Summary Contract and Tort Law - Lecture, Working Group and Exam Prep Notes
37 views 2 purchases
Course
RGPPR50205 (RGPPR50205)
Institution
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
This document contains all necessary information gathered from Contract and Tort law lectures, working groups and includes exam structure revision notes.
VI.-1:101 DCFR = basic rule for when we can hold someone accountable for the damage they have
caused.
Conditions to hold someone liable: 1. caused damage intentionally/negligently/or be held otherwise
accountable for. 2. Causation effect = not necessarily direct but if it were not for your actions it would
not have happened. Legally relevant damage = Book VI, Chapter 2.
Criteria:
Legally relevant damage?
Causation?
Accountability?
- Personal accountability?
- Intention?/
- Negligence?/
- Otherwise accountable? (strict liability too)
VI.-3:101 DCFR = Intention. Two categories.
VI.-3:102 DCFR = Negligence. Two categories.
*Contract law is relevant when there is a contractual relationship between A and B.
*ALWAYS start with establishing intention => then, establish negligence (this is because having proved
intention more money is earned).
VI.-3:103 DCFR = Persons under 18. Under 18 you may be liable for causing damage by negligence
VI.-3:102 DCFR. Under 18 years of age not accountable for causing damage intentionally.
VI.3:104 DCFR = Otherwise accountable (holding parents accountable) damage caused by a minor that
would constitute intention or negligence that would be constituted as so by an adult. However this does
not apply if the child is not under 14 years of age; or if they prove they were adequately supervising
the children.
,Vi.-3:205 DCFR = Accountability for damage caused by a motor vehicle. As soon as you become a
keeper of a motor vehicle you may be accountable for the caused injury and consequential loss.
VI.-5:301 DCFR = Mental Incompetence: lacking sufficient insight into the nature of his conduct at the
time of conduct, unless it is a temporary result of the misconduct (intoxication).
VI.-3:202 DCFR = Accountability for damage caused by the unsafe state of an immovable. Owner is
accountable if the state of the immovable does not ensure safety of a person near the immovable.
Nature, access, cost of avoiding.
VI.-3:201 DCFR = Accountability for damage caused by employees and representatives. Has to happen
in the course of the employment, intentionally/negligently.
Directive 85/374/EEC = main rule: producer is liable for damage caused by the defect of his product.
Producer, supplier, importer may be held liable. If the producer is not identified => supplier is liable.
Tort Law Lecture 2
DONOGHUNE V. STEPHENSON 1932 All ER 1
Friend => owner of the cafe = contract
Mrs. Donoghue => producer = no contractual relationship, she cannot sue the producer because she did
not pay. Mrs. Donoghue can sue her friend.
- Duty of care: you are to love your neighbour. Test for duty of care: avoiding acts of mission which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
, 1. Foreseeability.
2. Proximity.
3. Fair, just, and reasonable.
Product Liability EU law: Directive that states that a producer is liable for loss suffered by consumer
due to the product: property damage, personal injury. Producer is STRICTLY liable, liable without
negligence.
Examples of strict liability:
- The wind blows a tile from a roof that hits someone passing by => the owner of the house is strictly
liable.
- A dog out of the blue bites a child => owner is strictly liable.
- Child is playing in the street, kicking a ball that breaks a window => parents are strictly liable.
- A truck driver causes an accident due to fatigue => the employer is strictly liable.
Justifications for strict liability:
- victims cannot easily prove negligence.
- preventative effect (punishing employees that do not follow instruction).
- profit /advantage on the part of the owner, parent, employer (creating risk and profiting from it is
wrong).
- loss spreading capacity/insurance.
- control.
GARDE DES SCEAUX V. BANQUE POPULAIRE, CONSEIL D'ÉTATS: prisoners enjoying some liberty, they
rob bank, bank sues the ministry of justice for compensation. The court said that there was an equality
of citizens before public burdens = individuals should not be sacrificed on the altar of general interests.
The state was liable.
All victims are direct victims in terms of strict liability.
Indirect victims. If a ball hits the surface and hits something else (principle of secondary losses).
Categories:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller yevaaa. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.10. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
