§ 6 General Remarks on the Non-Contractual Liability Regime Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (PEL. Liab. Dam.)

Santos Silva, Marta

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_6

Marta Santos Silva²

326 Accesses

Abstract

The first academic initiatives aiming at comparing and harmonising European Private Law arose in the field of Contract Law. However, attention soon shifted to other areas of Private Law, such as non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See generally Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p 28 ff., where the acquis communautaire in the field of non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another is divided into three groups: liability for defective products and services; liability for illegitimate business practices; and liability for installations. For an overview of fault liability until 2009, see Lukas (2008), pp. 83–99. On the role of EU institutions in the process of harmonisation of private law see Antoniolli and Fiorentini (2011), p. 7 ff.
2.
von Bar (1994d), Brüggemeier (1999) (of which Brüggemeier (2004) is a revised and updated version); von Bar (1996b, 1999e) (English transls.: von Bar 1998a and von Bar 2000a, respectively); Wurmnest (2003b). See also the textbooks van Gerven et al. (2000) and Ranieri (2003). The term “binding European tort law” is used to refer to legislation, Treaty provisions, Regulations, Directives and ECHR and ECJ case law . As for the latter, the case of Francovich (Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 (Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic) [1991] ECR I-05357) was one of the most significant in the field of state liability.
3.
van Dam (2013), p. 5.
4.
Sinde Monteiro (2002), p. 51; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 354.
5.
von Bar (1999a), p. 208; Kellner (2009), pp. 133−154.
6.
von Bar (2011d), p. 203 f.
7.
Such as in the Portuguese Civil Code . The PECL also had chapters common to both regimes.
8.
Hondius (2007) , pp. 48–49. For further arguments, see f. Sec.
9.
Wissink (2008), p. 344. This is in spite of the existence of several Treaty provisions that cover aspects of Private Law and the references to Private Law by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. See Schulze (2011), pp. 4–5.
10.
Koziol (2008), p. 589 passim. According to Magnus, non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another has been treated “negligently” by the EU (Magnus 2004b, p. 562).
11.
See generally von Bar (1994c), pp. 221–232. See also von Bar (2011e). For further details on non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another at the EU level see von Bar (1992b).
12.
Colombi Ciacchi (2009), p. 157; van Dam (2013), p. 5; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 219.
13.
European Group on Tort Law (2005).
14.
Once called “Tilburg Group”. For details on the Tilburg Group’s work see Koch (2005), pp. 189−205.
15.
The remaining teams were the Working Team on Sales, Services and Long-Term Contracts; the Working Team on Trusts; the Working Team on Credit Securities; the Working Team on Transfer of Movable Property; the Working Team on Rental of Movable Property; the Working Team on Loan Agreements; and the Working Team on Gratuitous Contracts.
16.
Both academic groups included Portuguese scholars. The EGTL currently features Sinde Monteiro (Coimbra) as a member and Rangel Mesquita as a guest in one of the projects. For the Portuguese scholars and researchers participating in the SGECC see Tit. § 1, Subtit. IV, Sec. 4, Subsec. B above.
17.
A significant number of preparatory materials (Kellner 2009, p. 153) preceded both groups. For a list, see Koziol (2008), p. 609, n. 93; von Bar (2010a), p. 209, fn. 7. Several other groups of academics carried out pan-European comparative research in the field of Private Law . Rooted in the belief that legal science was not ready to embark on a legislative journey in the field, they drafted research guides that highlighted academic input instead. That was the case of the Common Core of European Private Law, the Academy of European Private Lawyers, the Society of European Contract Law (SECOLA) and the Social Justice Group. For a detailed account, see Antoniolli and Fiorentini (2011), p. 7 f. Infantino classified the European research groups in the field of European Private Law into two groups: the “striving for harmonisation research groups” (including the SGECC and the ETLG) and the “knowledge-building research groups” (including, among others, the Common Core Group). See Infantino (2009), p. 60 ff.
18.
von Bar (2011d), p. 202. See also Koziol (2008), p. 608 and Moura Vicente (2008), pp. 68–69. Also, in favour of the extension of harmonisation to the field of non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another, Magnus (2004b), pp. 562–563.
19.
