Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:38:18.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protected Interests in The Law of Torts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

K. Lipstein
Get access

Extract

Introduction: TheProblems

(1) Whichever is taken as the point of departure, a general principle of liability for injurious acts done intentionally or negligently, or a catalogue of individual protected interests, and whatever the wish to establish criteria of general liability, a comparison between some of the leading systems of the law of the Western World—both civil and common law—shows that it is impossible to get away from the individual situation, irrespective of the force of an existing, or the desire for the creation of, a general principle.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , April 1963 , pp. 85 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Esser. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 1961, p. 481 at p. 488, and see BGHZ 27, 137 (1958).Google Scholar

2 For some recent discussions, see von Caemmerer, 100 Jahre Deutsches Rechtsleben (1960)Google Scholar, II, 49; Esser, Revue Internationale de droit comparé, 1961, p. 481. Mazeaud & Tunc, Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile, 5th ed., 1957–60; Seavey (1942) 56 Harv.L.R. 72, 81; C. Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 50; Braybrook (1957–59) 4 Annual L.R.U.W.Australia 209; Heuston (1959) 2 Univ. of Melbourne L.R. 34; F. James (1958) 8 Buffalo L.R. 315, 321, 325; Keeton (1959) 72 Harv.L.R. 401; Ward (1956) 42 Cornell L.R. 28; Pedrick, C. A. Wright and Heuston in (1961) Journal of The Society of Public Teachers of Law, 12–35; Reinhardt, Juristenzeitung, 1961, 713; Raiser, ibid. 1961, 464, 469.

3 For American practice see Magruder (1936) 49 Harv.L.R. 1033 at p. 1045 et seq.

4 Aachen, January 12, 1949, N.J.W. 1950, 759.

5 Bohlen (1902) 41 Am.L.Reg.(n.s.) 141; Magruder (1936) 49 Harv.L.R. 1033; Prosser (1939) 37 Mich.L.R. 874; Goodhart (1953) 69 L.Q.R. 347; F. James (1958) 8 Buffalo L.R. 315, 335; C. Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 65; (1957) 4 S.P.T.L. 30; Brody (1961–62) Villanova L.R. 232.

6 Janvier v. Sweeney [1919] 2 K.B. 316Google Scholar; Owens v. Liverpool Corp. [1939] 1 K.B. 394Google Scholar; Hambrook v. Stokes [1925] 1 K.B. 141Google Scholar; King v. Phillips [1952] 2 All E.R. 459Google Scholar (McNair J.); [1953] 1 Q.B. 429 (C.A.); Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 92Google Scholar; Bielitski v. Obadiak (1922) 65 D.L.R. 627Google Scholar. But see Mitchell v. Rochester Ry., 151 N.Y. 107; 45 N.E. 354 (1896), and the cases cited (1959) 11 Syracuse L.R. 126.

7 Gonsenhouser v. New York Central R.R. Co., 8 App.Div. (2d) 483; 188 N.Y.S. (2d) 901 (1959). See note in (1959) 11 Syracuse L.R. 126 with cases.

8 G. L. Williams (1939) 7 C.L.J. 111, 125 et seq., e.g., spite fence: p. 129, note 71. Capital & Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) 7 App.Cas. 741, 766; Wills J. in Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C. 1, 46 but see Seavey (1942) 56 Harv.L.R. 72, 84.

9 See Holmes in Aikens v. Wisconsin (1904) 195 U.S. 194, 204Google Scholar, and the cases cited in (1958) 10 Syracuse L.B. 53, 54, No. 11; Forkosch (1957) 42 Cornell L.R. 465; Hansen (1958) 7 Buffalo L.R. 305; (1952) 52 Cal.L.R. 503; (1956) 41 Cornell L.R. 567.

10 Cf. (1958) 10 Syracuse L.R. 53.

11 (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 598, 613; affirmed [1892] A.C. 25.

12 Mazeaud, Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile, 5th ed., 1957, I, No. 591.

13 von Caemmerer, loc. cit., p. 49 at p. 52 et seq.; RGZ 60, 6 (1905).

