Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Essential Cases on Natural Causation pp 353–389Cite as

Damage Caused by Less Than All Possibly Harmful Events Outside the Victim’s Sphere

  • Chapter

  • 423 Accesses

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

Abstract

Several people had done a slave to death. It was not clear which blow or wound was fatal.

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. Cf. recently J.S. Kortmann, Ab alio ictu(s): Misconceptions about Julian’s View of Causation, JLHist. 20 (1999) 95 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Julian, D. 9,2,51,1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lord Rodger is identical with Alan Rodger writing in the Festschrift Daube on intricate problems of causation in Roman law: Damages for the Loss of an Inheritance, in: A. Watson (ed.), Daube Noster (1974) 289 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. [2003] 1 AC 32 ff. (H.L.) no. 157 ff.; on this decision, from a European perspective, J. Scherpe, Ausnahmen vom Erfordernis eines strikten Kausalitätsnachweises im englischen Deliktsrecht, ZEuP 2004, 164, 167 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Julian, D. 9,2,51,2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cf. § 830 (1) 2 BGB; C. v Bar, Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol. II (1999) no. 415 f.; W. van Gerven et al., Cases, Materials and Text on Tort Law (2000) 441 ff., both with further references. There is no agreement, however, on the ambit of such a rule.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 197 ff., 236 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Julian, D. 9,2,51,2: “... cum neque impunita maleficia esse oporteat...„

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. H. Grotius, Inleiding tot de Hollandsche Rechtsgeleertheyd (ed. by R.W. Lee, 1926) boeck III, deel 32, § 7; N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 289 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Gail, Practicarum Observationum... libri duo (Cologne 1668) lib. II, obs. 109, no. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See, for instance, D.W. Belling/ C. Eberl-Borges, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB — §§ 830–838 (revised ed. 2002) § 830 no. 66; A. Zeuner, in: H.T. Soergel (ed.), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, vol. V/2 (12th ed. 1998) § 830 no. 12, each with further references; M. Bauer, Die Problematik gesamtschuldnerischer Haftung trotz ungeklärter Verursachung (§ 830 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB), JZ 1971, 4, 7. For a slightly different view, see E. Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd ed. 1996) no.152. See also K. Larenz/C.-W. Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol. II/2 (13th ed. 1994) 578: “As the behaviour of the contributors was possibly causal and, furthermore, could well have caused the loss in this specific situation... it could be an undeserved windfall for a contributor, if he is only spared liability because there was also someone else who could have caused the loss”. Canaris, on this basis, arrives at results diverging from the prevailing view in cases of a concurrence of human behaviour and mere chance, or a possible causation by the injured party himself (see infra 6b/2).

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. W. Belling/ C. Eberl-Borges, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB — §§ 830–838 (revised ed. 2002) § 830 no. 115. For the proof that the action of one of the persons did not cause the loss, see, for instance, the case of the three hunters, one of whom hit a passer-by by shooting at a pheasant: BGH 2 February 1962, VersR 1962, 430.

    Google Scholar 

  13. BGH 11 January 1994, NJW 1994, 932.

    Google Scholar 

  14. BGH 7 November 1978, BGHZ 72, 355, 361.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E. Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd ed. 1996) no. 525.

    Google Scholar 

  16. BGH 15 November 1960, BGHZ 33, 286; BGH 15 December 1970, BGHZ 55, 86; for the development see, for instance, D.W. Belling/C. Eberl-Borges, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB — §§ 830–838 (revised ed. 2002) § 830 no. 91 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. BGH 7 November 1978, BGHZ 72, 355, 359; as well as the earlier case, BGH 22 January 1976, BGHZ 67, 14, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Zeuner, in: H.T. Soergel (ed.), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, vol. V/2 (12th ed. 1998) § 830 no. 23; D.W. Belling/C. Eberl-Borges, in: J. von Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum BGB — §§ 830–838 (revised ed. 2002) § 830 no. 96 ff. (liability also if the person who is certainly liable has not been at fault).

