Suchergebnisse

Abstract. This paper gives details of the most important problem areas in the field of professional liability in the Federal Rupublic of Germany and sets out also the influence which the EC directive on the liability of suppliers of services is expected to have.
It distinguishes first between the professional liability of self-employed persons and employees. In the case of employees, they will be liable if they cause damage under tort or contract, but where the work is classed as 'dangerous' their responsability may be restricted, thus in many cases avoiding an inequitable imposition of liability upon the employee in respect of loss which he or she has caused.
In the case of the liberal professions, in contrast, the standard of care may be so high that this group of professionals cannot in practice come up to the requisite standards. Against this background, it is proposed in the paper that it would be appropriate to introduce certain limitations (e.g. with regard to the specific job-related knowledge of individual areas of law and with regard to supreme court case law in the case of the legal profession).
On to these problem issues within national law is grafted an assessment of the draft EC Directive on the liability of suppliers of services. This assessment and the consequences which will result from the implementation of the Directive represent the conclusion of this paper, which ends with a brief plea for 'less liability' in spite of the opportunities for insurance against liability risks.

The decision handed down on 19 February 1997 by the Cour de cassation changes the nature of the parents liability for the harm caused by a child of theirs who is a minor living at home with them. Whereas until now their liability was based on a presumption of fault which they could rebut on proof of the absence of any fault in the upbringing or supervision of the child, it is now an instance of strict liability imposed upon them, thus strengthening the guarantee of compensation for victims.
In the specific case, a young boy who was out cycling collided with a moped when he suddenly emerged onto a main road. The driver of the moped, who was injured, sought compensation for his injury from the boy's father, as the person civilly responsible for him, and from his insurer. When the trial court allowed the claim, the father of the child challenged its decision for refusing to consider whether it was true that he had not committed any default of supervision so that he could rebut the presumption of liability. Breaking with its earlier case law, the Cour de cassation dismissed this challenge, however, and concluded that only force majeure or the fault of the victim could free the parents of the strict liability imposed on them as a result of the damage caused by their minor child.
This decision, which thus sanctions a new objective liability, detached from any notion of fault, is analysed in the following commentaries from the points of view of Greek, Swiss, Belgian and German law.