14 Loc. cit., pp. 81–63.

15 RGZ 59, 326, 328 (1904): petrol fumes; RGZ 105, 213, 218: soot and sulphur fumes.

16 Mazeaud I, No. 275, p. 344.

17 Cf. Mummery & Savings Ptg. Ltd. (1956) 96 C.L.R. 99; for contrats de securité see Mazeaud, Nos. 151–172.

18 Cf. Mazeaud, No. 116; Paris, 30.6.1958, Gaz.Pal. 1958.2.348; Rev.trim. 1959, 89; Cass. 20.12.1960, D.1961, 141; Rev.trim. 1961, 309; BGHZ, N.J.W. 1962, 31.

19 Cf., e.g., Cavalier v. Pope [1906] A.C. 428; Mazeaud, Nos. 136, 137; Cass. 16.2.1897, D.1897.1.96; Cass. 9.12.1932, D.1933.1.137.

20 Mazeaud, No. 1042. Marsh (1953) 69 L.Q.R. 182, 359. And see the strange Louisiana case, Williams v. Employers Liability Ass. Corp., 296 F. (2d) 569 (1961).Google Scholar

21 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]Google Scholar A.C. 562; Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills [1936]Google Scholar A.C. 85; Herschtal v. Stewart & Ardern [1940] 1 K.B. 155Google Scholar; Stennett v. Hancock [1939] 2 All E.R. 578Google Scholar; Malfroot v. Noxal (1935) 51 T.L.R. 551Google Scholar; Macpherson v. Buick (1916) 271 N.Y. 382Google Scholar; 111 N.E. 1050 and the lit. cited (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 62, n. 51; 68 et seq.; Mankiewicz, Rev.int. de droit comparé, 1956, 241; Wilson (1955) 43 Cal.L.R. 614, 839; Mazeaud, No. 181. See also Paris 13.12.1954, D.1955, 96; Cass.Civ. 26.6.1953, D.1954, 181; Swiss BGE 64, II, 254 (1938).

22 G. L. Williams (1942) 5 M.L.R. 1947; Otto v. Bolton [1936] 2 K.B. 46Google Scholar; Davies v. Foots [1940] 1 K.B. 116;Google ScholarTravers v. Gloucester Corp. [1946] 2 All E.R. 506Google Scholar. Note in (1959) 44 Minn.L.R. 144; Kilmer v. White (1950) 254 N.Y. 64Google Scholar; 171 N.E. 908: only for concealment de lege ferenda; Rest.Torts, para. 353.

23 See the cases cited by E. von Caemmerer, loc. cit., p. 72, note 102, p. 73; RGZ 163, 21, 26; RG D.R. 1940, 1293; BGH 13/6/1952; 25/4/1956; 15/3/1956; BGE 64, II, 254. Note, however, the indirect contractual approach in RGZ 127, 14, 18: negligent omission to perform a contract, the failure of which is likely to endanger life may be a tort.

24 Davie v. New Merton Board Mills [1959]Google Scholar A.C. 604—or of liability if the third party performed under a contract of sale: G. L. Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 113.

25 Loc. cit., p. 66.

26 Cf. Asquith L.J. in Candler v. Crane, Christmas [1951] 1 All E.R. 426, 442Google Scholar; Winfield, Torts, 4th ed., p. 387;Old Gates Estates v. Toplis Hartnig & Russell [1939] 3 All E.R. 209Google Scholar; Heskell v. Continental Express [1950] 1 All E.R. 1030, 1041; Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 491.Google Scholar

27 For the negligent failure of a bank not bound by a legally binding contract, which interfered with the plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, namely, the lapse of an insurance through failure to pay premiums, see Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. First Sec. Corp. (1939) 341 P. 944Google Scholar; (1960) 12 Stanford L.R. 509.

28 Mainly on the basis of Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App.Cas. 337—liability for statements in a prospectus. But see Companies Act, 1948, s. 43.

29 Braybrook, loc. cit.

30 [1961] 3 All E.R. 249; reversed on other grounds [1962] 2 All E.R. 33; [1962] 1 W.L.R. 585.

31 Olg. Hamburg 14/12/54. N.J.W. 1956, 348. Cf. von Caemmerer, pp. 73, 114; as to the U.S. see Seavey (1942) 56 Harv.L.R. 72, 87; no duty: Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, Niven & Co. (1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 174, 176, 179, 181, 185, 188; 174Google Scholar N.E. 441.