Howarth (2011), p. 848. On this matter see generally von Bar and Drobnig (2004).
20.
von Bar (2010a), p. 208. Howarth mentions other arguments in favour of harmonisation of the law of non-contractual obligations , namely its influence on the viability of investment projects, the creation of a single insurance market, the promotion of free circulation of legal practitioners and European citizenship (Howarth 2011, pp. 848–849). Also in favour of the harmonisation of tort law see Rogers and Bagińska (2001), p. V.
21.
von Bar (2001a), p. 532; Antoniolli and Fiorentini (2011), pp. 4–5. See also von Bar (2010a), p. 224.
22.
von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 13 ff. and p. 457 f.; Koziol (2008), pp. 600–601.
23.
Jansen (2006), pp. 752–753. See also von Bar (1986), p. 63 ff.; von Bar (2001a), pp. 515–532; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 224. See, however, Oliphant (2011), p. 310, according to whom only the PETL is a flexible system, while “the DCFR approach is to identify eleven paradigm instances of non-contractual liability for damage”.
24.
Colombi Ciacchi (2009), p. 160.
25.
See, for example, the case of the regulation of wrongful birth and wrongful life claims (Hondius 2007 , p. 55). These are, however, the subject of a very useful comparative description in the DCFR (von Bar 2009c , VI.–2:101, p. 347 ff.).
26.
For a comparison between the aims and methodology of both groups see Wurmnest (2003a), pp. 714−744.
27.
von Bar (2010a), p. 209. For a general overview see Magnus (2004b), pp. 562–580. See also Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 74 ff.
28.
See foreword of von Bar (1996a).
29.
For a critical account see Brüggemeier (2009b), p. 5, even though the author revealed a significant preference for “best solution” model rules in the study Brüggemeier and Yan (2009).
30.
See also Zweigert and Kötz (1996), p. 38.
31.
Spier (2005), p. 16 f.; van Dam (2013), p. 210. The focus on the differences is evident. See Koziol (2008).
32.
Jansen (2006), p. 735, fn. 15.
33.
Martín-Casals (2005), p. 6 ff.
34.
Koch, AJCL 53 (2005), p. 191.
35.
Koziol (2008), p. 609; Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 219.
36.
See Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 2 above.
37.
Koziol (2008), p. 609. See also Kellner (2009), p. 154.
38.
Spier (2005), pp. 16 ff.
39.
Even the choice of numbering of the provisions reveals the intention of forming a framework for non-contractual liability : the numbering system followed the “Usages of the Commission on European Contract Law ” to avoid great editorial changes were the DCFR to become a CFR. See von Bar (2010a), p. 208, n. 5. See, however, Magnus (2004a), pp. 141–162. Magnus considers that both groups came up with sufficiently materialised general principles that could become binding. See Magnus (2004b), p. 564.
40.
Widmer (1999), p. 99; Faure et al. (2002), pp. 205–230; Antoniolli and Fiorentini (2011), p. 34 ff. See, however, the contribution of Magnus in the same work (Magnus 2002); as well as Jansen (2001), p. 64. See also Banakas (2002), p. 374, who sees the possible outcomes of the SGECC’s initiative with more optimism.
41.
Legrand (2006).
42.
See epigraph of Chap. III (“Torts/Delicts”) of the Regulation (EC) no. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).
43.
von Bar (2008c), p. 34; von Bar (2009c), p. xiii and n. A3 to VI.–1:101, p. 244. Swann admits there is no “ideal short description that encapsulates the full remit of that area of non-contractual liability which focuses on the reparation of harm done” (Swann 2003, p. 3).
44.
See van Dam (2013).
45.
With further references see von Bar (1998a), p. 7; von Bar (2009c), n. A3 to VI.–1:101, p. 244. Opoku also argues that “the area covered by the law of torts in the Common Law systems is much wider than that covered by delicts in the Civil Law systems”. See Opoku (1972), p. 230, fn. 1. Also, to avoid unintended common law baggage, instead of using the expressions “wrongdoer” and “tortfeasor ”, which are often found in non-contractual law literature, it was opted to refer to the descriptive form of “person inflicting the harm ”.
46.
von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, A1, p. 229.
47.
von Bar (2009c), n. A2 to VI.–1:101, pp. 243–244.
