Suchergebnisse

The Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2005 on the protection of the environment1, stipulates in art. 95: (1) liability for damage to the environment has an objective character, independent of guilt. In case of several authors, the liability is a joint responsibility; (2) as an exception, liability is subjective for the prejudice caused to protected species and to natural habitats, in accordance with the specific regulations; (3) the prevention and remedy of the damage done to the environment are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the present emergency ordinance and specific regulations. From this text, it results that the rule in environmental law is represented by objective liability, independent of guilt (and the exception is subjective liability) and joint liability (in case of plurality of authors). Objective liability and joint liability are the expression of the fundamental "polluter pays" principle (stipulated under art. 3 letter e of GEO no. 195/2005 on the protection of the environment), actually meeting the needs of the victim who, on the one hand does not have to prove the guilt of the doer and, on the other hand, in case of plurality of authors, has the possibility to claim full remedy for damage from any of them. Keyword: ecological prejudice; the abuse of right; the damage risk; the guarantee theory

ABSTRACT: The object of this paper is the tort liability, which represents an important element of the legal relationships. This paper refers at the legal regulation of the tort liability, as well as its scope. This paper also refers at the two types of liability, representing the general liability that we find in the civil law, which is the relation between the tort liability and the contractual liability. This paper also presents the comparison between the tort liability and the criminal liability, as well as the relation between the tort liability and the patrimonial liability specific to the labour law. We shall speak of the types of tort liability and their classification, referring at the hypotheses regulated by the Civil Code and the related legislation, as well as of the criterion of the fundamental principle of liability. KEYWORDS: criminal liability, contractual liability, patrimonial liability, tort liability, unlawful act

Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) is a government-sponsored microfinance program. The scheme is based on four features: group lending with joint liability, progressive lending, back-ended subsidy, and social capital. We propose a new model of SGSY having these features: group lending with individual liability, progressive lending, back-ended subsidy, and social capital. "Joint liability" clause of the existing model is replaced with individual liability in the new model. The paper shows that problem of adverse selection is removed in both models, i.e. in "SGSY with group lending and joint liability" and "SGSY with group lending and individual liability." The problem of 'moral hazard' is more severe in the existing model of SGSY compared with the proposed model of SGSY. Borrowers are also benefitted from participation in the proposed scheme of SGSY than that in the existing model of SGSY.

This article focuses on the liability issues arising from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The radioactivity released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant inflicted catastrophic harm to people, industries, and the environment. Under Japanese law, a nuclear operator bears strict, channeling, and unlimited liability for nuclear damage unless the damage is caused by a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character. This article concludes the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami that triggered this nuclear accident do not fall within this exemption because neither of them were unforeseeable nor far beyond the design basis for the reactors at the plant. Therefore, Tokyo Electric Power Company ("TEPCO") must compensate any damages if the nuclear accident is the legally sufficient cause of them. Additionally, this article argues two entities should be legally responsible for the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Government of Japan can be liable for the nuclear damage if it failed to exercise its regulatory power over the Tokyo Electric Power Company or if its errant acts expanded the damage. General Electric, the designer of the reactors at the plant, might also be liable for the nuclear damage under U.S. law, assuming the reactors had any weaknesses in their design.

The liability crisis of the mid-1980s has led to an extensive reexamination of the liability system. A number of explanations have been offered for the substantial increase in insurance premiums and, in some cases, a decline in the availability of insurance. These include stimulation of the underwriting cycle by a decline in interest rates, collusion among insurance firms, rising tort costs, and uncertainty with respect to the liability burden.' Most observers, however, also point to changes in tort law itself. For example, plaintiffs may now have a more favorable environment for obtaining an award and, if they are successful, they may receive a larger award than in earlier eras. In addition, changes in the legal environment may have fostered considerable uncertainty that itself increases the costs insurance companies face. The liability crisis has led to reassessments of the state of tort law and explorations of ways in which it can be improved. A variety of legal reform groups, a Department of Justice task force, and a recent spate of conferences have all addressed aspects of the liability crisis and ways in which the law can be restructured. A wide variety of states have also begun legislative initiatives to limit tort recoveries. Among the more popular measures are caps and restrictions on punitive damages, caps on pain and suffering damages, modifications in comparative negligence standards, limits on the application of joint and several liability, changes in collateral source rules, and limits on government liability. Most of these changes came in the late 1980s, and it is too early to assess their implications. It is, however, possible to explore the role that earlier statutory reforms have had. Not all states have products-liability statutes, and those statutes that have been enacted differ considerably. This article focuses on how the performance of products-liability insurance varies with the statutory regime by using the complete insurance files for the products-liability-bodily injury lines of the ...

