Готові списки джерел за темами / Tort law. Probability. Causation

Зміст

Статті в журналах
Дисертації
Книги
Частини книг
Тези доповідей конференцій

Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Автор: Grafiati

Опубліковано: 11 березня 2023

Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями

Оберіть тип джерела:

Ознайомтеся зі списками актуальних статей, книг, дисертацій, тез та інших наукових джерел на тему "Tort law. Probability. Causation".

Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.

Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.

Статті в журналах з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Karnaukh, Bohdan. "Proof of Causation in Tort Cases." Studia Iuridica 82 (March 2, 2020): 149–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.9616.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The article addresses the problem of uncertainty over causation in tort cases. It reveals the interconnection between burden of proof and standard of proof. The author provides a comparative overview of approaches to standard of proof in common law and civil law systems. It is argued that while in common law there are two different standards viz: beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard for criminal cases and balanceof-probabilities standard for civil cases in civil law system there is only one standard applicable both to criminal and civil cases. With comparative analysis in the background the article also reveals the peculiarities of Ukrainian law in the respect of the issue raised. The problem is approached in a pragmatic manner: using a hypothetical case the author models practical outcomes entailed by each of the approaches being applied to the case. Eventually the conclusion is made that there are four ways of coping with uncertainty over causation: (1) to reverse the burden of proof; (2) to calibrate the standard of proof for certain cases; (3) to recognize the very creation of the abnormal risk as a compensable damage; and (4) to multiply damage plaintiff sustained by the probability factor indicating the likelihood of the damage being actually caused by the defendant.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Harrison, R. J. "Science/ Law Interactions and the Problem of Causation." Energy & Environment 11, no. 2 (March 2000): 207–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/0958305001500022.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Traditionally tort (personal injury) cases have been regarded as isolated disputes concerned with individual harm, where the law's role was simply to allocate losses between tortfeasor and victim according to principles of corrective justice. With the advent of the toxic tort – a cause of action which arises when a plaintiff has developed a disease following exposure to a toxic agent (chemical or in the form of energy) has come a fundamental challenge to the traditional basis of causation where under negligence or strict liability the toxic tort plaintiff (like all tort plaintiffs) must establish a causal connection between the tortious conduct and the loss for which recovery is sought. When applying the ‘balance of probability’ test to a toxic tort, two potential problems arise. First the test does not work where there are multiple or even alternative possible causes of a plaintiff's injury. Here the burden of proof demands a degree of certainty in excess of fifty per cent in an area where estimates, probabilities and scientific uncertainty are the norm. Second, difficulties occur in trying to establish the origins of the plaintiff's disease, in particular, the biological mechanism responsible for initiating or mobilising the illness. Underlying the basis of all toxic torts, distinct areas of scientific knowledge, grounded in an epistemological and procedural framework provide the evidence upon which the expert offers his opinion. This article examines the problems that such evidence poses for the legal system and reflects on some of the jurisprudential issues that arose in Reay and Hope v British Nuclear Fuels.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Karnaukh, B. P. "Loss of a chance doctrine in american case-law." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, no. 65 (October 25, 2021): 112–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.65.20.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Loss of a chance doctrine is an innovative approach in tort law that allows to circumvent the unprovability of causation by recognizing a new category of compensable harm. According to the doctrine, even when the plaintiff cannot prove the existence of a causal link on the balance of probabilities, he/she nevertheless should be able to claim compensation for the chance of a favorable outcome which he was deprived of (notwithstanding the chance was less than 50 percent). Almost half of the US states have adopted some variation of the doctrine. The adoption of the doctrine was furthered significantly by the arguments presented by Joseph King Jr. First, the doctrine has a clear advantage over the established ‘all-or-nothing’ approach, since it avoids a ‘leap’ from full satisfaction of the claim to complete rejection thereof in cases where the difference between the probability of causation is negligible (51 and 49 percent). Second, without being legally liable for depriving a patient of a less than 50 percent chance, a physician has no legal incentive to take all reasonable care in treating a patient whose chances are lower from the outset. Third, the rigidness of the established approach may lead to manipulation of the basic postulates of tort law, in particular the requirement to prove causation. Fourth, the evidential impasse faced by a patient can be blamed on a negligent physician, since but for the physician’s negligence, there would be no uncertainty as to what caused the harmful out-come. However, even in the states that have adopted the doctrine, the scope of its application remains quite limited and covers primarily cases of medical negligence and cases of discrimination in employment or promotion. There is an ongoing debate among lawyers as to what should be the deciding factor for the applicability of the doctrine: the availability of a wide range of statistics, which is necessary to accurately assess the victim’s chances, or the special nature of the victim-tortfeasor relationship, the very essence of which is to preserve and increase the chances of the victim to get the most favorable result.