48.
Opoku (1972), p. 230; von Bar (1998a), p. 2, fn. 1; von Bar (2009c), p. xiii; Introduction to Chapter 1, C14; n. A3 to VI.–1:101, p. 244; von Bar (2010a), p. 209; von Bar (2011b), p. 391; Schulze (2012), p. 223. Cf. also Swann (2003), p. 3; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 429 ff.
49.
Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 197.
50.
On the descriptive language see von Bar (2011b), p. 391. Legal scholarship is said to generally support descriptive expressions (van Dam 2013 , p. 5).
51.
Schulze (2012), p. 223.
52.
von Bar (2001a), p. 525; von Bar (2010a), p. 209. See, however, Menezes Cordeiro, who considers the list to resemble a list of torts (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 352).
53.
Schulze (2012), p. 223.
54.
von Bar (2001a), p. 516.
55.
Jansen (2006), pp. 752–753. Antoniolli & Fiorentini, e.g. speak of “distillation of best rules” (Antoniolli and Fiorentini 2011, p. 5).
56.
von Bar (2002a), p. 169.
57.
ibid., p. 168. See also von Bar (2001a), p. 517.
58.
von Bar (2002a), p. 167.
59.
See Chapters 1 and 2 (von Bar 2009c , p. 229 ff. and von Bar 2009c , p. 299 ff., respectively).
60.
von Bar (2009c), p. 16 ff.
61.
von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 1, n. D29, pp. 239–240.
62.
Cf. von Bar (2002a), p. 178.
63.
See II.–3:301 and II.–3:302 (both former PECL provisions). Should there be an enlargement of the concept of culpa in contrahendo in the future, the DCFR would not be opposed to such. See von Bar (2002a), p. 178.
64.
Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 351.
65.
See generally von Bar and Drobnig (2004).
66.
von Bar (2008c), pp. 32–33.
67.
III.–1:101 reads: “This Book applies, except as otherwise provided, to all obligations within the scope of these rules, whether they are contractual or not, and to corresponding rights to performance ”.
68.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 46, p. 28.
69.
von Bar (2008c), pp. 33–34. For points of contact with the Law of Benevolent Intervention in Another’s Affairs and Unjustified Enrichment , see von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, nn. D31 and D32 to VI.–1:101, pp. 240–241.
70.
von Bar (2011b), p. 399. See also von Bar (2009c), n. C7 to VI.–1:103, p. 276.
71.
For details see von Bar (2001a), p. 522.
72.
For a detailed account see von Bar (2009c), nn. C7 and C8 to VI.–1:103, pp. 276–277.
73.
von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, n. C19, p. 236; von Bar (2010a), p. 205.
74.
von Bar (2010a), p. 208.
75.
Also, in Common Law systems, negligence may be considered the functional equivalent to a basic rule. For details see von Bar (2001a), pp. 519–520. Cf. also von Bar (1999b), p. 205.
76.
von Bar (1999f), p. 42.
77.
ibid.
78.
See von Bar (2008c), p. 35. Miranda Rodrigues also suggests a four-system classification. Instead of the Nordic fault system, she recognises the Italian model (Miranda Barbosa 2006a, pp. 19–29).
79.
See Blackie (2005), p. 145.
80.
von Bar (2010a), p. 205; von Bar (2011b), p. 396.
81.
von Bar (2001a), p. 518.
82.
See examples in von Bar (2011b), p. 392, although the first example given still seems to discuss the condition of damage rather than any of the remaining conditions for there to be a claim in damages.
83.
VI.–1:103 (Scope of application) reads: “VI.–1:101 (Basic rule) and VI.–1:102 (Prevention): (a) apply only in accordance with the following provisions of this Book; (b) apply to both legal and natural persons, unless otherwise stated; (c) do not apply insofar as their application would contradict the purpose of other Private Law rules; and (d) do not affect remedies available on other legal grounds”.
84.
Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 85. Cf. also Blackie (2007), p. 65 ff.
85.
von Bar (2009c), n. A16 to VI.–1:101, p. 247. See also von Bar (2010a), p. 213.
86.
von Bar (2008c), p. 35.