The paper considers a variety of sources of potential climate liability in Canada. Sources considered include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, jurisdictional issues, aboriginal rights, the public trust, judicial review of regulatory decisions, tort principles of such as nuisance, negligence, and strict liability, securities litigation, legislative issues under federal and provincial legislation, such as species at risk Acts, environmental assessment processes, and the role of public international law in climate litigation in Canada. Various opportunities to petition national and international institutions on climate issues are also identified.co-authors: Dennis Mahony and Alex Smith

This article looks at the more recent efforts to erode the principles of limitation of liability that have served as the cornerstone of Internet regulation for some years. We will briefly study existing legislation and then we will chart the latest efforts to see the attacks on these limits, particularly by the introduction of graduated response, and the case law that seeks other solutions, such as filtering and blocking. (This is an unedited version of the final book chapter)

While Virginia is not typically seen as "progressive" in the field of product liability law, the Commonwealth is nonetheless a forum in which these product liability battles take place. This article summarizes selected decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, federal district courts in Virginia, and courts of the Commonwealth issued between July 1, 2004 and May 15, 2005. This article also includes a discussion of the most relevant legislative changes made by the Virginia General Assembly over the same time period. While a complete analysis of every decision and statute affecting product liability is not possible, this article summarizes those which should be the most useful to practitioners in Virginia.

The Washington Legislature in its 1981 session enacted Senate bill 3158,1 the Tort and Product Liability Reform Act, a comprehensive change in product liability and tort law in the State of Washington. This change, perhaps the most sweeping legislative involvement in Washington tort law in this century, was accomplished after many years of extremely bitter political conflict over product liability and tort reform; Senate bill 3158, however, passed the legislature with little of the acrimony previ- ously associated with the issue. This article explores the involve- ment of the legislature in product liability and tort reform his- torically, reviews the legislative history of Senate bill 3158, and discusses the relationship of the changes contained in the Act to the present law of the State of Washington.

In recent years banks and other commercial lending institutions have faced a rapid increase in problem loans.' At the same time, the relatively new phenomenon in United States law known as "lender liability" has signaled an expansion of the legal theories under which courts may find lenders liable for damages incurred by borrowers. Perhaps most significantly, many courts now allow borrowers to recover against lenders based on various tort theories. Because of the broader remedies afforded under tort theories as compared to those remedies previously available in contract, some lenders recently have experienced large adverse verdicts. If courts continue to base findings of liability on new theories, lenders must choose between suffering a potentially severe economic loss by refusing to aid a financially troubled borrower or risking being made party to a lender liability suit by providing such help.' Conversely, any significant judicial curtailment of the theories under which borrowers may proceed against lenders undermines the effectiveness of these actions to ensure fair dealing and to prevent lenders from exploiting borrowers with respect to credit terms and conditions. This Special Project addresses the dilemma currently facing courts by examining critically the leading theories of lender liability and dis-cussing three potential solutions to various aspects of the problem. Initially, this Special Project surveys today's most prevalent theories of lender liability, as well as the impact that increasing liability has had on lenders. This Special Project then examines three potential solutions to the uncertainty currently plaguing the lender-borrower relationship.First, this Special Project explores the possibility of lenders using Uni-form Commercial Code sections 2-609 and 2-610 as a guide to conduct so as to avoid tort liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which some courts now find in loan agreements.Second, this Special Project analyzes several state legislatures' ...

