Comparative European Tort Law page 1
Course Outline version 23 October 2018 Tahrim Ramdjan
Week Topic Van Dam sections pp.
Very Brief Checklist of Torts 2
1A Introduction to Tort Law 101-105 3
1A France: General Overview 301-306 4
1B England: General Overview 501-507 6
2A Germany: General Overview 401-405 9
2B Protected Rights and Interests / Extensive Elaboration on Mental Health 701-706, 709 11
3A, 3B Intention and Negligence 801-814 14
4A Violation of a statutory rule 901-904, 906 18
4B Causation 1101-1112 19
5A Introduction to Strict Liability 1001-1005 21
5A, 5B Damages & Damages Reduction 1201-1208 22
5B Strict Liability for Moveable Objects 1401-1417 25
6A Strict Liability for Immoveable Objects 1501-1511 28
6B Strict Liability for Acts of Other Persons 1601-1608 30
7A Liability of Public Bodies 1801-1804, 1806 32
7B Pure Omissions / Duty to Rescue 1701-1702 33
7B Human Rights & Critiques 1807-1811; Weaver 34
Overview of Statutes and Case Law 36
,Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) Checklist page 2
Very Brief Checklist of Torts
,Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) Intro to Tort Law page 3
à Continuation
1A Introduction to Tort Law s. 101-105
1. European Tort Law
a. Upper tier: Binding European tort law
i. Treaty provisions
ii. Regulations
iii. Directives
b. Link: Comparative law
i. Examination of
1. FR: Focus on compensation of victim
a. Distributive justice
2. DE: Intermediary approach
a. Dogmatic focus on defendant’s conduct
b. Policy-wise inspired by distributive justice
3. EN: Focus on defendant’s conduct
a. Corrective justice
ii. Comparative law is evolutionary
1. Law progresses
2. Useful for whom?
a. Law firms that look beyond borders
b. National legislators
c. European Commission
d. Lobbyists
e. National courts
f. European Court of Justice
3. Pitfalls
a. Legal rules and cases may not be written in same
language, information may get lost in translation
b. Rules and cases are only one of many elements
of legal system, cannot be studied in isolation
c. National legal systems are closely linked with
national cultural values
c. Lower tier: various national laws
, Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) France: General Overview page 4
à Continuation
1A France: General Overview s. 301-306 ii. ⇘ Strict liability for things (Arts. 1384)
1. ⇘ General rules
1. Characteristics of French tort law a. ⇘ Fact of the thing (fait de la chose)
a. Simplistic: very brief and general provisions in the Code Civil
i. Instrumental in providing compensation to
b. Highest court is the Cour de Cassation victim of accident with thing involved
i. Only deals with questions of law
ii. Thing includes all inanimate objects
ii. If appeal is rejected, lower court’s decision is final 1. Not snow or alive human body
iii. If appeal is granted, case may be referred to other lower court for
iii. Established by:
remand. If lower court disagrees with Cour de Cassation’s judgment,
1. ↳ Pos. Contact claimant and
appeal may be sought before Plenary Assembly
moving thing
iv. Concise wording, often lack of reasoning
2. ↳ Pos. Contact claimant and non-
v. Short and abstract decisions
moving thing: assert thing
1. Principle of anonymity – No dissent allowed
instrumental in causing damage
vi. No stare decisis
a. Ex.: Falling through open
1. Cour de Cassation issues no binding precedent but is
door of lift
authoritative
3. ↳ Pos. If no contact between
c. Three categories of liability
claimant and thing, claimant has to
i. ⇘ Liability for one’s own act (Arts. 1382; 1383)
prove thing was cause of damage
1. ↳ Cr. Faute: intention or negligent conduct. Objective test: no
b. ⇘ Custodian (gardien)
separate test for mentally incapacitated or children.
i. Factual, not legal
a. ↳ Cr. Violation of a statutory rule, even if not intended
1. Ex.: Kid kicking bottle on street is
to protect victim from this damage
custodian for split second
b. ↳ Cr. Breach of unwritten pre-existing duty
ii. Mentally incapacitated and young children
i. Standard of reference: bon pere de famille can be custodians
c. ↳ Cr. Non-intentional criminal faute iii. Employee not custodian to employer’s
i. Even if not proven guilty in criminal court things
d. ↳ Cr. Abuse of right iv. Division between custodian of thing’s
i. Valid exercise of right degenerates into conduct (keeper) and custodian of thing’s
abuse. Courts refer to bad faith, intention to structure (owner/manufacturer)
harm, etc. v. ⇘ Common custodianship
ii. Ex.: two neighbours, one had hot air 1. Plurality of custodians but each can
balloons flying, other surrected very high be held liable to full extent of
fene with spikes, led to abuse of property damage
right 2. Custodian cannot invoke liability
2. ↳ Cr. Damage against co-custodians
3. ↳ Cr. Causation 3. Escape liability if custodianship
transferred to third party
a. Burden of proof on
defendant
Course Outline version 23 October 2018 Tahrim Ramdjan
Week Topic Van Dam sections pp.