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Wagner, in: K. Rebmann/ F.J. Säcker/ R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol. V (4th ed. 2004) § 830 no. 31 ff.; see, for instance, BGH 27 May 1987, BGHZ 101, 106.

    Google Scholar 

  20. F. Bydlinski, JBl 1959, 1 (3 f.).

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Koziol, Österreichisches Haftpflichtrecht, vol. I (3rd ed. 1997) no. 3/ 27 f.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Probleme der Schadensverursachung (1964) 70. On the discussion see H. Koziol, Österreichisches Haftpflichtrecht, vol. I (3rd ed. 1997) no. 3/32 f. with further references. See also H. Koziol, Causation under Austrian Law, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000) 14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. F. Bydlinski, Aktuelle Streitfragen um die alternative Kausalität, Festschrift Beitzke (1979) 15 f.; H. Koziol, Österreichisches Haftpflichtrecht, vol. I (3rd ed. 1997) no. 3/ 35 (with further references).

    Google Scholar 

  24. However P. Filios, Law of Obligations — Special Part (4th ed. 1998, in Greek) 94, uses the term “possible causation”.

    Google Scholar 

  25. P. Kornilakis, Law of Obligations, Special Part (2000, in Greek) 397.

    Google Scholar 

  26. P. Filios, Law of Obligations — Special Part (4th ed. 1998, in Greek) 94.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ap. Georgiades, in: Ap. Georgiades/ M. Stathopoulos (eds.), Civil Code (1982, in Greek) Art. 926, no. 20 ff.; I. Deliyannis/P. Kornilakis, Law of Obligations — Special Part, vol. III (1992, in Greek) 223 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See also Civ. 2ème, 5 February 1960, D. 1960, 365.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See D. Mayer, La garde en commun, RTD civ. 1974, 197.

    Google Scholar 

  30. For some other examples, see: on the topic of a collective game of ball, Civ., 20 November 1968, RTD civ. 1969, 335, obs. G. Durry; on custody of a racing yacht, Civ. 2ème, 9 May 1990, D. 1991, 367, note Y. Dagorne-Labbé.

    Google Scholar 

  31. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 379.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ph. Malaurie/ L. Aynes/ Ph. Stoffel-Munck, Les obligations (Defrénois, 2003) 210.

    Google Scholar 

  33. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 676.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See, for example, Civ. 2ème, 10 February 1967, Bull. civ. II, no. 6 (concerning a jet of steam that led to the formation of icy patches on the roadway).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ph. Malaurie/ L. Aynes/ Ph. Stoffel-Munck, Les obligations (Defrénois, 2003) 210.

    Google Scholar 

  36. With regard to the liability for the debt — from the creditor’s point of view — this works as if the multiplicity of tortfeasors was reduced to a single unit. The claimant can therefore seek the full amount of damages from any one of the tortfeasors concerned. At the payment stage, however, the person who has paid the debt is free to claim against his fellow tortfeasors in order to recoup his costs. See, for example: Civ. 2ème, 11 February 1981, D. 1982, 255, note E. Agostini, or Civ. 2ème, 11 July 1977, D. 1978, 581, note E. Agostini.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ph. Malaurie/ L. Aynes/ Ph. Stoffel-Munck, Les obligations (Defrénois, 2003) 202. For an instance where the theory of dual custody was rejected by the court, see the case of the “France”, Ch. Mixtes, 4 December 1981, Bull. Ch. Mixte, no. 8; JCP 1981, 82, II, 19748, note H. Mazeaud; D. 1981, 82.365, note F. Chabas. With regard to this principle, also see F. Terré/Ph. Simler/Y. Lequette, Droit civil, Les obligations, (Dalloz, 7th ed. 1999) 789.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Civ. 2ème, 19 May 1976, D. 1976, 629, note D. Mayer; JCP 1978, II, 18773 (2nd case), note N. Dejean de la Bâtie.

    Google Scholar 

  39. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 379.

