Suchergebnisse

Both the common law and the law of civilian jurisdictions recognize an unborn child as in esse for purposes of receiving certain civil rights. In most of the cases involving prenatal injuries, it has been advocated that the tort law, by analogy to criminal law and property law, should recognize an unborn child as a person in being. The courts formerly rejected this argument, saying that in order to protect social and property interests a "fiction" has arisen that an unborn child is in being but that this "fiction" should not be invoked to protect personal security. The recent cases have found the protection of an unborn child's personal security to be equally important as the protection of social and property interests, but have impliedly limited the protection to the personal interests of a viable child. The object and purpose of this article is to analyze and review development of tort liability for injury to the unborn - from the first precedential case till the newest era of liability for prenatal injuries, especially in those conditions, when Georgian Civil Legislation does not recognize this type of Tort Liability.

AbstractPrivate safety auditors are key constituents of modern risk governance in global value chains (GVCs). However, high-impact safety incidents causing extensive harm inside and outside the chain have cast widespread doubts as to the integrity and rigour with which these commercial auditors carry out their professional services. Civil liability has been considered an important legal instrument to incentivise auditors to improve audit accuracy and integrity. Relying on English law, this article assesses the extent to which this premise holds true for product safety and social auditing. To that end, it studies the liability exposure of private safety auditors for negligent auditing in GVCs. It is argued that this exposure is primarily a function of the contractual obligations these auditors undertake to perform for producers or suppliers in GVCs. This finding draws attention to the need to better understand and define the scope of the safety audits offered for risk management purposes within GVCs.

Abstract
Empirical work consistently finds that Chinese courts resolve civil cases by finding a compromise solution. But beyond this split-it-down-the-middle tendency, when and how do Chinese courts arrive at decisions that feel "fair and just" in cases in which they invoke those ideas? Drawing on a data set of 9,485 tort cases, we find that Chinese courts impose liability on two types of parties with ethical, but not legal, obligation to victims: (1) participants in a shared activity and (2) those who control a physical space. In these cases, Chinese courts stretch the law to spread losses through communities and to acknowledge traumatic harm. Considering fairness, then, returns Chinese courts to their long-standing role as managers of communities who respond to misfortune by assigning legal responsibility to relationships that range from intimate to surprisingly tenuous.