Week 1
- Tort
Subject: Tort law; liability
Introduction: The basic rule for non-contractual liability can be found in art. VI.-1:101 DCFR: ‘a
person who suffers legally relevant damage has a right to reparation from a person who caused
the damage intentionally or negligently or is otherwise accountable for the causation of the
damage.’
To answer the questions below you have to assess the underlined conditions in order to
establish liability or accountability for the damage suffered by the other. We will focus on the
second condition this week: intentionally or negligently or otherwise accountable.
Art. VI.-1:101 DCFR provides two possibilities to hold someone liable or accountable, which are
further defined in Book VI Chapter 3 section 1 and 2, more specifically:
1. Liability for personal misconduct, intentionally or negligently. Relevant articles are:
VI.-1:101(1) and VI.-3:101 or 3:102 DCFR;
2. Otherwise accountable for damage caused by persons/things, e.g. children, employees,
immovables, defective products, animals etc. Relevant articles are: VI.- 1:101 (1) and one of the
articles in Chapter 3 from art. VI.-3:103 to art. VI.-3:208 DCFR.
For a correct answer all relevant articles need to be assessed in order to establish liability for
either personal misconduct or accountability for persons or things! In some cases the person
held accountable has a defense (Chapter 5 DCFR).
Questions DCFR:
1. Abel is a plumber. While repairing the water installation in Ben’s apartment, Abel makes a
mistake and causes water damage to the downstairs neighbour, Caro. Has Caro a right to
reparation from Abel and/or Ben according to the DCFR?
Issue - Has Caro a right to reparation from Abel and/or Ben according to the DCFR?
Rule - VI.-1:101(1) and VI.- 3:102 DCFR
Application - Caro suffered legally relevant damage in the form of water damage due to the
negligence of the plumber. This fulfills paragraph 1. Furthermore Abel negligently caused legally
relevant damage by not meeting the particular standard of care expected by a reasonably
careful person in those circumstances
Conclusion - Caro has the right to compensation from Abel according to DCFR
,Cannot establish liability for ben so do not charge him, charge under tort law for damages
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) yes property damage to
caros apartment
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) Establish causation by stating that his work, or
error in the work, led to the damage occurring. His actions directly led to the result of the
damage
Accountability
Personal accountability
- Intention (VI.-3:101) cannot prove intention because he did not want to cause the
damage and he wasn't certain that result will happen
- Negligence (VI.-3:102 (b)) he doesn't meet the standard of care from a reasonably
careful person under the circumstances of the case. (a) doenst apply because of no
statutory provision.
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3)
Conclusion- Caro can claim damages from Abel
2. Two children, 6 and 8 years old, are playing outdoors with a box of matches and cause a fire
in the garage of one of their neighbours. Repair costs amount to € 30.000.
a. Are the children liable for the damages according to the DFCR?
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and VI.-3:103
Application - the neighbors suffered legally relevant damage in the form of burnt property.
However, looking at 3:103 (2)the child under 7 years old cannot be held accountable for
negligently causing damage. In contrast the other child is held responsible as they are over 7
years old and under 18 years old qualifying for paragraph 1 meaning its reasonable to attribute
causation for negligence as the child did not exercise such care as expected from a reasonably
careful person of the same age in the circumstance.
Conclusion - One of the children is held accountable because they are over 7 years old and the
other isn't
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) property damage
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led consequences
Accountability
Personal accountability
, - Intention (VI.-3:101)
- Negligence (VI.-3:102)
person under 7 years of age cannot be held liable under 3:103 (2). This only applies if they
arent the exception of paragraph 3, where no ne else can be held accountable for the damage
and secondly if it is equitable to expect the person to pay the damages as they have the
financial means
On the other hand looking at 8 year old, 3:103 (1), under 18 over 7 does not exercise such care
as would be expected from a reasonable person their age, in this cae can't really hold him liable
for knowing his actions would lead to fire damage
(ONLY LOOK AT IF IT ASKS IF PARENTS ARE ACCOUNTABLE) Otherwise accountable (book
VI, chapter 3) (VI.-3:104 (1)) children under 14 years means parents are legally responsible and
secondly if they were to commit this as an adult it would be negligent. Therefore parenst are
responsbile unless they can prove no dfective supervisions and they were well supervised
VI.-3:104 (3)
b. Would your answer change if the children were 12 and 14 years old?
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and art. VI.-3:103
Application - In this circumstance both children can be held liable for damages as they are over
7 years old and did not act with the expected care of a reasonably careful person of the same
age in that circumstance
Conclusion - Both children are liable for damages
3. Two friends, A and B, are driving from Utrecht to Amsterdam, the driver (A) disregards the
speed limit and drives 140 km/h instead of 100 km/h. He loses control over the car and crashes
first into another car and then into the barrier alongside the highway. A and his friend B suffer
severe injuries. Can B claim damages from A according to the DCFR?