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Sobczak, Faro. "Proportionality in Tort Law – A Comparison between Dutch and English Laws with Regard to the Problem of Multiple Causation in Asbestos-Related Cases." European Review of Private Law 18, Issue 6 (December 1, 2010): 1155–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/erpl2010083.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract: The problem of compensating a growing number of people who have contracted lung cancer, as a potential consequence of exposure to asbestos, is taxing many legal systems. In most legal systems, it is – in general – up to the claimant to prove all the elements of the liability claim to establish the liability of the tortfeasor. Proving the causation requirement is extremely difficult in asbestos-related cases in which uncertainty arises as to the cause of the damage (multiple causation). This article examines how Dutch and English laws have approached this problem of compensating asbestos victims. Under Dutch law, having previously operated using an ‘all or nothing’ approach, the Dutch Supreme Court recently, in 2006, applied the ‘proportional liability theory’ for the first time to solve such cases. This application of the proportional liability theory has also drawbacks but still leads to the most reasonable results in asbestos-related cases. English law, on the other hand, uses the principle of contributory negligence to award partial compensation. As opposed to English law, where only the employee’s smoking history is taken into account to reduce the total amount of compensation, Dutch law does also take into account other factors to assess the probability that asbestos has caused the claimant’s lung cancer. At this moment, we have to recognize and realize that there is simply no perfect solution available to solve such complex cases due to the lack of medical science. Résumé : De nombreux systèmes légaux sont confrontés au problème de l’indemnisation d’un nombre croissant de personnes ayant contracté un cancer du poumon, comme conséquence probable d’une exposition à l’amiante. Dans la plupart des systèmes de droit, c’est – en général – au plaignant de prouver tous les éléments de l’action en responsabilité pour établir la responsabilité de l’auteur du dommage. La preuve du lien de causalité est extrêmement difficile à établir dans les cas relatifs à l’amiante dans la mesure où il y a beaucoup d’incertitude quant à la cause du dommage (causes multiples). Le présent article examine l’approche en droit néerlandais et en droit anglais de ce problème d’indemnisation des victimes de l’amiante. Le droit néerlandais a d’abord choisi une approche du « tout ou rien », mais la Cour de Cassation néerlandaise a récemment, en 2006, appliqué pour la première fois la théorie de la responsabilité proportionnelle pour résoudre de tels cas. Si l’application de la théorie de la responsabilité proportionnelle a aussi des inconvénients, elle conduit toutefois aux résultats les plus raisonnables dans les cas relatifs à l’amiante. A l’opposé du droit anglais, où les antécédents de l’employé, fumeur, sont pris en compte pour réduire le montant total de l’indemnisation, le droit néerlandais prend aussi en compte d’autres facteurs pour évaluer la probabilité que l’amiante a bien été la cause du cancer du poumon du plaignant. A l’heure actuelle, nous devons bien reconnaître et admettre qu’il n’existe pas de solution parfaite permettant de résoudre des cas aussi complexes, ceci étant dû aux déficiences de la science médicale.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Geiger, Stefan, and Constantin Kruse. "House of Lords 3 May 2006, Barker v. Corus Neue Impulse für das Europäische Deliktsrecht vom House of Lords." European Review of Private Law 16, Issue 2 (April 1, 2008): 339–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/erpl2008026.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract: With Barker v. Corus, the House of Lords has given fresh impetus to European Tort Law. After having affirmed liability in cases of alternative liability in Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services and Others, it has now engaged with the concept of liability due to mere probability. Thus, the importance of the dogma of causation and of the dogma of the injured person’s established right for compensation has decreased considerably. The consequences for the law of liability and for the insurance industry are unforeseeable. Résumé: Avec Barker v. Corus, la House of Lords a de nouveau impulsé le droit européen de la responsabilité délictuelle. Après avoir affi rmé la responsabilité en cas decausalité alternative avec Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services and Others, elle s?est maintenant, avec des conséquences qui ne sont pas encore prévisibles ni pour le droit de la responsabilité civile ni pour les sociétés d?assurance, engagée avec le concept de responsabilité en raison de probabilité. Ainsi, et le dogme de la causalité et le dogme du droit établi du sinistré à la réparation ont perdu considérablement de leur importance. Zusammenfassung: Mit Barker v. Corus hat das House of Lords dem europäischen Deliktsrecht einen neuen Impuls gegeben. Nachdem es bereits in Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services and Others die Haftung bei alternativer Kausalität bejaht hatte, hat es sich nun, mit noch nicht absehbaren Folgen für das Haftungsrecht und die Versicherungswirtschaft, auf das Konzept einer Wahrscheinlichkeitshaftung eingelassen. Das Kausalitätsdogma und das Dogma von der feststehenden Ersatzberechtigung des Geschädigten haben damit erheblich an Bedeutung verloren.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Wright, Richard W. "Causation in Tort Law." California Law Review 73, no. 6 (December 1985): 1735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3480373.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Карнаух, Богдан Петрович. "Overdetermined Causation in Tort Law." Problems of Legality, no. 150 (September 29, 2020): 67–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.150.209744.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Hee-Ho Pak. "Causation in EC Tort Law." HUFS Law Review 34, no. 2 (May 2010): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2010.34.2.1.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Page, Joseph A. "Causation in European Tort Law." American Journal of Comparative Law 66, no. 3 (September 2018): 718–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avy035.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Clarke, Desmond M. "Causation and Liability in Tort Law." Jurisprudence 5, no. 2 (December 31, 2014): 217–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/20403313.5.2.217.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Більше джерел