32 Mazeaud, No. 501; Cass.Req. 2.12.1930, D.H. 1930, 18; Paris, 5.2.1952, D. 1952, 275.

33 BGHZ 8, 243, 248 (1953).

34 Dulieu v. White [1901] 2 K.B. 669, 675. See alsoGoogle ScholarChester v. Waverly Corp. (1939) 62 C.L.R. 1.Google Scholar Similarly the practice in the U.S.: Seavey (1942) 56 Harv.L.R. 72, 90; F. James (1958) 8 Buffalo L.R. 315, 335, but see Woods v. Lancel, 303 N.Y. 349; 102 N.E. (2d) 691 (1951); (1951) 50 Mich.L.R. 166. And see Montreal Tramways v. Leveille [1933]Google Scholar S.C.R. 456; [1933] 4 D.L.R. 337; Annual Survey of American Law, 1955, p. 448Google Scholar; 1956, p. 369; 1957, p. 389. See also C.A.L. (1962) 110 U.Pa.L.R. 554.

35 [1943] A.C. 92; see also King v. Phillips, above, note 6.

36 BGHZ, 29, 65; von Caemmerer, pp. 93, 94; below (8 (d)).

37 Palsgraf v. Long Island Ry. (1928) 248 N.Y. 339Google Scholar; 162 N.E. 99.

38 Mazeaud, Nos. 88, 89, 1139–1147; Cass. Req. 13/2/1930, D. 1930.1.57; Cass. 16/6/96, S. 1897. 1.17.

39 Mazeaud, No. 385, p. 452; for rebuttable presumptions in Canadian law see Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 72; V. C. Macdonald, ibid. (1935), Vol. 13, p. 535.

40 Accord: G. L. Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 115; Keeton (1959) 72 Harv.L.R. 401, 407.

41 Rylands v. Fletcher (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 265; (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330; in fact this constitutes a reversal of proof. Mazeaud, No. 626.

42 Read v. Lyons [1947]Google Scholar A.C. 156.

43 As to damage flowing from ultra-hazardous activities in the U.S. see Seavey (1942) 56 Harv.L.R. 72, 86; Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 77. As regards the medical profession: Mazeaud, No. 510 et seq.

44 Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. v. English [1938]Google Scholar A.C. 57. C. Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 47; G. L. Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 112.

45 France: Law, October 10, 1946, replacing Law of April 9, 1898. Mazeaud, No. 649.

46 Ehrenzweig, Negligence without Fault (1951); Full Aid Insurance for the Traffic Victim (1954)Google Scholar; (1941) 8 U.Chicago L.R. 729; (1944) 30 Cornell L.R. 179; (1950) Law & Contemp.Prob. 445; (1950) 72 Juristische Blätter 253; (1950) 3 Bol. del Instituto de Derecho Comparado 3; (1955) 43 Cal.L.R. 1. Mazeaud, No. 339 et seq.

47 BGHZ 29, 65 with history and cases; BGHZ 27, 137; 23, 157, 163; N.J.W. 1959, 1424; Fabricius (1961) Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 273–336 at p. 304.

48 Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 46, 54; Tilley (1935) 33 Mich.L.R. 829; Bour-hill v. Young [1943]Google Scholar A.C. 93, 110, per Lord Wright.

49 Macintosh v. Dun [1908]Google Scholar A.C. 390; London Ass. for Protection of Trade, Ltd. v. Greenlands, Ltd. [1916] 2 A.C. 15.Google Scholar

50 But see Winfield, p. 352. Cf. Mazeaud, No. 501, p. 556.

51 BGHZ 18, 149, 156; paras. 824, 847 B.G.B. For France see Mazeaud, I, Nos. 292–335, pp. 376–417.

52 This principle applies also to strikes. Cf. BAG 2, 76—N.J.W. 1955, 1373; BAG 1, 291, N.J.W. 1955, 882; JZ 1955, 386. Mazeaud. No. 590 (2).

53 Cf. G. L. Williams (1939) 7 C.L.J. 111, 123–124; Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C. 1, 9.

54 N.J.W. 1959, 1423, 670.

55 von Caemmerer, pp. 88, 93; Mazeaud, No. 1872 (dommage “par ricochet”).