87.
von Bar (2001a), pp. 520−521; von Bar (2002a), p. 169; Swann (2003), p. 6; von Bar (2008c), p. 35; von Bar (2009c), nn. A9 and B14 to VI.–1:101, pp. 245−246, respectively; von Bar (2010a), p. 213.
88.
von Bar (2009c), n. A16 to VI.–1:101, p. 247.
89.
von Bar (2002a), p. 175; von Bar (2010a), p. 212.
90.
von Bar (2002a), p. 175; von Bar (2008c), p. 35.
91.
von Bar (2010a), p. 212.
92.
von Bar (2002a), p. 175.
93.
von Bar (2009c), nn. A4 and A10 to VI.–1:101, pp. 244 and 245. There is no express rule in the provisions of Book VI on the burden of proof , as the principle is one of general application (see von Bar (2009c), nn. A4 and A10 to VI.–1:101, pp. 244 and 246). As the burden of proof still rests with the injured person , it has been argued that the shift of perspective lacks utility (Brüggemeier 2009a, p. 180).
94.
von Bar (2002a), p. 176.
95.
Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 181.
96.
Wagner 2009 , pp. 243–244; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 600.
97.
von Bar (2009c), n. A10 to VI.–1:101, pp. 245–246.
98.
von Bar (2002a), p. 175.
99.
von Bar (2008c), p. 35.
100.
See Tit. § 4, Subtit. I above.
101.
von Bar (1998a), p. 525 f.
102.
Liability with intention or negligence may be also called “liability for incorrect conduct”. See von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, C17, p. 235.
103.
The concept appears only exceptionally in Book VI, always meaning “culpa in concreto” (von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, n. D28, p. 239). VI.–5:102 (Contributory fault and accountability ), influenced by French law, to highlight the questions of moral responsibility arising in this context (Blackie 2007, p. 75).
104.
von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 3, n. A2, p. 557.
105.
ibid. “Strict liability” would mean different things in the different European legal systems. See von Bar (2009c), Introduction to Chapter 1, n. C25, p. 238; Blackie (2007), p. 75. See also van Dam (2013), p. 306.
106.
von Bar (2010a), p. 211.
107.
von Bar (2008c), p. 35.
108.
During the travaux préparatoires , breach of duty was used in place of intention (former VI.–3:303). It was defined as “behaviour which does not meet the condition of a statutory provision which aims to protect the other from the damage he or she suffered, or which does not amount to such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”. In short, breach of duty was defined as the failure to reach the required duties of care . Such duties were to be drawn from the subsequent rules or from the circumstances of the case at hand (von Bar 2001a, pp. 526–527).
109.
Wagner (2009), p. 241.
110.
von Bar (2010a), p. 219.
111.
After initial hesitation, it was decided to provide for a rule on the liability of minors. See von Bar (2001a), p. 528.
112.
Wagner (2009), pp. 251–252.
113.
Blackie (2005), p. 144. Cf. also von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, n. C25, p. 238.
114.
von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 3, n. A1, p. 557.
115.
Wagner (2009), pp. 243–244.
116.
Although it seems like it was initially planned. See von Bar (2001a), p. 527.
117.
von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 3, n. E24, p. 565.
118.
Magnus (2004b), p. 571.
119.
Antunes Varela (2000), p. 629 ff.; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 611 ff.; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 505. The cases of objective liability in Portugal are: liability of the agent (Art. 500); liability of the State and other public legal persons (Art. 501); losses caused by animals (Art. 502); accidents caused by vehicles (Art. 503); collision of vehicles (Art. 506); and losses caused by electrical or gas facilities (Art. 509).
120.
von Bar (1999f), p. 52.
121.
Wagner (2009), pp. 244–245.
122.
For details see von Bar (1998d).
123.
von Bar (2001a), p. 529. The current version highlights the fact that employees can never be discharged from liability in (1) lit. b (compare with former version, von Bar 2001a, p. 529, n. 22).
124.
von Bar (2009c), n. A1 to VI.–3:201, p. 632.
125.
Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 89.
126.