Very Brief Checklist of Torts 2
1A Introduction to Tort Law 101-105 3
1A France: General Overview 301-306 4
1B England: General Overview 501-507 6
2A Germany: General Overview 401-405 9
2B Protected Rights and Interests / Extensive Elaboration on Mental Health 701-706, 709 11
3A, 3B Intention and Negligence 801-814 14
4A Violation of a statutory rule 901-904, 906 18
4B Causation 1101-1112 19
5A Introduction to Strict Liability 1001-1005 21
5A, 5B Damages & Damages Reduction 1201-1208 22
5B Strict Liability for Moveable Objects 1401-1417 25
6A Strict Liability for Immoveable Objects 1501-1511 28
6B Strict Liability for Acts of Other Persons 1601-1608 30
7A Liability of Public Bodies 1801-1804, 1806 32
7B Pure Omissions / Duty to Rescue 1701-1702 33
7B Human Rights & Critiques 1807-1811; Weaver 34
Overview of Statutes and Case Law 36
,Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) Checklist page 2
Very Brief Checklist of Torts
,Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) Intro to Tort Law page 3
à Continuation
1A Introduction to Tort Law s. 101-105
1. European Tort Law
a. Upper tier: Binding European tort law
i. Treaty provisions
ii. Regulations
iii. Directives
b. Link: Comparative law
i. Examination of
1. FR: Focus on compensation of victim
a. Distributive justice
2. DE: Intermediary approach
a. Dogmatic focus on defendant’s conduct
b. Policy-wise inspired by distributive justice
3. EN: Focus on defendant’s conduct
a. Corrective justice
ii. Comparative law is evolutionary
1. Law progresses
2. Useful for whom?
a. Law firms that look beyond borders
b. National legislators
c. European Commission
d. Lobbyists
e. National courts
f. European Court of Justice
3. Pitfalls
a. Legal rules and cases may not be written in same
language, information may get lost in translation
b. Rules and cases are only one of many elements
of legal system, cannot be studied in isolation
c. National legal systems are closely linked with
national cultural values
c. Lower tier: various national laws
, Comparative European Tort Law Course Outline (Tahrim Ramdjan) France: General Overview page 4
à Continuation
1A France: General Overview s. 301-306 ii. ⇘ Strict liability for things (Arts. 1384)
1. ⇘ General rules
1. Characteristics of French tort law a. ⇘ Fact of the thing (fait de la chose)
a. Simplistic: very brief and general provisions in the Code Civil
i. Instrumental in providing compensation to
b. Highest court is the Cour de Cassation victim of accident with thing involved
i. Only deals with questions of law
ii. Thing includes all inanimate objects
ii. If appeal is rejected, lower court’s decision is final 1. Not snow or alive human body
iii. If appeal is granted, case may be referred to other lower court for
iii. Established by:
remand. If lower court disagrees with Cour de Cassation’s judgment,
1. ↳ Pos. Contact claimant and
appeal may be sought before Plenary Assembly
moving thing
iv. Concise wording, often lack of reasoning
2. ↳ Pos. Contact claimant and non-
v. Short and abstract decisions
moving thing: assert thing
1. Principle of anonymity – No dissent allowed
instrumental in causing damage
vi. No stare decisis
a. Ex.: Falling through open
1. Cour de Cassation issues no binding precedent but is
door of lift
authoritative
3. ↳ Pos. If no contact between
c. Three categories of liability
claimant and thing, claimant has to
i. ⇘ Liability for one’s own act (Arts. 1382; 1383)
prove thing was cause of damage
1. ↳ Cr. Faute: intention or negligent conduct. Objective test: no
b. ⇘ Custodian (gardien)
separate test for mentally incapacitated or children.
i. Factual, not legal
a. ↳ Cr. Violation of a statutory rule, even if not intended
1. Ex.: Kid kicking bottle on street is
to protect victim from this damage
custodian for split second
b. ↳ Cr. Breach of unwritten pre-existing duty
ii. Mentally incapacitated and young children
i. Standard of reference: bon pere de famille can be custodians
c. ↳ Cr. Non-intentional criminal faute iii. Employee not custodian to employer’s
i. Even if not proven guilty in criminal court things
d. ↳ Cr. Abuse of right iv. Division between custodian of thing’s
i. Valid exercise of right degenerates into conduct (keeper) and custodian of thing’s
abuse. Courts refer to bad faith, intention to structure (owner/manufacturer)
harm, etc. v. ⇘ Common custodianship
ii. Ex.: two neighbours, one had hot air 1. Plurality of custodians but each can
balloons flying, other surrected very high be held liable to full extent of
fene with spikes, led to abuse of property damage
right 2. Custodian cannot invoke liability
2. ↳ Cr. Damage against co-custodians
3. ↳ Cr. Causation 3. Escape liability if custodianship
transferred to third party
a. Burden of proof on
defendant
