Suchergebnisse

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.

Die Frage nach den Grenzen der Gewalt in bewaffneten Konflikten hat durch die militärischen Einsätze der letzten Jahrzehnte, aber auch durch die Verfügbarkeit neuer Militärtechnologien große Aktualität bekommen. Das Humanitäre Völkerrecht, das die Gewalt im Konfliktgeschehen einhegen soll, nahm sich aber mittlerweile häufig überkommene Konfliktszenarien zur Grundlage. Daher ist es notwendig, auf der Basis philosophischer Überlegungen und Kritik erneut über dieses sogenannte "ius in bello" nachzudenken. Michael Walzers kollektivistische Zugangsweise wird zunehmend durch Ansätze abgelöst, die das Individuum zum moralischen Ankerpunkt erklären. Für viele Konfliktfelder der Gegenwart scheint damit ein plausiblerer normativer Vorschlag erreichbar. Allerdings kommt auch der Individualismus an Grenzen.

Initiated by the European Commission, the first study published in this volume analyses the largely unresolved question as to how damage caused by artificial intelligence (AI) systems is allocated by the rules of tortious liability currently in force in the Member States of the European Union and in the United States, to examine whether - and if so, to what extent - national tort law regimes differ in that respect, and to identify possible gaps in the protection of injured parties. The second study offers guiding principles for safety and liability with regard to software, testing how the existing acquis needs to be adjusted in order to adequately cope with the risks posed by software and AI. The annex contains the final report of the New Technologies Formation of the Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies, assessing the extent to which existing liability schemes are adapted to the emerging market realities following the development of new digital technologies