The Portuguese Civil Code does not have a provision which corresponds to VI.–3:206. However, it provides for strict liability of the effective direction of an electric or gas driving installation (Art. 509 CC). In Book III (Law of Things ), the Portuguese Civil Code contains a rule on liability in respect of relations between neighbours, independent of fault of the owner of a harmful installation, i.e. works, installations or deposits of corrosive or dangerous deposits (Art. 1347 CC). For details see von Bar (2009c), n. 10 to VI.–3:206, p. 730.
127.
The equivalent to VI.– 3:206 would be Art. 502 CC. As compared to VI.–3:203, Art. 502 CC is more demanding, as it requires from the keeper of the animal that he or she uses the animal in his or her own interest and that the loss results from the special danger involved in its use.
128.
Art. 503 CC is the equivalent to VI.–3:205 in the Portuguese Civil Code . However, it has wider scope than this provision. Firstly, it applies to the keeper of vehicles of overland transfer, both motorised and non-motorised. Secondly, it includes every damage that results from the usual risks of the vehicle (riscos próprios do veículo); finally, such liability also exists when the vehicle is not in use.
129.
In the Portuguese Civil Code , liability for damages caused by an immovable which suffers full or partial destruction following a defect in construction or conservation, lies with the owner or keeper of the immovable only when he or she acted with fault . The DCFR makes the “person who independently exercises control over an immovable” liable, independent of fault. This formulation is a fitting umbrella term to include owners and keepers of immovables alike, as well as those that are contractually or legally responsible for its state. Therefore, paras (2) and (3) seem to be expendable.
130.
In Portugal , liability for defective products is provided for in special legislation (DL 383/89 of 6 November 1989, DR, 1st Ser., no. 255 (1989), pp. 4880–4882, as amended by the DL 131/2001 of 24 April 2001, DR, 1st Ser., no. 96 (2001), p. 2337).
131.
von Bar (1999f), p. 52.
132.
Wagner (2009) , p. 246. For details see Brüggemeier (2009a), pp. 193−195.
133.
Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 193. See also von Bar (2009c), n. A1 to VI.–3:204, p. 687.
134.
Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products , OJ L 210, 29–33, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, OJ L 141, pp. 20–21.
135.
See von Bar (2008c), p. 37.
136.
Wagner (2009), pp. 247–248.
137.
von Bar (2009c), n. A3 to VI.–3:206, p. 719.
138.
See von Bar (2002a), p. 177.
139.
For Wagner, the drafters acted as “environmental activists” (Wagner 2009, p. 248).
140.
Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, p. 56 ff.
141.
von Bar (2009c), n. A4 to VI.– 3:206, p. 719.
142.
VI.–3:208 is applied in conjunction with VI.–3:202, VI.–3:205, VI.–3:206 and VI.–3:207.
143.
Blackie (2005), p. 146; Wagner (2009), p. 245.
144.
Wagner (2009), pp. 245−246.
145.
Schulze (2012), p. 227.
146.
For details see Blackie (2007), p. 77.
147.
Wagner (2009), p. 245.
148.
Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 600.
149.
von Bar (2008c), p. 37.
150.
“A person causes damage to another if, having regard to the type and extent of the damage, the basis on which he or she is accountable, the conduct of the injured party and all other circumstances of the particular case, the damage is to be regarded as the consequence of the act for which liability is incurred” (stand: 2001). See von Bar (1999a), p. 221.
151.
But see Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 186.
152.
von Bar (2000a), p. 437.
153.
von Bar (2010a), p. 222.
154.
Blackie (2007), p. 78; Kellner (2009), pp. 143–144; Wagner (2009), p. 253.
155.
Wagner (2009), p. 252. See also von Bar (2009c), nn. A2 to VI.–4:101, p. 746 and A3 to VI.–4:101, p. 747.
156.
Howarth (2011), p. 882.
157.
Blackie (2007), p. 78.
158.
Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 186.
159.
von Bar (2010a), p. 221.
160.
For details see von Bar (2000a), p. 440 ff.
161.
See Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 3 above. For details on the comparative analysis of causation in the DCFR and in the Portuguese Civil Code see generally Miranda Barbosa (2015), p. 235 ff.
162.
Blackie (2005), p. 145.
163.
von Bar (2000a), pp. 437, 440; Jansen (2001), p. 41; von Bar (2001a), p. 528. The epigraph of the chapter devoted to causation reads “Causation or Attribution”. This suggests that some factual considerations are also present (von Bar 2000a, p. 43). See Wagner (2009) , p. 252, fn. 63.