This article deals with topical issues of employee liability for damage caused, the amount of damage compensation. Based on the analysis of scientific opinions of Russian scientists, the problems of establishing workers 'liability for damages in labor legislation are investigated; there is no common understanding of the institution of material liability, which causes difficulty in identifying the fact of liability in current practice.

Duties and that, in any profession exists to some extent by the guild system, and is determined partly by public opinion, including the professions, the medical profession, for one, is a certain moral teachings, that public morality different, and in general, higher and deeper it is, the medical profession, as one of the most important jobs in all communities has been popular, and even save the lives of patients who are known, so that a heavy responsibility towards the people and society, so that legislators, not just medical ethics, public safety and physical and mental health, individual rights, and restore order and social peace, the rules governing criminal responsibility of doctors, have predicted. Doctors, their actions, their criminal liability according to law, and if the violation or abuse of their jobs, are guaranteed. In this study, the fundamental principles of criminal responsibility, physicians are interested desired, so that, in addition to criminal liability, police liability, for whom it is intended. The former Penal Code, 1991, at the General Debate, which was referred to the medical procedures, the Penal Code, adopted in 2013, was repeated in the same way, the discussion of the term, the criminal responsibility of a physician, is recognized as the best in debate provided, and the furtherance of abortion, the physician's responsibility to have stabilized, as well as articles 495 onwards, civic responsibility and liability doctors perform screening may be causing damage to recognized that these issues in this study is investigated.

The tort liability of teacher qua teacher encompasses a rather narrow ambit and is largely restricted to cases in which it is alleged that the right of the teacher to enforce discipline has been abused and that the teacher is therefore liable in damages for the commission of an intentional tort. The question in such a case is whether the teacher has exceeded, or acted outside the scope of, his privilege.A particular common law concept was developed very early here defining the privilege as one deriving from the fact that the teacher stood in loco parentis,' and the privilege still rests principally on that concept, although the content of the Latin phrase has undergone considerable change. Of course, there are many harms resulting from negligence whose setting is peculiar to schools or which happen with greater frequency in schools. If the teacher is the negligent actor whose conduct or omission to act (where he is under a duty to act) has caused the harm, he can find no special rules to raise in his defense--he no longer stands in the place of the parent, who is not liable to his child for negligent harm. Under the common law, which obtains in the majority of states, the teacher in the case of either intentional or negligent tort is the only defendant against whom the injured plaintiff can proceed, since the school-governing authority for various reasons is clothed with immunity, as an attribute of sovereignty and as a result of the classification of public education as a governmental function, because the courts will not allow the diversion of public proceeds to satisfy tort claims, or because the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply. In a few states, the school unit may be sued directly or the teacher may transfer the burden of his liability for negligent, but not intentional, acts to the school-governing body if the act has been committed in the course and scope of the teacher's employment. In both common law and statutory jurisdictions the ordinary rules of negligence are said to obtain. As ...

Duty of care cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability, because the scope of liability (traditionally called proximate causation) requirement replicates many of the former features. Indeed, under a negligence rule the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether defendant's behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. But under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula question is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken normative questions raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a major flaw of mainstream models, because the centrality of the scope of liability or proximate causation requirement in real legal practice is disregarded if not simply expelled from the analysis. Then, definining the subjective scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic policy decision in each an every liability rule. In the model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and, second, given the scope of liability, the government decides liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the final part of the article, most known scope of liability doctrines developed by both common law and civil law systems are described in order to show how large the common ground between negligene and strict liability can be.

Given the broad meaning of publication in defamation law, internet intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines, and social media companies may be liable for defamatory content posted by third parties. This article argues that current law is not suitable to dealing with issues of internet defamation and intermediary responsibility because it is needlessly complex, confusing, and may impose liability without blameworthiness. Instead, the article proposes that publication be redefined to require a deliberate act of communicating specific words. This would better reflect blameworthiness and few intermediaries would be liable in defamation under this test. That said, intermediaries profit from content, and they have the capacity and flexibility to respond to defamation in a way that courts cannot. The paper therefore also proposes a regulatory framework called notice-and-notice-plus. This would require intermediaries to forward a notice of complaint to content creators, and only to remove content in limited circumstances.