Rule - VI.-1:101(1) and VI.- 3:102 DCFR (1) and VI.-3:205
Application - A negligently causes legally relevant damage to B through physical injury by not
meeting the particular standard of care provided by traffic laws whose purpose is the protection
of person, by not going over the speed limit
Conclusion - B can claim damages from A
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) personal injury
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led to consequences of crashing car
and hurting person
Accountability
Personal accountability
, - Intention (VI.-3:101)
- Negligence (VI.-3:102)
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3)
If you can't prove intent go to negligence, did not abide by statutory provision f speed limit
- Can also look at otherwise accountable under 3:205 where damage is inucrred in a
traffic accident caused by the use of the vehicle
LOOK CAREFULLY AT THAT PROVISION
Is accountable for damages
4. Menno is mentally handicapped. He had no family and he lives in a nursing home where all of
his personnel affairs are taken care of. One day he is standing on a bridge throwing stones into
the water beneath him (a canal with heavy boat traffic). One of the boats gets damaged. Is
Menno liable for his actions? Answer according to the DCFR.
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and art. VI.-3:104 (2)
Application - Menno caused legally relevant damage by damaging the boat. However as a
person who is mentally handicapped he is placed in a nursing home which is an institution
obliged to supervise a person, as they are incapable of doing so. This makes the nursing home
liable for the property damage to the boat as menno negligently cause the damage, which they
should have supervised as they were in charge of all his affairs
Conclusion - menno is not liable for his actions
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) property damage
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led to consequences of throwing rock
and damaging property (boat)
Accountability
Personal accountability
- Intention (VI.-3:101) Conduct did not aim to harm the boat
- Negligence (VI.-3:102) (b) he did not give sufficient care
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3) 3:104
Apply defence of VI.-5:301 (mental incompetence) however is only related to whether he has
financial means. On the other hand they could say liability is not equitable as it depends of
financial means of mentally handicapped person
5. A group of children comes to Amelia’s house to play with her dog. Lindy, one of the children
falls into the empty pool and gets injured. The fact that the pool was empty was the result of a
- Tort
Subject: Tort law; liability
Introduction: The basic rule for non-contractual liability can be found in art. VI.-1:101 DCFR: ‘a
person who suffers legally relevant damage has a right to reparation from a person who caused
the damage intentionally or negligently or is otherwise accountable for the causation of the
damage.’
To answer the questions below you have to assess the underlined conditions in order to
establish liability or accountability for the damage suffered by the other. We will focus on the
second condition this week: intentionally or negligently or otherwise accountable.
Art. VI.-1:101 DCFR provides two possibilities to hold someone liable or accountable, which are
further defined in Book VI Chapter 3 section 1 and 2, more specifically:
1. Liability for personal misconduct, intentionally or negligently. Relevant articles are:
VI.-1:101(1) and VI.-3:101 or 3:102 DCFR;
2. Otherwise accountable for damage caused by persons/things, e.g. children, employees,
immovables, defective products, animals etc. Relevant articles are: VI.- 1:101 (1) and one of the
articles in Chapter 3 from art. VI.-3:103 to art. VI.-3:208 DCFR.
For a correct answer all relevant articles need to be assessed in order to establish liability for
either personal misconduct or accountability for persons or things! In some cases the person
held accountable has a defense (Chapter 5 DCFR).
Questions DCFR:
1. Abel is a plumber. While repairing the water installation in Ben’s apartment, Abel makes a
mistake and causes water damage to the downstairs neighbour, Caro. Has Caro a right to
reparation from Abel and/or Ben according to the DCFR?
Issue - Has Caro a right to reparation from Abel and/or Ben according to the DCFR?
Rule - VI.-1:101(1) and VI.- 3:102 DCFR
Application - Caro suffered legally relevant damage in the form of water damage due to the
negligence of the plumber. This fulfills paragraph 1. Furthermore Abel negligently caused legally
relevant damage by not meeting the particular standard of care expected by a reasonably
careful person in those circumstances
Conclusion - Caro has the right to compensation from Abel according to DCFR
,Cannot establish liability for ben so do not charge him, charge under tort law for damages
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) yes property damage to
caros apartment
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) Establish causation by stating that his work, or
error in the work, led to the damage occurring. His actions directly led to the result of the
damage
Accountability
Personal accountability
- Intention (VI.-3:101) cannot prove intention because he did not want to cause the
damage and he wasn't certain that result will happen
- Negligence (VI.-3:102 (b)) he doesn't meet the standard of care from a reasonably
careful person under the circumstances of the case. (a) doenst apply because of no
statutory provision.
