu občanském, pracovním, obchodním a správním (Liability for damage in civil, labour, commercial and administrative law) (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  138. M. Pokorný/ J. Salač, Občanský zákoník — komentář (Civil Code) (8th ed. 2003) 496.

    Google Scholar 

  139. B. Petr, Ušlý zisk, vývoj právní úpravy a aktuální problémy spojené s hledáním mezí v rozhodovací činnosti soudů (Loss of profit, development of the legal regulation and actual problems of finding the limits of the court’s decision-making), Právní rozhledy 2004, 573 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  140. J. Lazar (ed.), Základy občianskeho hmotného práva II (Civil law basics 2), Iura Edition — publisher of legal literature (2004) 278.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Š. Luby, Príčinná súvislost’ (Causal relationship), Právny obzor 1953, 241 ff., 319 ff., in: Š. Luby (ed.): Výber z diela a myšlienok, Iura Edition (1998) 375.

    Google Scholar 

  142. In fact as it has been established by Wilburg. See W. Wilburg, Entwicklung eines beweglichen Systems im Bürgerlichen Recht (Rede gehalten bei der Inauguration als Rector magnificus der Karl-Franzens-Universität in Graz am 22. November 1950, Graz 1950) and Zusammenspiel der Kräfte im Aufbau des Schuldrechts, 163 AcP (1964) 364 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Gy. Eörsi, A polgári jogi kártérítési felelősség kézikönyve (1966) 221. The defences are such as the consent of the aggrieved person, the necessity, the authorised exercise of rights etc.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Gy. Eörsi, A polgári jogi kártérítési felelősség kézikönyve (1966) 263.

    Google Scholar 

  145. F. Petrik, A kártérítési jog (1991) 27.

    Google Scholar 

  146. G. Marton was a great scholar whose liability theory competed with the theory of Gy. Eörsi in providing a complete regime for the Hungarian Civil Code. These two scholars elaborated two complete liability systems, which — although they gave the same or a similar final answer to the problems of tort law — differed greatly already at their starting point and theoretical explanation.

    Google Scholar 

  147. G. Marton, Kártérítés, in: K. Szladits, Magyar Magánjog, vol. III (1941) 358 ff., 362, 365.

    Google Scholar 

  148. G. Marton, Kártérítés, in: K. Szladits, Magyar Magánjog, vol. III (1941) 370 and G. Marton, A polgári jogi felelősség (1993) 168.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Gy. Eörsi, A jogi felelősség alapproblémái — a polgári jogi felelősség (1961) 472.

    Google Scholar 

  150. F. Petrik, A kártérítési jog (1991) 27.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Á. Dósa, Az orvos kártérítési felelőssége (2004) 97.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Causation is established in these special forms of liability only on the level of theoretical explanations (e.g. the caretaker is a cause of the harm caused by the child in so far as she did not act in caretaking as was generally expected. F. Petrik, A kártérítési jog (1991) 30).

    Google Scholar 

  153. Gy. Eörsi, Kötelmi jog általános rész (8th ed. 1988) 269.

    Google Scholar 

  154. J. Szalma, Okozatosság és jogi felelősség (2000) 133.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Gy. Eörsi, Felelősség szerződésen kívül okozott károkért és jogalap nélküli gazdagodásért, in: Gy. Eörsi/ Gy. Gellért (eds.), A Polgári Törvénykönyv magyarázata (1981) 1533 ff., 1549.

    Google Scholar 

  156. However it must be stressed that Slovenian legal theory unfortunately “possesses” only two scholars who deal with causality scientifically. The first is Prof. Stojan Cigoj who has dealt with causality since the beginning of his scientific work. The other scholar is Prof. Ada Polajnar-Pavcnik, who published an outstanding article on causality, focusing on comparative issues. A. Polajnar-Pavcnik, Vzročnost kot pravnovrednosti pojem, Zbornik znanstvenih razprav, year LIII., 179 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  157. B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 114 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  158. B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 33 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  159. S. Cigoj, Veliki komentar obligacijskih razmerij, Ljubljana 1984–1986, 518 ff.; B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 33 ff.; the same approach is also taken by legal practice (Croatian Supreme Court, Gz 281/82, published in B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 34).

