Search results for: Tort Law.

Authors: Jorge Barros Mendes

Abstract:

The Portuguese Constitution, in article 22, instituted the general principle of tort liability of the State and other public law entities. Consequently, ordinary legislation established the tort liability of the State into the Portuguese Legal Order, by means of Decree-Law 48051, of 1967. This decree, which was criticised extensively, was amended by virtue of Law 67/2007, of 31st December, establishing the regime for tort liability arising from losses caused by third parties, due to the acts of public management in relation to all the functions of the State, i.e. i) administrative, ii) legislative, and iii) jurisdictional.

Keywords: Portuguese courts, tort liability of the state.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1851

Authors: Puteri Nemie Jahn Kassim, Khadijah Mohd Najid

Abstract:

Medical negligence disputes in Malaysia are mainly resolved through litigation by using the tort system. The tort system, being adversarial in nature has subjected parties to litigation hazards such as delay, excessive costs and uncertainty of outcome. The dissatisfaction of the tort system in compensating medically injured victims has created various alternatives to litigation. Amongst them is the implementation of a no-fault compensation system which would allow compensation to be given without the need of proving fault on the medical personnel. Instead, the community now bears the burden of compensating and at the end, promotes collective responsibility. For Malaysia, introducing a no-fault system would provide a tempting solution and may ultimately, achieve justice for the medical injured victims. Nevertheless, such drastic change requires a great deal of consideration to determine the suitability of the system and whether or not it will eventually cater for the needs of the Malaysian population

Keywords: Medical Disputes, Litigation, Malaysia, No-Fault Compensation.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 4711

Authors: Maria Lubomira Kubica

Abstract:

The paper reveals the birth and evolution of the British precedent Rylands v. Fletcher that, once adopted on the other side of the Ocean (in United States), gave rise to a general clause of liability for abnormally dangerous activities recognized by the §20 of the American Restatements of the Law Third, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. The main goal of the paper was to analyze the development of the legal doctrine and of the case law posterior to the precedent together with the intent of the British judicature to leapfrog from the traditional rule contained in Rylands v. Fletcher to a general clause similar to that introduced in the United States and recently also on the European level. As it is well known, within the scope of tort law two different initiatives compete with the aim of harmonizing the European laws: European Group on Tort Law with its Principles of European Tort Law (hereinafter PETL) in which article 5:101 sets forth a general clause for strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and Study Group on European Civil Code with its Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which promotes rather ad hoc model of listing out determined cases of strict liability. Very narrow application scope of the art. 5:101 PETL, restricted only to abnormally dangerous activities, stays in opposition to very broad spectrum of strict liability cases governed by the CFR. The former is a perfect example of a general clause that offers a minimum and basic standard, possibly acceptable also in those countries in which, like in the United Kingdom, this regime of liability is completely marginalized.

Keywords: Dangerous activities, general clause, risk, strict liability.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2263

Authors: Maria Lubomira Kubica

Abstract:

The paper reveals the birth and evolution of the British precedent Rylands v. Fletcher that, once adopted on the other side of the Ocean (in United States), gave rise to a general clause of liability for abnormally dangerous activities recognized by the §20 of the American Restatements of the Law Third, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. The main goal of the paper was to analyze the development of the legal doctrine and of the case law posterior to the precedent together with the intent of the British judicature to leapfrog from the traditional rule contained in Rylands v. Fletcher to a general clause similar to that introduced in the United States and recently also on the European level. As it is well known, within the scope of tort law two different initiatives compete with the aim of harmonizing the European laws: European Group on Tort Law with its Principles of European Tort Law (hereinafter PETL) in which article 5:101 sets forth a general clause for strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and Study Group on European Civil Code with its Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which promotes rather ad hoc model of listing out determined cases of strict liability. Very narrow application scope of the art. 5:101 PETL, restricted only to abnormally dangerous activities, stays in opposition to very broad spectrum of strict liability cases governed by the CFR. The former is a perfect example of a general clause that offers a minimum and basic standard, possibly acceptable also in those countries in which, like in the United Kingdom, this regime of liability is completely marginalized.