    Google Scholar 

  40. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 378.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Crim., 22 March 1966, JCP 1967, II, 14970, note A. Rieg.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Crim., 7 March 1968, Gaz. Pal. 1968, 1, 319, obs. G. Durry.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Crim., 13 November 1975, JCP 1976, IV, 5; D. 1976, IR, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  44. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 379.

    Google Scholar 

  45. For more on this, see N. Dejean de la Batie, note in JCP 1988, II, 19773; G. Durry, obs. in RTD civ 1984, 316 and Ph. Brun, Les présomptions en droit de la responsabilité civile, thèse Grenoble (1993) 90 ff. The courts thereby skilfully get around any deliberate attempts to keep the identity of the tortfeasors secret, where only the members of the group would be in a position to reveal this (G. Viney/P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 380).

    Google Scholar 

  46. G. Viney/ P. Jourdain, Les conditions de la responsabilité, LGDJ (2nd ed. 1998) 379.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Civ. Turnhout/Rechtbank Turnhout, 11 February 1980, Pas 1980, I, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  48. An English version of this case has been published in W. van Gerven (et al.), Tort Law (2000) 477 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  49. On the DES-case, see J. Spier, in: J. Spier et al. (eds.), The limits of liability (1996) 123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  50. HR 17 January 1997, NJ 1997, 230.

    Google Scholar 

  51. HR 31 January 2003, NJ 2003, 346 (Multiple arson).

    Google Scholar 

  52. The locus classicus is D. 9.2.51 (Julian): J. S. Kortmann, Ab alio ictu(s): Misconceptions about Julian’s View of Causation, (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History 95.

    Google Scholar 

  53. In Italy, the archaic devices of the decisory and of supplemental oaths (Art. 2736 ff. CC) are available in contractual matters only. Contrary to the French civil code, the Italian CC forbids such oaths in tort matters (Art. 2739 CC). Hence these oaths cannot cure evidentiary uncertainty in tort cases: cf. R.B. Schlesinger et al., Comparative Law (6th ed. 1998) 450 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Constitutional Court, 4 March 1992, no. 79, Foro it. 1992, I, 1347, note by G. Ponzanelli. Concerned with the case of the victim of a shooting accident in a typical shooting party, the Court held that Art. 2050 CC (on joint and several liability) was constitutional, though the victims of hunting accidents did not have access to a compensation fund like that established by statute for the victims of car accidents caused by unknown drivers. While the Court was rendering its decision, the Italian law on hunting was amended to establish the said compensation fund.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cass., 12 February 1988, Baiano, Arch. circolaz. 1988, 719; Cass., 20 October 1995, Paterniti; A. Napoli, 22 December 1983, Arch. circolaz. 1984, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cf. Cass., 25 September 1980, Manti, Giur. agr. it. 1982, 629, note by M. Mazza; T. Macerata, 30 May 2001, Giur. lav. 2001, 179, note by V. Putrignano.

    Google Scholar 

  57. For an excellent comparative law work on the point: G. Schamps, La mise en danger: un concept fondateur d’un principe général de responsabilité. Analyse de droit comparé (1998) 17 ff., 67 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See P. Trimarchi, Causalità e danno (1967) 10–14, who objects on general grounds to the solution advanced in the text because in Italy there is no legislative provision corresponding to BGB § 830 (2) and who opposes the introduction of such provision because it would foster the risk of arbitrary conclusions supported by doubtful inferences as to the existence of fault. Trimarchi prefers to leave the matter to the judge, who should hold the defendants jointly and severally liable on the basis of a finding of causation where strong consideration of fairness must prevail.

    Google Scholar 

  59. F. Pantaleón, Comentario de la sentencia de 8 de febrero de 1983, CCJC 1983, 417.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Among others see L. Díez-Picazo, Derecho de daños (1999) 167 and E. Roca, Derecho de daños (1999) 160.

    Google Scholar 

  61. J.L. Lacruz/ F. Rivero, Elementos de Derecho civil, vol. II-2 (2nd ed. 2002) 471.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Again see L. Díez-Picazo, Derecho de daños (1999) 167–168.

