Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / Koziol_BasicQuestions_Germanic

VI

Helmut Koziol

Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Germanic Perspective

( Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, FWF ), which seeks to

produce answers to the basic questions of tort law in Europe from a compara-

tive perspective. » Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Germanic Perspective « is

intended to provide a basis for comprehensive responses by representatives of

other European legal families and jurisdictions outside Europe on the fundamen-

tal ideas elaborated in this book. The statements will in turn be instrumental in

the draft of the conclusions, which will attempt to provide substantiated answers

to the fundamental questions of tort law, above all its functions and aims but also

numerous other important issues. By this, an attempt will be made to offer basic

answers founded on comparative research to guide future developments in Euro-

pean tort law.

The book in hand, therefore, tries to give a more extensive introduction to the

delictual and contractual law of liability and damages. It addresses basic prob-

lems and questions and where appropriate elaborates upon them; it queries the

usual arguments, prompts the reconsideration of apparently established ideas

and enhances awareness of interrelationships. Accordingly, the rationale of that

old but nowadays often disregarded principle that the loss lies where it falls

( casum sentit dominus ) is called to mind; the issue of » insurance versus liability «

is raised and the pros and cons of strict delimitation and rigid norms as opposed

to fluid transitions and elastic rules are discussed. Above all, however, the posi-

tion of the law of tort within the overall system for the protection of legal goods is

examined and taken as a basis to elaborate the aims of individual legal remedies

in more detail and to reveal the fluid transitions between the legal areas and fur-

ther develop them. For example, the relationship between claims for damages and

preventive and reparative injunctions is looked at; the difficult issue of » punitive

damages « at the crossroads between criminal and civil law is examined; the divi-

sion of roles between tort law and social security law is reviewed. The resulting

conclusions serve to facilitate the subsequent elaboration of the tasks of the law

of tort, in which context the increasingly emphasised economic function is dis-

cussed as well as the compensatory, deterrent and penal functions.

However, the book is not limited to these very general considerations but also

seeks to apply the insights gained in order to examine both general and more spe-

cific questions. These in turn aim to provide the reader with information which

will enable him or her to understand better the – to some extent strange – ideas in

foreign legal systems. Nonetheless, no attempt is made to provide a complete over-

view; instead the focus is on particularly controversial issues and new approaches.

Not only is the relationship between breaches of obligations and torts examined,

but the basic requirements for a claim under tort law – damage and causation – are

also discussed. An extensive section is devoted to the elements of establishing lia-

bility; besides wrongfulness and fault, other defects within the sphere of the party

liable for damages are looked at: for example, the capacity to bear the economic

¶

Jan Sramek Verlag KG ©

Preface

X

Helmut Koziol

Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Germanic Perspective

1. The problem area at issue  ......................................................................

36

2. Inapplicability of the law of unjust enrichment  .............................

37

3. The shortcomings of the law of tort  ....................................................

38

4. Approaches to solutions in intellectual property law  ....................

40

5. The doctrinal classification of the claim to disgorgement

of profit  .........................................................................................................

43

6. Conclusion  ..................................................................................................

44

VII.

Creditors’ avoidance  ..............................................................................................

45

VIII.

Claims for damages  ...............................................................................................

46

IX.

» Punitive damages « ?  .............................................................................................

50

A. Alleged need for such and concerns  .........................................................

50

B. Alternatives  ........................................................................................................

55

C. Preventive damages instead of punitive damages ?  ..............................

56

X.

Insurance Contract Law  .......................................................................................

58

A. In general 

...........................................................................................................

58

B. Third-party liability insurance and damages  .........................................

59

XI.

Social security law  ..................................................................................................

60

XII.

Compensating victims of crime and catastrophes  ......................................

62

A. Victims of crime  ...............................................................................................

62

B. Victims of catastrophes  .................................................................................

64

XIII. Disgorgement claims  ............................................................................................

65

XIV.

Criminal law  .............................................................................................................

66

XV.

Concluding remarks  ..............................................................................................

68

A. Use of legal protection mechanisms in a manner

contrary to their function  .............................................................................

68

B. The need for a consistent overall system  .................................................

70

C. Observation of the structural principles of private law

and public law  ..................................................................................................

71

D. Taking into account the relationship between prerequisites

and legal consequences  .................................................................................

72

E. Taking into account the appropriacy of tasks to the nature

of the instrument, the interplay of different protection

mechanisms and the further development of borderline areas  .......

73

I.

Compensatory function  .......................................................................................

75

II.

Function of deterrence and continuation of a right

( Rechtsfortsetzungsfunktion )  ............................................................................

78

¶

Jan Sramek Verlag KG ©

Table of Contents