Suchergebnisse

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

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 ...

We live in a denial of justice age when it comes to the individual pursuit of justice against international organisations (IOs). Victims of institutional conduct are generally not provided reasonable means of dispute settlement at the international level. They also have been unable to seek justice at the national level due to IO immunities, which aim to secure institutional independence. Access to justice and IO independence are equally important values and realising them both has so far proven elusive. Private international law techniques can help allocate regulatory authority between the national and institutional orders in a nuanced manner by maintaining IO independence without sacrificing access to justice. As private international law rules can be adjusted nationally without the need for international action, the solution proposed can be readily implemented, thereby resolving a conundrum that public international law has not been able to address for decades

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

Abstract. The law of tort serves two main functions: compensation of damage and prevention of damage. During the period of industrialisation in the nineteenth century the law aimed to secure the greatest possible freedom of action for economic operators and required proof of fault. Modern laws recognise the dangers inherent in many economic activities and have increasingly objectivised the notion of fault. In addition, the special risks that attach to certain forms of activity have led to strict liability for harm arising from such activity. Czech law takes a modem approach, and indeed includes a general presumption of fault once it has been shown that damage has resulted from the infringement of a legal duty. The onus is on the tortfeasor to prove that all reasonable care has been taken. Czech law also includes a very general liability for damage caused in the course of business and a num ber of special liabilities. The relationship between the different approaches to liability is not entirely clear. Although other European states are increasing the scope of their laws on strict liability, few national laws are as wide ranging as the Czech law.
Developments at the European level are limited. Greater harmonisation of rules would increase transparency for the consumer. Such legislation and proposals for legislation as exist demonstrate the same trends as are apparent at national level. These trends include: imputation of fault either because of objective ncglect of reasonable care or because of the assumption of an unusual risk; a presumption of unlawfulness where harm to person or property occur; the need for personal capacity to bear responsibility; vicarious liability of employers; recognition of the possibility of contributory negligence.
This convergence of thought is not evident in relation to the law of unjust enrichment, and there are no moves to harmonise the law at the European level. Czech law includes a general principle that enrichment unjustly acquired must be restored. This covers acquisition of both property and other benefits.

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

The protective and friendly attitude with which the courts and legislatures have viewed charities is reflected in the rule of nonliability for torts committed by such eleemosynary institutions. The rationales for this exemption may be briefly classified into five main groups. The first and most all inclusive, is the trust fund doctrine based on an early English case and exemplified by the Massachusetts decisions. Under this theory a charitable institution can not be held liable for the negligence of servants and employees or administrative officials.Nor is the court concerned with the status of the plaintiff as beneficiary, employee or stranger. The trust fund can not be diverted from the charitable purposes for which it was intended to compensate for one injured in the execution of these duties.