Дисертації з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Infantino, Marta. "Comparative Law of causation in Tort Law." IUS ET VERITAS, 2014. http://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/123595.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

this article analyzes the causal element of torts from the perspective of comparative law, focusing on the field of tort liability. Thus, it specifies both the particular aspects of the investigation as well as each legal system studied. then, the article discusses the differences and similarities of each system. Later, it stops on the dominant approaches examining its success on facing the tort phenomenon in order to highlight the essential characteristics that determine the various approaches tort liability can assume.
El presente artículo analiza el elemento causal de la responsabilidad civil desde una perspectiva de derecho comparado, haciendo énfasis sobre el campo de la responsabilidad aquiliana. Así, precisando tanto los aspectos particulares de la propia investigación como de cada Ordenamiento Jurídico estudiado, el artículo aborda las diferencias y similitudes de cada Ordenamiento. De esta forma, se detiene sobre los enfoques dominantes examinando la capacidad de los mismos. Ello con la finalidad de evidenciar las características esenciales que determinan los diversos alcances que puede asumir la responsabilidad aquiliana.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Steel, Alexander. "Exceptional proof of causation doctrines in tort law." Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2012. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.610872.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Pappalardo, Kylie M. "A tort law framework for copyright authorisation." Thesis, Australian Catholic University, 2016. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/102226/1/Kylie%20Pappalardo%2C%20A%20Tort%20Law%20Framework%20for%20Copyright%20Authorisation.pdf.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This thesis considers whether, and in what circumstances, internet services providers should be held liable when internet users download and share copyright infringing film and music files. The research draws from the law’s focus on personal responsibility to argue that ISPs should only be under a duty to take steps to prevent infringement where they have created the risk of infringement or where they have significant control over the primary infringers and their actions. Concepts of fault, responsibility, causation and control are analysed in the context of copyright and negligence cases to provide a robust analytical framework for determining copyright liability in the online environment.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Golru, Sara. "Judging Your Genome: Adducing Genetic Evidence to Support or Refute Causation in Australian and American Toxic Tort Litigation." Thesis, The University of Sydney, 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/29777.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This thesis answers the following question, ‘Does genetic information alleviate or exacerbate the causal uncertainty in toxic torts?’ In doing so, it provides an original contribution to knowledge, by critically examining Australian and United States (‘US') case law and literature focusing on genetic evidence in toxic torts. A comprehensive analysis of the case law and literature is vital to inform best practice for the future by identifying the past, present and predicted impact and challenges of genetic evidence. The comparative case law analysis has ultimately demonstrated that, if used properly, this evidence could shed light on causation, especially when viewed alongside all the other available evidence. However, without further guidance on the utility of such markers, this evidence will only further confuse and mislead the judge or jury. This could exacerbate the problem of causal indeterminacy, leading to inconsistent case outcomes and posing further obstacles to meritorious claims. This thesis therefore concludes that there is a strong need for practice-oriented instruments designed to assist courts, legal professionals and litigants in considering the strengths and weaknesses of genetic markers as a means of proving or disproving causation. As articulated throughout the thesis, a Reference Guide would help to ensure that the probative value of genetic evidence is properly weighed against any potential harms. The proposed guide would mimic the structure and contents of Chapters 4-7 of this thesis, containing a comprehensive survey of the case law and literature, and a detailed explanation and analysis of both the legal and scientific issues pertaining to genetic evidence. The findings outlined in this thesis extend to a wide variety of legal areas where health-related genetic evidence is likely to be used including medical negligence, employment law, criminal law, family law and insurance claims (such as workers’ compensation or life insurance).

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Turton, Gemma. "A critical analysis of the current approach of the courts and academics to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in tort law." Thesis, University of Birmingham, 2013. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/3943/.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The primary aim of this thesis is to identify a coherent legal response to the particular causal problem of the ‘evidentiary gap’. In order to do this, it is necessary to understand how the ‘evidentiary gap’ relates to causation in negligence more generally, so the thesis addresses both the nature and function of the tort of negligence as well as the role played by causation within that tort. It argues that negligence is best understood as a system of corrective justice-based interpersonal responsibility. In this account, causation has a vital role so the test of causation must be philosophically sound. Causation, however, also occupies only a limited role so analysis must draw fully on the doctrines of damage and breach which bracket the causation inquiry, as well as notions of quantification of loss. The NESS test for causation is shown to be preferable to the but-for test because it is conceptually more adequate and therefore able to address causal problems that the but-for test cannot. This thesis rejects claims for proportionate recovery based on the notion of loss of a chance of avoiding physical harm in medical negligence, but proposes limited recovery for loss of a chance as an independent form of damage arising because of unique considerations of interpersonal responsibility in the doctor-patient relationship in cases of misdiagnosis/ mistreatment of existing illness. It is argued that the Fairchild test of material contribution to risk of harm in cases of evidentiary gap is not consistent with corrective justice, and that this cannot be resolved by reconceptualising the gist of the action as the risk of harm. The Fairchild exception lacks coherence because of its instrumentalist basis, so should not be applied outside of the mesothelioma context.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Higa, Flávio da Costa. "A perda de uma chance no direito do trabalho." Universidade de São Paulo, 2011. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2138/tde-03092012-085655/.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

A responsabilidade civil vem sofrendo constante evolução no sentido de aumentar o campo de reparação do dano injusto, o que provocou uma ruptura paradigmática em seus pressupostos, centrando suas preocupações na indenização à vítima. Nesse contexto, vem ganhando relevo a teoria da perda de uma chance, consistente na possibilidade de reparar o dano causado pela privação da oportunidade de obter um benefício ou de evitar um prejuízo. Outrora irreparável, por ser considerado um prejuízo meramente hipotético, a chance passou a ser reputada, pela jurisprudência, uma entidade própria, substantiva em si mesma, e dotada de valor econômico. O Direito modificou a maneira de interagir com a álea, antes, repelindo-a, e, agora, absorvendo-a e levando-a em consideração no julgamento. O trabalho, uma das maiores fontes de afirmação e expressão da cidadania, também merece uma tutela especial, de modo a resguardar os princípios constitucionais da dignidade da pessoa humana, do valor social do trabalho e da livre iniciativa. Diante disso, não há como o Direito do Trabalho ficar alijado da doutrina das oportunidades perdidas, pois ambos os sujeitos da relação capital e trabalho podem sofrer essa modalidade de ofensa, cuja reparação se impõe como conquista sintomática da evoluçãosocial. Portanto, a análise da imbricação epistemológica entre esses dois fenômenos a perda de uma chance e o Direito do Trabalho , com a explicação dos seus condicionamentos, a sistematização das suas relações, o esclarecimento dos seus vínculos, e a avaliação dos seus resultados e aplicações, constitui o objeto desse estudo, cuja importância se revela, desde logo, a partir do acentuado descompasso entre o atual estado de ebulição jurisprudencial que o tema experimenta e a absoluta escassez de material doutrinário específico.
Tort liability has been in constant evolution by way of increasing the field of unfair damage recovery, which has caused a paradigmatic breach in its presupposition, centralizing on its concern for the indemnity of the victim. In this context, the loss-of-achance- doctrine has been gaining importance. This theory consists of the possibility of repairing the damage caused by the privation of the opportunity to obtain a benefit or avoid a loss. Formerly irreparable for being considered merely a hypothetical loss, the chance became reputed by jurisprudence, a personal entity, substantive in itself and endowed with economic value. The law changed the way of interacting with the alea, formerly repelling it, and now, absorbing it and taking it into consideration in the trial. The labor, one of the greatest sources of affirmation and expression of the citizen, also deserves special defense so as to protect the constitutional principles of the dignity of the human being, the social value of labor and free initiative. Thus, there is no way for the Labor Law to be disabled of the doctrine of lost opportunities, because both subjects of the capital and labor relation can suffer this modality of injury, whose reparation instills itself as a symptomatic conquest of the social evolution. Therefore, an analysis of the epistemological imbrications between these two phenomena the loss-of-a-chance and the Labor Law , with the explanation of their contingents , and the systemization of their relations, the enlightenment of their bonds, and the evaluation of their results and applications, constitute the objective of this study, whose importance is revealed, as of now, from the accentuated disorder between the current state of ebullient jurisprudence that the theme has been undergoing and the absolute scarcity of specific doctrinal material.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Caselta, Daniel Costa. "Responsabilidade civil por danos decorrentes da prática de cartel." Universidade de São Paulo, 2015. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2132/tde-09112015-114806/.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

A presente dissertação de mestrado visa a estudar a responsabilidade civil por danos decorrentes da prática de cartel, a qual é considerada como a mais grave infração à ordem econômica. No primeiro capítulo, o fenômeno do cartel é estudado sob a perspectiva econômica, analisando-se as principais características e efeitos da conduta. No segundo capítulo, examina-se a disciplina jurídica do cartel no direito brasileiro, estudando-se as normas que preveem a responsabilização pela prática de cartel na lei concorrencial e na esfera penal. O terceiro capítulo pretende analisar os objetivos e o papel da responsabilidade civil no contexto mais amplo da política de defesa da concorrência. O quarto capítulo estuda a reparação civil dos danos decorrentes do cartel no direito federal norte-americano e no direito comunitário europeu. O quinto capítulo examina a responsabilidade civil por danos decorrentes da prática de cartel no direito brasileiro. Nesse contexto, são examinados os pressupostos da reparação civil (ato ilícito, culpa, nexo causal e dano), a legitimidade ativa e passiva para as ações indenizatórias, a interação entre a responsabilidade civil e o programa de leniência, bem como a prescrição da pretensão indenizatória. No sexto capítulo, são analisadas algumas propostas de reforma do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro para aperfeiçoamento do sistema de reparação civil em matéria de cartel. Finalmente, a conclusão procura expor de maneira sistematizada as principais ideias apresentadas ao longo do trabalho, bem como avaliar o estágio atual da responsabilidade civil por danos decorrentes da prática de cartel no direito brasileiro.
This dissertation aims to study the civil liability for damages arising from cartel behavior, which is considered the most serious antitrust violation. The first chapter studies the cartel from an economic perspective, analyzing the key features and effects of the conduct. The second chapter examines the legal framework regarding cartel behavior under Brazilian law, by studying the rules that provide for the responsibility for cartel under antitrust law and at the criminal level. The third chapter aims to analyze the objectives and the role of civil liability in the broader context of antitrust policy. The fourth chapter studies the civil liability for damages arising from cartel behavior in US federal law and European Community law. The fifth chapter examines the civil liability for damages resulting from cartel behavior in Brazilian law. In this context, the chapter examines the requisites for civil liability (tort, fault, causation and damage), standing to sue and to be sued, the interaction between the indemnification claims and the leniency program, as well as the statute of limitations. The sixth chapter discusses some proposals to reform the Brazilian legal framework with the purpose of improving the system of civil liability concerning cartel behavior. Finally, the conclusion seeks to expose in a systematic way the main ideas presented throughout the work, and to assess the current state of civil liability for damages resulting from cartel behavior in Brazilian law.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Ball, Eli Byron Stuart. "Enrichment at the claimant's expense : attribution rules in unjust enrichment." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2014. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:dc066712-fd0c-4d4f-81ad-dfbbb1805acf.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This thesis presents an account of attribution in unjust enrichment. Attribution refers to how and when two parties – a claimant and a defendant – are relevantly connected to each other for unjust enrichment purposes. It is reflected in the familiar expression that a defendant be 'enriched at the claimant's expense'. This thesis presents a structured account of attribution, consisting of two requirements: first, the identification of an enrichment to the defendant and a loss to the claimant; and, secondly, the identification of a connection between that enrichment and that loss. These two requirements must be kept separate from other considerations often subsumed within the expression 'enrichment at the claimant's expense' which in truth have nothing to do with attribution, and which instead qualify unjust enrichment liability for reasons that should be analysed in their own terms. The structure of attribution so presented fits a normative account of unjust enrichment based upon each party's exchange capacities. A defendant is enriched when he receives something that he has not paid for under prevailing market conditions, while a claimant suffers a loss when he loses the opportunity to charge for something under the same conditions. A counterfactual test – asking whether enrichment and loss arise 'but for' each other – provides the best generalisation for testing whether enrichment and loss are connected, thereby satisfying the requirements of attribution in unjust enrichment. The law is stated as at 15 March 2014.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Piñeiro, Salguero José. "Responsabilidad civil y deporte." Doctoral thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/7310.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

La tesi doctoral Responsabilidad civil y deporte analitza el marc regulatori esportiu i, en particular, les normes aplicables als accidents esportius, així com els criteris d'imputació emprats pels tribunals a l'hora de resoldre aquests supòsits.

S'examina en detall la jurisprudència del Tribunal Suprem i la jurisprudència menor espanyola i també, encara que de forma menys exhaustiva, la jurisprudència de les diferents jurisdiccions dels EUA. En ambdós casos es parteix del subjecte responsable de l'accident.

Les conclusions bàsiques del treball apunten a què el criteri d'imputació central als accidents esportius és l'assumpció dels riscs inherents a la seva pràctica per part dels esportistes. Així mateix, la diligència exigida als esportistes és menor que la diligència del bon pare de família prevista a l'art. 1104 CC, mentre que a les institucions encarregades d'organitzar o allotjar l'esdeveniment, se'ls exigeix un nivell de diligència superior.
La tesis doctoral Responsabilidad civil y deporte analiza el marco regulatorio deportivo y, en particular, las normas aplicables a los accidentes deportivos, así como los criterios utilizados por los tribunales para resolver estos supuestos.

Se examina en detalle la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo y la jurisprudencia menor española y también, aunque en menor medida, la jurisprudencia de las diferentes jurisdicciones de los EEUU. En ambos casos se parte del sujeto responsable del accidente.

Las conclusiones básicas del trabajo apuntan a que el criterio de imputación central en los accidentes deportivos es la asunción de los riesgos inherentes a su práctica por parte de los deportistas. Asimismo, la diligencia exigida a los deportistas es menor que la diligencia del buen padre de familia prevista en el art. 1104 CC, mientras que a las instituciones encargadas de organizar o albergar el evento se les exige un nivel de diligencia superior.
The PhD dissertation Responsabilidad civil y deporte explores the regulatory framework of sports and, above all, the rules governing sports accidents, as well as the criteria used by courts in order to solve litigation in this area.

It provides a detailed survey of the case-law by the Spanish Supreme Court and other Spanish courts, as well as the decisions delivered by courts from different U.S. jurisdictions. In both discussions, the standpoint used to sort out the different cases concern the subject who is held liable for the accident.

The basic conclusions of the research assert that proximate causation in sports accidents resorts to the idea of assumption of the activity's inherent risks by the sportsmen. Sportsman's duty of care is less than the "good father's standard of care" set forth in Section 1104 of the Spanish Civil Code, whereas a higher level of care is demanded to sports events organizers.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Amaro, Rafael. "Le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles : Étude des contentieux privés autonome et complémentaire devant les juridictions judiciaires." Thesis, Paris 5, 2012. http://www.theses.fr/2012PA05D014.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

L’actualisation des données sur le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles fait naître laconviction que l’état de sous-développement souvent pointé est aujourd’hui dépassé. Les statistiquessont nettes : des dizaines d’affaires sont plaidées chaque année. Toutefois, ce contentieux s’esquissesous des traits qui ne sont pas exactement ceux du contentieux indemnitaire de masse faisant suite àla commission d’ententes internationales. C’est un fait majeur qui doit être noté car l’essentiel desprojets de réforme furent bâtis sur cet idéal type. Trois des caractères les plus saillants de la réalitéjudiciaire témoignent de cette fracture entre droit positif et droit prospectif. D’abord, le contentieuxprivé est majoritairement un contentieux contractuel entre professionnels aux forces déséquilibrées. Ensuite, c’estun contentieux national – voire local – plus qu’un contentieux international. Enfin, c’est plutôt uncontentieux autonome se déployant devant les juridictions judiciaires sans procédure préalable oupostérieure des autorités de concurrence (stand alone). Paradoxalement, les actions complémentaires(follow-on), pourtant réputées d’une mise en oeuvre aisée, sont plus rares. Ces observations invitentalors à réviser l’ordre des priorités de toute réflexion prospective. Ainsi, la lutte contre l’asymétried’informations et de moyens entre litigants, l’essor de sanctions contractuelles efficaces, larecomposition du rôle des autorités juridictionnelles et administratives dans le procès civil ou encorele développement des procédures de référé s’imposent avec urgence. Mais s’il paraît légitime desoutenir ce contentieux autonome déjà existant, il n’en reste pas moins utile de participer à laréflexion déjà amorcée pour développer le contentieux indemnitaire de masse tant attendu et dont onne peut négliger les atouts. De lege ferenda, le contentieux privé de demain présenterait donc uncaractère bicéphale ; il serait à la fois autonome et complémentaire. Il faut alors tenter de concevoir unrégime efficace pour ces deux moutures du contentieux privé en tenant compte de leurs exigencesrespectives. Or l’analyse positive et prospective de leurs fonctions révèlent que contentieuxautonome et contentieux complémentaire s’illustrent autant par les fonctions qu’ils partagent que parcelles qui les distinguent. Il serait donc excessif de vouloir en tous points leur faire application derègles particulières ou, à l’inverse, de règles identiques. C’est donc vers l’élaboration d’un régime commun complété par un régime particulier à chacun d’eux que s’orientera la présente recherche.PREMIÈRE PARTIE. Le régime commun aux contentieux privés autonome et complémentaireSECONDE PARTIE. Le régime particulier à chacun des contentieux privés autonome et complémentaire
Pas de résumé en anglais

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Книги з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Martin-Casals, Miquel, and Diego M. Papayannis, eds. Uncertain Causation in Tort Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316414774.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

1950-, Spier Jaap, Busnelli Francesco Donato, and European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law., eds. Unification of tort law: Causation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Maleski, David J. Proof of causation in private tort actions in Georgia. Norcross, GA (3110 Crossing Park, Norcross 30091-7500): Harrison Co., 1986.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

N, Watts Fraser, ed. Creation: Law and probability. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

American Bar Association. Section of Litigation., ed. Evidentiary issues raised by the use of expert witnesses to prove causation and damages in business tort cases. [Chicago, Ill.]: American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, 1998.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education., ed. Proof of causation and damages in toxic tort cases: October 20, 1988 via satellite to 50 + cities : ALI-ABA course of study materials. Philadelphia PA (4025 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia 19104): American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 1988.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Infantino, Marta, and Eleni Zervogianni. Causation in European Tort Law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Infantino, Marta, and Eleni Zervogianni, eds. Causation in European Tort Law. Cambridge University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108289887.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Causation in European Tort Law. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Papayannis, Diego M., and Miquel Martín-Casals. Uncertain Causation in Tort Law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Більше джерел

Частини книг з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Kadner Graziano, Thomas. "Liability in cases of uncertain causation – “all or nothing” or partial compensation in relation to the probability of causation?" In Comparative Tort Law, 277–316. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2018.: Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203705551-10.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Hughes-Davies, Timon, and Nathan Tamblyn. "Negligence: Causation." In Tort Law, 69–92. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge spotlights: Routledge, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315149097-4.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Greene, Brendan. "Negligence: Causation." In Optimize Tort Law, 37–54. New York: Routledge, 2017. | Series: Optimize: Routledge, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315410258-3.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Busnelli, Francesco D., Giovanni Comandé, Herman Cousy, Dan B. Dobbs, Bill W. Dufwa, Michael G. Faure, Israel Gilead, et al. "Causation." In Principles of European Tort Law, 43–63. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-211-27751-x_4.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Shavell, Steven. "Causation and Tort Liability." In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, 211–14. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_45.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Koch, Bernhard A. "Alternatives to Full Proof of Causation." In Tort and Insurance Law, 360–66. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0601-3_15.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Laws, Wendy. "Negligence: causation of damage and remoteness." In Essential Tort Law for SQE1, 55–74. London: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003133698-10.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Wright, Richard W. "Proving Facts: Belief versus Probability." In Tort and Insurance Law, 79–105. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92798-4_5.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Koziol, Helmut. "Problems of Alternative Causation in Tort Law." In Developments in Austrian and Israeli Private Law, 177–85. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6812-7_12.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Gilead, Israel. "Causation, Risk and “Evidential Loss” in Israeli Tort Law." In Developments in Austrian and Israeli Private Law, 187–96. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6812-7_13.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Тези доповідей конференцій з теми "Tort law. Probability. Causation"

Cooke, Roger, and Cor Kraaikamp. "Risk Analysis and Jurisprudence: A Recent Example." In ASME 2000 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/imece2000-1024.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract We discuss a recent incident in which risk analysts appeared as expert witnesses in a civil tort case. The problems which this generated illustrate how the role of expert witness has drifted away from its traditional mooring. Unclarities on both sides of the bench with regard to the difference between subjective and objective probability combined with fallacies of probabilistic reasoning give pause to those who might expect a rapid entry of risk analysis into tort law and jurisprudence.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Kačer, Blanka, and Hrvoje Vojković. "Pravno adekvatna uzročnost u slučajevima građanskopravne odgovornosti zbog povrede medicinskog standarda (uključujući informirani pristanak na temelju podataka dobivenih od robota)." In XVI Majsko savetovanje. University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Law, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.46793/upk20.633k.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

In the context of the civil law liability for medical malpractice, the concept of legally adequate causality in Croatian, Serbian and Slovenian law practice is a synthesis of several legally theoretical approaches and includes elements of the theory of natural (factual causality) and the theory of the protective aim of the norm. In this sense, the theory of legally adequate causality appears as the optimal legal construct for the determination of legally relevant causality, since the application of each of the above theoretical models does not separately determine the closest possible cause - causa proxima. Only by interpolating the concepts of factual causation and the protective objective of the norm within the legal construction of adequate causality, do real assumptions be made to establish a legally relevant cause with the characteristic of a qualified degree of probability. Adequate causation theory is an advanced theory of natural causation that combines essential elements of other causal models, thus enables the effective and credible identification of the closest and adequate cause whose regular effect is attributed to a certain harmful consequence. At the end of the paper, doubts were raised regarding the (in)applicability of the conclusions (all or part) to the no-fault liability where the causal nexus was differently regulated, and to the role of the robot in informed consent. At the end of the paper, doubts were raised regarding the (in)applicability of the conclusions (all or part) to the no-fault liability where the causal nexus was differently regulated, and to the role of the robot in informed consent.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Ми пропонуємо знижки на всі преміум-плани для авторів, чиї праці увійшли до тематичних добірок літератури. Зв'яжіться з нами, щоб отримати унікальний промокод!