56 von Caemmerer, p. 96. But see Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 453 and the Canadian cases cited (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 57, note 34. As for possibilities of subrogation see G. L. Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 103. But see Tooth & Co. v. Tillyer (1956) 95 C.L.R. 605Google Scholar; Lister v. Romford [1957]Google Scholar A.C. 655.

57 Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E. & B. 216; Thomson & Co. v. Deakin [1952] 1 Ch. 646Google Scholar; J. G. Starke (1955–57) 7 Res Judicatae 136; Sayre (1923) 36 Harv.L.R. 663, 671; Mazeaud, No. 144, Note 3, No. 1956, Note 4. Threats to induce a breach of contract; Rookes v. Barnard [1962] 2 All E.R. 579Google Scholar; [1962] 3 W.L.R. 260; Wedderburn (1961) 24 M.L.R. 572; (1962) 25 ibid. 513; Mazeaud, No. 144, Note 3, No. 590.

58 (1959) 10 Syracuse L.R. 53, 66 and note 108.

59 Schisgall v. Fairchilds Publications Inc., 207 Misc. 224; 137 N.Y.S. (2d) 312 (1955)Google Scholar; and note (1956) 41 Cornell L.Q. 507.

60 Switzerland: Rätelmann (1961) AcP. 367; France: Martin, Rev.trim. 1959Google Scholar, 227; Germany: Löffler, N.J.W. 1959. 1.

61 Winfield (1931) 47 L.Q.R. 23; Gutteridge, ibid. 203; but see the Right of Privacy Bill introduced in the House of Lords on February 14, 1961, by Lord Mancroft; Warren & Brandeis (1890) 4 Harv.L.R. 193; Feinberg (1948) 48 Cal.L.R. 713, 717: life history, likeness, name; Bohlen (1937) 50 Harv.L.R. 725, 731; Wright (1948) 26 Can.Bar Rev. 48, 93; Nizer (1941) 39 Mich.L.R. 526.

62 Such as certifying a person as a lunatic not justified by law. De Freville v. Dill (1927) 96 L.J.K.B. 1056Google Scholar; Everett v. Griffiths [1921] 1 A.C. 631Google Scholar; Harnett v. Fisher [1927]Google Scholar A.C. 673, 579–580; RGZ 72, 175.

63 Cf. McGovern v. Van Riper, 137 N.J.Eq. 24, 45 A (2d) 514 (1945).Google Scholar

64 Cf. Mazeaud, No. 500, 591.

65 Mazeand, No. 591, p. 663; No. 667, n. 5, under the heading of abus de droit.

66 von Caemmerer, pp. 97–98.

67 von Caemmerer, p. 97, n. 218.

68 RGZ 69, 401, 403.

69 RGZ 79, 397, 398. Cologne, N.J.W. 1962, 48. Cf. Sports & Press Agency Co. v. Our Dogs Publishing Co., Ltd. [1916] 2 K.B. 880Google Scholar; [1917] 2 K.B. 125.

70 Cf. BGHZ 13, 334, 338; 15, 249, 257, 258; 20, 345, 351; 24, 72, 76; 27, 284, 285, 286; N.J.W. 1959, 525.

71 G. L. Williams (1939) 7 C.L.J. 111, 121.

72 [1931] A.C. 333.

73 BGHZ 18, 149; 20, 345.

74 Mazeaud, No. 318; Camoin v. Syndicat de la Propriété artistique, Trib.Seine 15/11/1927. S. 1928. 2.137 which seems to protect new rights. See restrictively Req. 2/2/1931, S. 1931. 1.123; D. 1931. 1, 38. Mazeaud, No. 325.

75 N.J.W. 1959, 525.

76 [1930] 2 K.B. 238.

77 Branly v. Turpain, Cass. 27.2.1951Google Scholar, D. 1951, 329. Mazeaud, No. 515 (5).

78 Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co. (1946) 296 N.Y. 70; 70 N.E. (2d) 401; (1958) 8 Buffalo L.R. 307.Google Scholar

79 Except if done with the intention of injuring another in his property, business or profession. Dockrell v. Dougall (1899) 80 L.T. 556, 558; Walter v. Ashton [1902] 2 Ch. 282, 293.Google Scholar

80 Gutteridge (1933) 5 C.L.J. 22; Leake (1933) 7 Tulane L.R. 426; G. L. Williams (1939) 7 C.L.J. 111, 125 et seq. Mazeaud, Nos. 547–592.

81 Forissier v. Chaverot, S. 1903Google Scholar, 1, 11; D. 1902, 1.454; Mazeaud, No. 548, p. 623; No. 549, p. 638.

82 Rouast, Rev.trim.droit civil, 1944, 1.

83 Crofter Handwoven Harris Tweed v. Veitch [1942]Google Scholar A.C. 435. Mazeaud, No. 566.

84 Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles [1895] A.C. 587, 594; Christie v. Davey [1893] 1 Ch. 316; Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v. Emmett [1936] 2 K.B. 468, 476Google Scholar; Abbott v. Sullivan [1952] 1 K.B. 189Google Scholar, per Denning L.J.; Pridman (1958) 21 M.L.R. 484, 493; cf. Langan v. First Trust & Deposit Co. (1944) 293 N.Y. 604Google Scholar; 59 N.E. (2d) 424: foreclosing mortgage in order to buy property cheaply, and compare Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co. v. Taylor (1937) 58 C.L.R. 479, 505, 508, 510.Google Scholar

85 Mazeaud, No. 577.

86 For France see, e.g., Clement-Bayard, Cass.3/8/1915.Google Scholar S. 1920.1. 300; Mazeaud, Nos. 559, 583–587 (3).

87 Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 104.

88 Mazeaud, Nos. 277–277 (3).

89 Distinguish the action against a guilty spouse in a divorce suit in France; Loi April 2, 1941, approved by Ord. 12/4/45 adding Art. 301 (2) C.C.

90 Best v. Samuel Fox [1952]Google Scholar A.C. 716; Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus [1957] 2 Q.B. 1Google Scholar; Kirkham v. Boughey [1957] 3 All E.R. 153Google Scholar; McNeill v. Johnstone [1958] 3 All E.R. 16Google Scholar; Birch v. Taubmans, Ltd. (1956) 74 W.N.(N.S.W.) 70Google Scholar (total loss of sexual intercourse); Tookey v. Hallier [1955]Google Scholar A.L.R. 302 (partial loss); Note (1955–57) Res Judicatae 211. For Germany see Fabricius (1961) 160 Archiv für die zivilistische Praxis 273, 316. 335.

91 G. L. Williams (1939) 7 C.L.J. 111, 120; (1961) 24 M.L.R. 107, 110 (U.S. Practice).

92 G. L. Williams (1961) 24 M.L.R. 101.

93 Curtis v. Wilcox [1948] 2 K.B. 474.Google Scholar Now Law Beform (Husband and Wife) Act, 1962.

94 BGHZ 6, 360, 364, 365.

95 Att.-Gen. of New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. [1955]Google Scholar A.U.C. 457; Commonwealth v. Exever (1944) 68 C.L.R. 227Google Scholar; Receiver of Metropolitan Police v. Croydon Corp. [1957] 2 Q.B. 154Google Scholar; I.R.C. v. Hambrook [1956] 2 Q.B. 641, 656Google Scholar; the suggestion of a loss-shifting device was followed in Blundell v. Musgrove (1956) 96 C.L.R. 73.Google Scholar

96 But see Belt v. Hamilton National Bank (1953) 108 F.Supp. 689, 690Google Scholar, affd. 210 F. (2d) 706; Ward (1956) 42 Cornell L.Q. 28, 37; (1957) 43 Cornell L.Q. 115; Wright (1948) 26 Can. Bar Rev. 46, 93; Brandeis & Warren (1890) 4 Harv. L.R. 193; Nizer (1941) 39 Mich.L.R. 526.

97 Cf. Deeg v. City of Detroit (1956) 345 Mich. 371Google Scholar; 76 N.W. (2d) 16; Note (1957) 55 Mich.L.R. 610 with cases; Magruder (1936) 49 Harv.L.R. 1033 at p. 1064; Prosser (1939) 37 Mich.L.R. 874 at pp. 885–886. As to property in and possession of a dead body according to English law, see Williams On Executors and Administrators (14 ed. 1960). vol. I, p. 438, para. 735.