Search results
Filter
12 results
Sort by:
Unterlassungsklagen im US-amerikanischen Leistungsstörungsrecht: ein Länderbericht zur Lehre vom 'Equitable Relief'
In: Schriften zum internationalen Recht 75
Comparative Analysis of Liability for Acts of Terrorism
In: Tort and Insurance Law; Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, p. 282-299
Definition of Terrorism
In: Tort and Insurance Law; Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, p. 1-1
Questionnaire
In: Tort and Insurance Law; Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, p. 2-3
Austria Liability for Acts Of Terrorism Under Austrian Law
In: Tort and Insurance Law; Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, p. 5-28
Compensation Schemes for Victims of Terrorism
In: Tort and Insurance Law; Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, p. 260-281
Terrorism, tort law and insurance: a comparative survey
In: Tort and insurance law 11
Die notärztliche Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: eine empirische Bestands- und Strukturanalyse
In: Schriftenreihe zum Rettungswesen 14
Cour de cassation française, 1 december 99 — responsabilité pour activites sportives
In: European Review of Private Law, Volume 10, Issue 4, p. 529-546
ISSN: 0928-9801
The judgment of 1 December 1999 by the Court of Cassation relates to the responsibility of organisers of sport events, and more precisely, to that of users of go-cart circuits. This responsibility was relied upon by a go-cart driver who suffered an accident on a circuit of this type.
The judgment is classic in its principle: the Court of Cassation rules that organisers of sport activities have to guarantee the security of participants. However, this security obligation is limited to an "obligation of means". Thus, the organiser is only liable in case of defective means. Participants of this dangerous sport are supposed to have accepted its risks; that is why they cannot expect from the organiser to offer an absolute guarantee of safety. Moreover, as participants play an active role in the sport activity, they introduce an uncertain external factor into the organiser's security obligation: their own behaviour. The consequences are nevertheless potentially serious for the participant, because the participant is not entitled to compensation if the organiser cannot be proven to have been at fault. Only a very rigorous interpretation of the obligation of cautiousness and surveillance on the part of the organiser can avoid this result.
The judgment, being further proof of the difficulties arising from the distinction between obligation of means and obligation of result, is analysed in the following comments from the point of view of Austrian, Scottish and Spanish law.
Compensation for personal injury in a comparative perspective
In: Tort and insurance law 4