    Google Scholar 

  160. S. Cigoj, Avtomobilist, Odškodninska odgovornost in zavarovanje odgovornosti (1982) 166.

    Google Scholar 

  161. This case was actually decided by District Court in Varazdin (Croatia) in 1986, Gz 701/86, quoted in B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 35.

    Google Scholar 

  162. M. Stuart, The “Non-Contractual” Liability of the European Economic Community, 12 CML Rev. (1975) 493, 502.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Compare A.W.H. Meij, Annotation on joined cases 64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78, 27, 28 and 45/79 (“gritz”) and joined cases 116 and 124/77 (“isoglucose”), 18 CML Rev. (1981) 414, 419; J. Wakefield, Judicial Protection through the Use of Article 288 (2) EC (2002) 202.

    Google Scholar 

  164. See G. Anagnostaras, Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions, 27 EurLRev. (2002) 663, 664.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Whereas, remarkably, they reach to a great extent very similar solutions; see U. Magnus, Ein einheitliches Deliktsrecht für Europa? EWS 2004, 105, 111. For further discussion see J. Spier/O.A. Haazen, Comparative Conclusions on Causation, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000) 128 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  166. At least to some extent, this is certainly due to the somewhat incidental evolution of a case-law system and to peculiarities of the Community’s non-contractual liability. For a more positive view of the case-law on causation see A.G. Toth, The Concepts of Damage and Causation as Elements of Non-contractual Liability, in: T. Heukels/ A. McDonnell (eds.), The Action for Damages in Community Law (1997) 179, 198; for a rather pessimistic evaluation see G. Anagnostaras, Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions, 27 EurLRev. (2002) 676; C. Stefanou/H. Xanthaki, A Legal and Political Interpretation of Art. 215 (2) (new Art. 288 (2)) of the Treaty of Rome (2000) 97: “limited and vague case-law

    Google Scholar 

  167. See, e.g., Case C-472/00 P Fresh Marine Company v Commission [2003] ECR I-7541, par. 25; Case C-220 P Commission v Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter [1993] ECR I-2393, par. 56; Case C-55/90 Cato v Commission [1992] ECR I-2533, par. 18; Case 64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78, 27, 28 and 45/79 Dumortier frères and others v Council [1979] ECR 3091, par. 21; Case T-168/94 Blackspur DIY v Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2627, par. 40, 52 (appeal dismissed in Case C-362/95 P Blackspur DIY v Council and Commission [1997] ECR I-4775); Case T-120/89 Stahlwerk Peine-Salzgitter v Commission [1991] ECR II-279, par. 122; Case 153/73 Holtz and Willemsen GmbH v Council and Commission [1974] ECR 675, par. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Compare, e.g., Case C-164/01 P van den Bergh v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I-10225, par. 57; Toth, The Concepts of Damage and Causation as Elements of Non-contractual Liability, in: T. Heukels/A. McDonnell (eds.), The Action for Damages in Community Law (1997) 192. The burden of proof lies with the applicant; see Case C-162 and 163/01 P Bouma and Beusmans v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I-4509, par. 90; Case C-104/89 and 37/90 Mulder and others and Heinemann v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061.

    Google Scholar 

  169. See Case 120/86 Mulder v Council and Commission [1988] ECR 2321 (“Mulder I”); Case 170/86 von Deetzen v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1988] ECR 2355; Case C-104/89 & 37/90 Mulder and others and Heinemann v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061 (“Mulder II”) and [2000] ECR I-203 (“Mulder III”).

    Google Scholar 

  170. Based on the Scottish case McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co. Ltd. and Linlithgows Ltd. 1962 SC (HL) 70, 1962 SLT 121 (1/13 no. 1-8).

    Google Scholar 

  171. J. Spier/ O. Haazen, Comparative Conclusions on Causation, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000) 127; comp. the Comparative Report, infra 1/29 no. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  172. These terms are used in the German, Austrian and Swiss law, see, for example, German Federal Court (BGH) 24 October 1985, BGHZ 96, 157 (172); BGH 26 October 1999, NJW 2000, 661 f.; Supreme Court of Austria (OGH) 29 March 1978, ZVR 1978/314; Swiss Federal Court (BG) 23 April 1996, BGE 122 III 229; 4 October 2004, BGE 131 III 115.