164.
Blackie (2007), p. 79. For a critical approach see Kellner (2009), p. 143.
165.
von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, n. C23, p. 238.
166.
von Bar (2000a), p. 461. Cf. also von Bar (2010a), p. 222.
167.
Art. 11(1) of Law 98/2009 of 4 September 2009, DR, 1st Ser., no. 172 (2009), pp. 5894–5920, by remission of Art. 284 CT.
168.
Galvão Telles (1997), p. 404; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 764. For details and case law references see von Bar (2009c), n. IV47 to VI.–4:101, pp. 771–772.
169.
Brandão Proença (1997), p. 192 ff.
170.
For a detailed account on relevant case law on causation see von Bar (2009c), n. 7 to VI.–4:103, pp. 785–786.
171.
Wagner (2009), p. 255.
172.
Vaz Serra (1959c), p. 138.
173.
Pereira Coelho (1955), p. 24, fn. 5. For details see von Bar (2009c), n. 9 to VI.–4:102, p. 779.
174.
von Bar (2010a), p. 222.

Bibliography

Almeida Costa MJ (2006a) Direito das Obrigações, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Antoniolli L, Fiorentini F (2011) Introduction. In: Antoniolli L, Fiorentini F (eds) A factual assessment of the DCFR. Sellier, Munich, pp 1–49
Google Scholar
Antunes Varela J (2000) Das obrigações em geral, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Banakas S (2002) European tort law: is it possible? ERPL 10(3):363–375
Google Scholar
Blackie J (2005) Tort/Delict in the work of the European Civil Code project of the study group on a European civil code. In: Zimmermann R (ed) Grundstrukturen eines Europäischen Bereicherungsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 133–146
Google Scholar
Blackie J (2007) The torts provisions of the Study Group on a European Civil Code. In: Bussani M (ed) European tort law. Eastern and western perspectives, European private law 5. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 55–80
Google Scholar
Brandão Proença JC (1997) A conduta do lesado como pressuposto e critério de imputação do dano extracontratual. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G (1999) Prinzipien des Haftungsrechts. Eine systematische Darstellung auf rechtsvergleichender Grundlage. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G (2004) Common principles of tort law. A pre-statement of law. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G (2009a) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another: the making of a hybrid. In: Somma A (ed) The politics of the draft common frame of reference, pp 179–198. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G (2009b) Protection of personality rights in the law of delict/torts in Europe: mapping out paradigms. In: Brüggemeier G, Colombi Ciacchi A, O’Callaghan P (eds) Personality rights in European tort law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G, Yan Z (2009) Entwurf für ein chinesisches Haftungsgesetz. Text und Begründung. Ein Beitrag zur internationalen Diskussion um die Reform des Haftungsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Colombi Ciacchi A (2009) Alte und neue Paradigmen in der Fahrlässigleitshaftung. In: Colombi Ciacchi A, Godt C, Rott P, Smith LJ (eds) Haftungsrecht im dritten Millenium. Liber Amicorum Gert Brüggemeier. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
European Group on Tort Law (2005) Principles of European Tort law: text and commentary. Springer, Vienna/New York
Google Scholar
Faure M, Schneider H, Smits J (2002) Towards a European ius commune in legal education and research. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Google Scholar
Galvão Telles I (1997) Direito das Obrigações, 7th edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Hondius E (2007) Towards a European tort law. In: Bussani M (ed) European tort law: eastern and western perspectives, European private law 5. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 47–54
Google Scholar
Howarth D (2011) The general conditions of unlawfulness. In: Hartkamp A, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International/Ars Aequi Libri, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 845–887
Google Scholar
Infantino M (2009) Making European tort law: the game and its players. CJICL 20(1):45–87
Google Scholar
Jansen N (2001) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Haftungsrecht. ZEup 9:30–65
Google Scholar
Jansen N (2006) Principles of European tort law? Grundwertungen und Systembildung im europäischen Haftungsrecht. RabelsZ 70(1):732–770
Google Scholar
Kellner M (2009) Tort law of the European community: a plea for an overarching pan-European framework. ERPL 17(2):133–154
Google Scholar
Koch BA (2005) The “European Group on Tort Law” and its “Principles of European Tort Law”. AJCL 53(1):189–205. Available via JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038691. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Koziol H (2008) Conclusion. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 589–610
Chapter Google Scholar
Legrand P (2006) Antivonbar. JCL 13(1):13–40
Google Scholar