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3)
Conclusion- Caro can claim damages from Abel
2. Two children, 6 and 8 years old, are playing outdoors with a box of matches and cause a fire
in the garage of one of their neighbours. Repair costs amount to € 30.000.
a. Are the children liable for the damages according to the DFCR?
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and VI.-3:103
Application - the neighbors suffered legally relevant damage in the form of burnt property.
However, looking at 3:103 (2)the child under 7 years old cannot be held accountable for
negligently causing damage. In contrast the other child is held responsible as they are over 7
years old and under 18 years old qualifying for paragraph 1 meaning its reasonable to attribute
causation for negligence as the child did not exercise such care as expected from a reasonably
careful person of the same age in the circumstance.
Conclusion - One of the children is held accountable because they are over 7 years old and the
other isn't
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) property damage
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led consequences
Accountability
Personal accountability
, - Intention (VI.-3:101)
- Negligence (VI.-3:102)
person under 7 years of age cannot be held liable under 3:103 (2). This only applies if they
arent the exception of paragraph 3, where no ne else can be held accountable for the damage
and secondly if it is equitable to expect the person to pay the damages as they have the
financial means
On the other hand looking at 8 year old, 3:103 (1), under 18 over 7 does not exercise such care
as would be expected from a reasonable person their age, in this cae can't really hold him liable
for knowing his actions would lead to fire damage
(ONLY LOOK AT IF IT ASKS IF PARENTS ARE ACCOUNTABLE) Otherwise accountable (book
VI, chapter 3) (VI.-3:104 (1)) children under 14 years means parents are legally responsible and
secondly if they were to commit this as an adult it would be negligent. Therefore parenst are
responsbile unless they can prove no dfective supervisions and they were well supervised
VI.-3:104 (3)
b. Would your answer change if the children were 12 and 14 years old?
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and art. VI.-3:103
Application - In this circumstance both children can be held liable for damages as they are over
7 years old and did not act with the expected care of a reasonably careful person of the same
age in that circumstance
Conclusion - Both children are liable for damages
3. Two friends, A and B, are driving from Utrecht to Amsterdam, the driver (A) disregards the
speed limit and drives 140 km/h instead of 100 km/h. He loses control over the car and crashes
first into another car and then into the barrier alongside the highway. A and his friend B suffer
severe injuries. Can B claim damages from A according to the DCFR?
Rule - VI.-1:101(1) and VI.- 3:102 DCFR (1) and VI.-3:205
Application - A negligently causes legally relevant damage to B through physical injury by not
meeting the particular standard of care provided by traffic laws whose purpose is the protection
of person, by not going over the speed limit
Conclusion - B can claim damages from A
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) personal injury
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led to consequences of crashing car
and hurting person
Accountability
Personal accountability
, - Intention (VI.-3:101)
- Negligence (VI.-3:102)
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3)
If you can't prove intent go to negligence, did not abide by statutory provision f speed limit
- Can also look at otherwise accountable under 3:205 where damage is inucrred in a
traffic accident caused by the use of the vehicle
LOOK CAREFULLY AT THAT PROVISION
Is accountable for damages
4. Menno is mentally handicapped. He had no family and he lives in a nursing home where all of
his personnel affairs are taken care of. One day he is standing on a bridge throwing stones into
the water beneath him (a canal with heavy boat traffic). One of the boats gets damaged. Is
Menno liable for his actions? Answer according to the DCFR.
Rule - VI.- 1:101 (1) and art. VI.-3:104 (2)
Application - Menno caused legally relevant damage by damaging the boat. However as a
person who is mentally handicapped he is placed in a nursing home which is an institution
obliged to supervise a person, as they are incapable of doing so. This makes the nursing home
liable for the property damage to the boat as menno negligently cause the damage, which they
should have supervised as they were in charge of all his affairs
Conclusion - menno is not liable for his actions
Legally relevant damage - property damage, personal injury ( VI.-2:101) property damage
Causation/causal ink → VI.-4:101 (general rule) actions led to consequences of throwing rock
and damaging property (boat)
Accountability
Personal accountability
- Intention (VI.-3:101) Conduct did not aim to harm the boat
- Negligence (VI.-3:102) (b) he did not give sufficient care
Otherwise accountable (book VI, chapter 3) 3:104
Apply defence of VI.-5:301 (mental incompetence) however is only related to whether he has
financial means. On the other hand they could say liability is not equitable as it depends of
financial means of mentally handicapped person
5. A group of children comes to Amelia’s house to play with her dog. Lindy, one of the children
falls into the empty pool and gets injured. The fact that the pool was empty was the result of a