Keywords: Abnormally dangerous activities, general clause, Rylands v. Fletcher, strict liability.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1978

Authors: Alireza Tavakolinia

Abstract:

In order to understand the role of the injured party's fault in dividing liability, we studied its historical background. In common law, the traditional contributory negligence rule was a complete defense. Then the legislature and judicial procedure modified that rule to one of apportionment. In Islamic law, too, the Action rule was at first used when the injured party was the sole cause, but jurists expanded the scope of this rule, so this rule was used in cases where both the injured party's fault and that of the other party are involved. There are some popular approaches for apportionment of damages. Some common law countries like Britain had chosen ‘the causal potency approach’ and ‘fixed apportionment’. Islamic countries like Iran have chosen both ‘the relative blameworthiness’ and ‘equal apportionment’ approaches. The article concludes that both common law and Islamic law believe in the division of responsibility between a wrongdoer claimant and the defendant. In contrast, in the apportionment of responsibility, Islamic law mostly believes in equal apportionment that is way easier and saves time and money, but common law legal systems have chosen the causal potency approach which is more complicated than the rival approach but is fairer.

Keywords: Contributory negligence, common law, Islamic Law, Tort Law.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 774

Authors: Nataliya Hitsevich

Abstract:

Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful events occurred or may occur. For a number of years Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation has been at the centre of the debate regarding the intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet. Nothing has been done to adapt the provisions relating to non-internet cases of infringement of intellectual property rights to the context of the Internet. The author’s findings indicate that in the case of intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet, the plaintiff has the option to sue either: the court of the Member State of the event giving rise to the damage: where the publisher of the newspaper is established; the court of the Member State where the damage occurred: where defamatory article is distributed. However, it must be admitted that whilst infringement over the Internet has some similarity to multi-State defamation by means of newspapers, the position is not entirely analogous due to the cross-border nature of the Internet. A simple example which may appropriately illustrate its contentious nature is a defamatory statement published on a website accessible in different Member States, and available in different languages. Therefore, we need to answer the question: how these traditional jurisdictional rules apply in the case of intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet? Should these traditional jurisdictional rules be modified?

Keywords: Intellectual property rights, infringement, Internet, jurisdiction.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 4471

Authors: Bill D. Geis, Frederick Newman

Abstract:

Suicide and wrongful death forensic cases are the fastest rising tort in mental health law. Most suicide-related personal injury claims fall into the legal category of “wrongful death.” Though mental health experts may be called on to address a range of forensic questions in wrongful death cases, the central consultation that most experts provide is about the negligence element—specifically, the issue of whether the clinician met the clinical standard of care in assessing, treating, and managing the deceased person’s mental health care. Standards of care, varying from US state to state, are broad and address what a reasonable clinician might do in a similar circumstance. This fact leaves the issue of the suicide standard of care, in each case, up to forensic experts to put forth a reasoned estimate of what the standard of care should have been in the specific case under litigation. Because the general state guidelines for standard of care are broad, forensic experts are readily retained to provide scientific and clinical opinions about whether or not a clinician met the standard of care in their suicide assessment, treatment, and management of the case. In the past and in much of current practice, the assessment of suicide has centered on the elicitation of verbalized suicide ideation. But suicide ideation, in the matter of suicide risk determination, may be a necessary but insufficient target of lethal suicide risk assessment. Assessment of near-term suicide risk—assessment that goes beyond verbalized suicide ideation and relates to acute crisis variables—is likely needed. Specifically, such other or additional suicide risk variable assessment may be required in the context of lethal suicide risk situations, as opposed to the discernment of general, nonlethal suicide behavior as a standard of practice (whether a patient is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting an ambivalent suicide attempt potential). In the current study, verbalized suicide ideation information was unhelpful in the assessment of lethal risk. The Lethal Suicide Risk Assessment, Acute Model, and other dynamic, near-term risk models (such as the Acute Suicide Affective Disorder Model and the Suicide Crisis Syndrome Model)—going beyond elicited suicide ideation—need to be incorporated into current clinical suicide assessment training and become the legal standard of care for expected clinical behavior. Without this expanded clinical assessment perspective, the standard of care for suicide assessment is out of sync with current knowledge—an emerging dilemma for the forensic evaluation of suicide wrongful death cases.

Keywords: Forensic evaluation, standard of care, suicide, suicide assessment, wrongful death.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 177