Lukas M (2008) Fault liability. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 81–102
Chapter Google Scholar
Magnus U (2002) Towards European civil liability. In: Faure M, Schneider H, Smits J (eds) Towards a European ius commune in legal education and research. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Gröningen, pp 205–224
Google Scholar
Magnus U (2004a) Ein einheitliches Deliktsrecht für Europe? In: Kieninger E-M, Remien O (eds) Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht im Zeichen der Europäischen Integration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 141–162
Google Scholar
Magnus U (2004b) Vergleich der Vorschläge zum europäischen Deliktsrecht. ZEuP (3):562–580
Google Scholar
Martín-Casals M (2005) Una primera aproximación a los Principios de Derecho Europeo de la Responsabilidad Civil. InDret 284:1–25
Google Scholar
Menezes Cordeiro A (2010b) Tratado de Direito Civil Português, vol II-Direito das Obrigações. Tomo 3- Gestão de negócios, enriquecimento sem causa, responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Menezes Leitão A (2009) Normas de protecção e danos puramente patrimoniais. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Miranda Barbosa AM (2006a) Liberdade vs. responsabilidade: a precaução como fundamento da imputação delitual? Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Miranda Barbosa M (2015) Responsabilidade Civil: Um diálogo a propósito da ilicitude e da causalidade adequada entre o sistema português e a tentativa de harmonização do direito delitual ao nível Europeu. TI 33(1):218–264
Google Scholar
Moura Vicente D (2008) Direito Comparado, vol I-Introdução e parte geral. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Oliphant K (2011) Volume 4 (Book VI, Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another). Edinburgh Law Rev 16(1):309–311
Google Scholar
Opoku K (1972) Delictual liability in German law. ICLQ 21(2):230–269
Article Google Scholar
Pereira Coelho FM (1955) O problema da causa virtual na responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Ranieri F (2003) Europäisches Obligationenrecht. Springer, Vienna
Google Scholar
Rogers WVH, Bagińska E (eds) (2001) Damages for non-pecuniary loss in a comparative perspective, tort and insurance law, vol 2. Springer, Vienna/New York
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I - Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, Vienna
Google Scholar
Schulze R (2011) Contours of European private law. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) European private law - Current status and perspectives. Sellier, Munich, pp 3–26
Chapter Google Scholar
Schulze R (2012) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another in the DCFR. In: Sagaert V, Storme M, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 221–230
Google Scholar
Sinde Monteiro JF (2002) Manuel de Andrade, a “Europeização” do Direito Privado e o desafio de um código civil Europeu. Separata da obra Ciclo de Conferências em Homenagem Póstuma ao Prof. Doutor Manuel de Andrade. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 43–53
Google Scholar
Spier J (2005) The Principles of European Tort Law of the European Group on Tort Law. In: European Group on Tort Law (eds) Principles of European Tort Law: text and commentary. Springer, Vienna/New York
Google Scholar
Swann S (2003) Conceptual foundations of the law of delict as proposed by the Study Group on a European Civil Code. InDret 130:1–31
Google Scholar
van Dam C (2013) European tort law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
van Gerven W, Lever J, Larouche P (2000) Tort law. Hart, Oxford/Portland Oregon
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1986) Zur Bedeutung des beweglichen Systems für die Dogmatik der Verkehrspflichten. In: Bydlinski F, Krejci H, Schilcher B, Steininger V (eds) Das bewegliche System im geltenden und künftigen Recht. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 63–74
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1992b) Neues Haftungsrecht durch Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Die Verschuldens- und die Gefährdungshaftung des deutschen Rechts und das haftungsrechtliche Richtlinienrecht der EG. In: Medicus D, Mertens H-J, Nörr K W, Zöllner W (eds) Festschrift für Hermann Lange zum 70. Geburtstag am 24. Januar 1992. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne, pp 373–395
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1994c) Vereinheitlichung und Angleichung von Deliktsrecht in der Europäischen Union. ZfRV:221–232
Google Scholar
von Bar C (ed) (1994d) Deliktsrecht in Europa: Systematische Einführungen, Gesetztexte, Übersetzungen. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1996a) A common European law of torts. Centro di Studi e Ricerche di Diritto Comparato e Straniero, Rome