    Google Scholar 

  63. RJ 2000, 4431.

    Google Scholar 

  64. In this sense, STS 18 June 1996 (RJ 1996, 4906).

    Google Scholar 

  65. See STS 19 October 1998 (RJ 1998, 7440) and I. Herbosa Martínez, La responsabilidad extracontractual por ruina de los edificios (2002) 186, and more references therein.

    Google Scholar 

  66. STS 23 November 2003 (RJ 2003, 8354). Thus, liability may be excluded if damage could be caused by causes other than the intervention of the defendants. See M. Martín-Casals/A. Ruda, Comentario de la sentencia de 3 de noviembre de 2003, CCJC 2004, 858.

    Google Scholar 

  67. RJ 2002, 4151.

    Google Scholar 

  68. For instance, concurrence is deemed to exist when a fire is not extinguished because of several omissions of different people, one being the municipal Corporation in charge of the water supply and the other the fire-fighter department which apparently failed (STS 19 April 1999 (RJ 1999, 2586)). By contrast, there is no concurrencia — and therefore no solidary liability at all — between the action of negligently driving a cart loaded with straw and the omission of the duty to isolate some electric cables over the street where the cart was set on fire by a spark coming from them (STS 19 July 1996 (RJ 1996, 5802)).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Such as, for instance, damage caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres, where exposure to the dust can have taken place in moments very distant from each other. See on this issue A. Ruda, Spanish case note to Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others, ERPL 2004, vol. II, 250.

    Google Scholar 

  70. [1973] 1 WLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  71. [1987] QB 730.

    Google Scholar 

  72. [1989] AC 328.

    Google Scholar 

  73. So much so that it is cited in W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (16th ed. 2002) only in relation to apportionment, and in A. Grubb (ed.), The Law of Tort (2002) not at all.

    Google Scholar 

  74. [1987] QB 730.

    Google Scholar 

  75. [1973] 1 WLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See J.G. Fleming, The American Tort Process (1988) 261.

    Google Scholar 

  78. [1973] 1 WLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  79. H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2002 (2003) 146.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See further J.G. Fleming, Probabilistic Causation in Tort Law (1989) 68 Can Bar Rev 661.

    Google Scholar 

  81. [2002] EWCA Civ 1471.

    Google Scholar 

  82. [2000] 3 All ER 421 (5/12 no. 6–9).

    Google Scholar 

  83. A. Vinding Kruse, Erstatningsret (2nd ed. 1989) 152.

    Google Scholar 

  84. B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Lærebog i erstatningsret (5th ed. 2003) 239.

    Google Scholar 

  85. N. Nygaard, Skade og ansvar (5th ed. 2000) 343; P. Lødrup, Erstatningsrett (4th ed. 1999) 322.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Accordingly, P. Lødrup, Erstatningsrett (4th ed. 1999) 322 states that it is an open question how this kind of problem is to be solved.

    Google Scholar 

  87. F. Stang, Skade voldt av flere (1919) 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  88. F. Stang, Skade voldt av flere (1919), 67–68 cf. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  89. H. Hartmann, Bevismangel som ansvarsgrunn, TfR 1950, 232–241, 239.

    Google Scholar 

  90. N. Nygaard, Skade og ansvar (5th ed. 2000) 341.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Based on the Austrian case OGH 23 December 1908, JBl 1909, 81, see 6a/3 no. 1–3; for hunting accidents, see also the Hungarian case EBH 2001.523. (Legf. Bír. Pfv. III. 21.486/2000. sz.) (Supreme Court) (5/25 no. 1–3); the Greek case AP 979/1992 [1994] EllDni 35, 1044–1045 (5/5 no. 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Compare J. Spier, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) PETL, Art. 3:103 no. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Based on the English case Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32, see 6a/12 no. 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Compare J. Spier/ O. Haazen, Comparative Conclusions on Causation, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000) 127 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Compare W.V.H. Rogers, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 9:101–9:102, no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Idem, no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Idem, no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Damage Caused by Less Than All Possibly Harmful Events Outside the Victim’s Sphere. 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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation