Bernhard A. Koch – författare

The increasing Europeanisation of the law of delict/torts has produced textbooks, casebooks, monographs, and also sets of model rules of a genuinely European character. A major gap still existing today relates to the experiences gathered in the national legal systems over the past decades. The present work attempts to fill this gap for one key element of tort law: the notion of damage. It thus does what the previous volume in the ‘Digest of European Tort Law’ series did for another key element, ie natural causation. Once again, the publication contains a selection of the most important cases decided in26 states across Europe as well as by the European Court of Justice. For each case the facts and the relevant court decision are presented, and the decision is analysed within the wider context of the development of the respective legal system. In addition, the editors provide comparative analyses of the case law reported in this volume concerning all the specific problems raised under the heading of damage. The publication also looks into how key cases would be resolved under the European model rules drafted in the field of tort law; and it also highlights cases from earlier periods of legal history.The editors believe that the material gathered here may provide guidance for an organic convergence of the national legal systems in Europe. It constitutes the basis of an acquis commun that is infinitely richer (though also much more complex) than the rather bland and abstract concepts contained in national codifications, European legislation, and the modern model rules.

Ten years after the first study published in this field by the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law, liability for medical malpractice is still a hot topic throughout Europe and it continues to expand and develop. In order to provide an update on the current situation across European legal systems, this book includes fourteen country reports authored by renowned experts from each legal system. In addition to providing a theoretical survey of key issues, each contributor also analyzed six hypotheticals based on actual cases, thereby also providing practical guidance on major aspects of liability claims. A concluding comparative analysis highlights commonalities and differences in the liability rules employed, dispute resolution procedures and the insurance background.

Causal uncertainty is a wide-spread phenomenon. Courts are often unable to determine whether a defendant’s tortious conduct was a factual cause of a plaintiff’s harm. Yet, sometimes courts can determine the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm, although often there is considerable variance in the probability estimate based on the available evidence. The conventional way to cope with this uncertainty has been to apply the evidentiary rule of ‘standard of proof’.

The application of this ‘all or nothing’ rule can lead to unfairness by absolving defendants who acted tortiously and may also create undesirable incentives that result in greater wrongful conduct and injustice to victims. Some courts have decided that this ‘no-liability’ outcome is undesirable. They have adopted rules of proportional liability that compensate plaintiffs according to the probability that their harm was caused by the defendant’s tortious conduct.

In 2005 the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) made a breakthrough in this regard by embracing rules of proportional liability. This project, building on PETL, endeavours to make further inquiries into the desirable scope of proportional liability and to offer a more detailed view of its meaning, implications, and ramifications.

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 debate about the use of genetically modified organisms in European agriculture is fuelled by the fear of the general public about potential risks of GM farming, whether substantiated or not. Transgenic food is suspected to cause bodily harm, have a negative impact upon the health of animals, weaken the productivity of conventional farmland, reduce biodiversity or otherwise deteriorate the environment, to name but a few dangers popping up in the public debate.Apart from setting standards for GM farming and requiring safety checks for transgenic products, all jurisdictions also provide for the case that such risks should materialize. These are not necessarily novel approaches - classic tort law already offers remedies for such losses. Sometimes these traditional solutions are enhanced or replaced by alternative redress schemes. This volume compares twenty European and four non-European jurisdictions in this respect and provides special analyses from an economic and insurance perspective as well as surveys of cross-border dispute resolution and international law.