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1996b) Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol I-Kernbereiche des Deliktsrechts, seine Angleichung in Europa und seine Einbettung in die Gesamtrechtsordnung (English transl. Common European Law of Torts 1). Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1998a) The common European law of torts, vol I-The core areas of tort law, its approximation in Europe, and its accommodation in the legal system. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1998d) Vicarious liability. In: Hartkamp A (ed) Towards a European civil code. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 431–447
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1999a) Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse, insbesondere Haftungsrecht. In: von Bar C, Barendrecht M, Basedow J, Drobnig U, van Gerven W, Hondius E, Kerameus K, Koussoulis S, Lando O, Loos M, Tilmann W (eds) (1999) Untersuchung der Privatrechtsordnungen der EU im Hinblick auf Diskriminierungen und die Schaffung eines europäisches Zivilgesetzbuches. Europäisches Parlament, Luxembourg. Available via the European Parliament website. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/1999/168511/IPOL-JURI_ET%281999%29168511_DE.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1999b) Damage without loss. In: Swadling W, Jones G (eds) The search for principle. Essays in honour of Lord Goff of Chieveley. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–43
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1999e) Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol II-Schaden und Schadenersatz, Haftung für und ohne eigenes Fehlverhalten, Kausalität und Verteidigungsgründe (English transl.: Common European Law of Torts 2). Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1999f) Non-contractual obligations, especially the law of tort. In: Offermann KH (ed) The private law systems in the EU. Discrimination on grounds of nationality and the need for a European Civil Code. European Parliament, Luxembourg, pp 41–55
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2000a) The common European law of torts, vol II-Damage and damages, liability for and without personal misconduct, causality, and defences. Oxford University Press, Oxford
von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002a) Auf dem Wege zu Europäischen Grundregeln der außervertraglichen Schadenshaftung. In: Schlechtriem P (ed) Wandlungen des Schuldrechts, pp 165–178. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2008c) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another under the DCFR. ERA Forum 9(1):33–38
Google Scholar
von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European law on non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2010a) Außervertragliche Haftung für den Einem Anderen Zugefügten Schaden. Das Buch VI des Draft Common Frame of Reference. Eur Rev Priv Law 18(2):205–225
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011b) The notion of damage. In: Hartkamp AS, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 387–399
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011d) Rechtsvergleichende Beobachtungen zum Ineinandergreifen von Vertrags- und Deliktsrecht in Europa. In: Schulze R (ed) Compensation of private losses. The evolution of torts in European business law. Sellier, Munich, pp 201–212
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011e) Statements on perspectives for European private law: as much diversity as possible, as less uniformity as necessary? In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) European private law. Sellier, Munich, pp 265–267
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft Common Frame of Reference - Outline Edition. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
Wagner G (2009) The law of torts in the DCFR. In: Wagner G (ed) The Common Frame of Reference: a view from law & economics. Sellier, Munich, pp 225–272
Chapter Google Scholar
Widmer P (1999) Die Vereinheitlichung des europäischen Schadenersatzrechts aus der Sicht eines Kontinentaleuropäers. RHDI 52(1):87–102
Google Scholar
Wissink M (2008) Overview. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European Community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 341–363
Chapter Google Scholar
Wurmnest W (2003a) Common Core, Grundregeln, Kodifikationsentwürfe, Acquis-Grundsätze - Ansätze internationaler Wissenschaftlergruppen zur Privatvereinheitlichung in Europa. ZEuP 11(1):714–744
Google Scholar
Wurmnest W (2003b) Grundzüge eines europäischen Haftungsrechts. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung des Gemeinschaftsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
Marta Santos Silva

Authors

Marta Santos Silva
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santos Silva, M. (2017). § 6 General Remarks on the Non-Contractual Liability Regime Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (PEL. Liab. Dam.). In: The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_6
Published: 04 July 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52922-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52923-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics