Suchergebnisse

Die Frage eines redlichen Mobiliarerwerbs ist nicht nur von großer praktischer Bedeutung – so im Kreditsicherungsrecht oder beim Erwerb von Kunstgegenständen –, sondern wirft auch zentrale Gerechtigkeitsprobleme auf: Ist es sachlich gerechtfertigt, dass der Eigentümer gegen seinen Willen sein Recht verliert, weil der Erwerber gutgläubig einem nicht berechtigten Veräußerer vertraut hat?Die Herausarbeitung der maßgeblichen Interessen macht dabei deutlich, dass nicht individuelle Gesichtspunkte, sondern nur allgemeine Verkehrsschutzbedürfnisse einen redlichen Mobiliarerwerb zu legitimieren vermögen. Auch zeigt sich, dass sachenrechtliche Ordnungsfragen nicht isoliert betrachtet werden dürfen, sondern es nötig ist, rechtsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Aspekte in die Untersuchung einzubeziehen. Erst auf dieser Basis ist es möglich, die maßgeblichen Grundprinzipien herauszuarbeiten, die für eine sachgerechte Lösung der zahlreichen strittigen Einzelfragen unerlässlich sind.

Compensation for loss of housekeeping capacity is one of the main heads of damages awarded for personal injury, and therefore of great practical importance to both accident victims and liability insurers. But it has received little scholarly attention from a comparative perspective. This study examines national approaches to the award of such damages and draws comparative conclusions, addressing both the concepts employed in different national systems and, through practical case studies, the quantum of compensation in individual cases. Ernst Karner, Institut für Europäisches Schadenersatzrecht, Wien; Ken Oliphant, Institut für Europäisches Schadenersatzrecht, Wien.

The decision of the BGH was based on the following set of facts: As a result of a traffic accident in August 1983, the plaintiff, who was then 46 years old and worked as a telephone technical operator with the Bundespost, suffered serious injuries to the chest and throat. The plaintiff, who had already suffered injuries as a result of accidents in the years between 1965 and 1982 was almost completely unfit for work following the new accident. Stays in various different clinics brought no noticable improvement in his condition. In particular he suffered pains in the areas of the chest, abdomen and back. The plaintiff was adjudged unfit for work and pensioned off with effect from 1 November 1985. Claiming that he was still suffering from the consequences of the accident, and that his pensioning off was also attributable to the event, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, damages for pain and suffering, which he considered should be assessed at at least 25,000DM. The Landgericht rejected the claim. The Oberlandesgericht awarded damages of 50,000DM. The defendant's appeal on a point of law to the BGH was unsuccessful. According to the BGH, a tortfeasor is in principle liable for the psychological damage that flows from his tortious act - even if it arises from the prior susceptibility of the injured party to that kind of damage, or a nervous disorder. The only circumstances in which liability will not be imposed is when the event that causes the harm is trivial and does not have a direct impact on the degree of damage suffered by the injured party. From a procedural point of view, no upper limit is imposed on the judge in his assessment of the damages considered appropriate under § 308 ZPO by the plaintiff's claim for a minimum amount or suggestion of an indicative figure.

Im Hinblick auf die Verkehrssicherungspflichten bei Wegen und Bäumen nehmen die österreichischen Nationalparks eine Sonderstellung ein: Gemäß ihren gesetzlichen Grundlagen dienen diese einerseits der Erhaltung möglichst unberührter Landschaften, andererseits aber auch der naturkundlichen Bildung und Erholung, also touristischen Zwecken. Die Erreichung beider Ziele lässt sich freilich nur verwirklichen, wenn bei der Konkretisierung der Verkehrssicherungspflichten der besonderen Stellung der Nationalparks Rechnung getragen wird. Aufbauend auf früheren Studien legen die österreichischen Nationalparks nun ein Konzept für ein differenziertes Baumgefahren-Management vor. Mithilfe zahlreicher Abbildungen wird darin eine sachgerechte Auflösung des angesprochenen Zielkonflikts veranschaulicht, die angemessen auf den Schutz der Nationalparkbesucher Bedacht nimmt und diesen dennoch das Erleben weitgehend unberührter Natur ermöglicht. Dazu zählt auch die Schaffung besonders ausgewiesener naturbelassener Wege, bei denen nur stark eingeschränkte Sicherungspflichten bestehen. In einer ausführlichen juristischen Untersuchung werden sodann die haftungsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen dieses Konzepts dargelegt und seine Vereinbarkeit mit der Rechtsprechung und dem wissenschaftlichen Meinungsstand abgeklärt. Dabei werden die Grundlagen der Baumhaftung auch über den Anlassfall hinaus umfassend beleuchtet. Abgerundet wird diese rechtsdogmatische Darstellung mit einer Entscheidungsübersicht, welche die einschlägige Rechtsprechung der letzten Jahrzehnte übersichtlich dokumentiert

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

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

The goal of this study is to provide a general overview and thorough analysis of how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) deals with tort law issues such as damage, causation, wrongfulness, fault and compensation - namely when applying Art. 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Methodological approaches to the tort law of the ECHR as well as the perspectives of human rights and tort law and public international law are also addressed

Intro -- Preface -- Overview -- Table of Contents -- Abbreviations -- Questionnaire Structure -- A. Introduction -- 1. General Overview -- B. The Nature of the Misconduct Required -- 2. Forms of Misconduct -- C. The Required Standard of Conduct -- 3. Criteria for Assessment -- 4. The Relevance of Statutory Norms -- 5. The Relevance of Non-Statutory Norms -- D. An Objective or Subjective Standard? -- 6. Special Skill or Expertise -- 7. Inexperience or Lack of Skill -- 8. Age -- 9. Physical Disability -- 10. Mental Disability -- 11. Incapacity due to Drugs or Alcohol -- 12. Incapacity due to Other Transient Factors -- E. Degrees of Misconduct -- 13. Degrees of Misconduct -- F. Grounds of Justification -- 14. Self-Defence and Other Grounds of Justification -- 15. Self-Defence against Non-Misconduct -- G. Other Issues -- 16. Additional Questions -- Contributors -- Publications -- Index