    Google Scholar 

  173. The Principles establish strict liability for “abnormally dangerous activities” not being “a matter of common usage”, Art. 5:101 (1), (2) b) PETL. Driving a motor car is an activity of “common usage” so that damages caused by motor vehicles fall outside the scope of the Principles’ general rule on strict liability, compare B.A. Koch, in: European Group on Tort Law (eds.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 5:101 no. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, Official Journal L 210, 07/08/1985, 0029-0033.

    Google Scholar 

  175. M. Martín-Casals, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 8:101 no. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  176. See the Dutch Report (1/8 fn. 2); cf. also, e.g. H. Lange/ G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 79 f.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Greece (1/5 no. 3 ff.); the Netherlands (1/8 no. 5); Spain (1/10 no. 3); Ireland (1/14 no. 3); Norway (1/16 no. 3); Sweden (1/17 no. 3); Estonia (1/19 no. 4); Lithuania (1/21 no. 3); European Courts (1/27 no. 4).

    Google Scholar 

  178. Lithuania (1/21); see also the Estonian (1/19) and Latvian (1/20) Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  179. See Ireland (1/14 no. 10 ff.); Poland (1/22 no. 1–7); Hungary (1/25 no. 1–16).

    Google Scholar 

  180. Ireland (1/14 no. 10 ff.); Hungary (1/25 no. 1–16).

    Google Scholar 

  181. Legal practice approaches the relevant issues on a case by case basis: Slovenia (1/26 no. 1–8); cf. also Finland (1/18 no. 1–5), where it is stated that on a theoretical level the doctrine is clear and simple but that its practical application may be difficult; and see the Historical Report (1/1 no. 4): in Roman law and under the ius commune, problems of causation were treated as a matter of common sense.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Italy (1/9 no. 1–11); Spain (1/10 no. 7–9); Slovakia (1/24 no. 10–14).

    Google Scholar 

  183. Germany (1/2 no. 2); Belgium (1/7 no. 4); Norway (1/16 no. 9); Estonia (1/19 no. 8); European Courts (1/27 no. 4).

    Google Scholar 

  184. Italy (1/9 no. 9–11).

    Google Scholar 

  185. E.g. Germany (1/2 no. 3); France (1/6 no. 6); Norway (1/16 no. 3); Czech Republic (1/23 no. 5, 6); cf. also Slovenia (1/26 no. 9 ff.).

    Google Scholar 

  186. Germany (1/2 no. 4–6); cf. also Belgium (1/7 no. 7–12); Finland (1/18 no. 6–11); Hungary (1/25 no. 1–16) also appears to fall into this category; the issue is also raised in the European Court Report (1/27) and in the European Principles Report (1/28 no. 1–8).

    Google Scholar 

  187. Greece (1/5 no. 3 ff., 11 f.); France (1/6 no. 4 ff.); Italy (1/9 no. 12 ff.); Spain (1/10 no. 3 ff.); Poland (1/22 no. 1–11); Czech Republic (1/23 no. 5 ff.); cf. also Slovenia (1/26 no. 1–14).

    Google Scholar 

  188. See also the Irish Report (1/14).

    Google Scholar 

  189. See, however, Scotland (1/13 no. 1–8).

    Google Scholar 

  190. Belgium (1/7 no. 2); Portugal (1/11 no. 3); Poland (1/22 no. 15); European Courts (1/27 no. 4, 5).

    Google Scholar 

  191. For a clear statement to the effect that it is not, see Switzerland (2/4 fn. 2).

    Google Scholar 

  192. Austria (1/3 no. 6–9); Italy (1/9 no. 12–18); Spain (1/10 no. 1–6); but see Poland (1/22 no. 1–7); and Slovakia (1/24 no. 10–14) where, however, the reported facts are unclear.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Switzerland (1/4 no. 10): predominant probability; Italy (1/9 no. 11): reasonable probability; Portugal (1/11 no. 15 ff.): absolute certainty; Scotland (1/13 no. 7): balance of probabilities; Norway (1/16 no. 8): there can be a reversal of the onus of proof.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Conditio sine qua non in General. In: Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Digest of European Tort Law, vol 1. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-36958-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation