5780447529

38

^T

Tomasz Pajor

Both rćgjmcs dilTer in thcir normativc framework on nuracrous cssentii] issucs. such as the premises and scopc of liabdity, hurdco of proof, and siatuiory limitation period. Thosc difTcrenocs are Icvclcd out by comiron provisions on the attribution of damages and forms of redressmg damag (Art. 361-363 Qv.C.), as well as the possibility of a)ncurrcncc of botb regimes of liabilily (Art. 443 of tbc Civ.C.).

3)    Contractual liability for damage incurrcd from the breach of an obligation is bascd on the presumption that tbc causes for the brcadt burden the debtor (Art. 471 of the Civ.C.). Hxccpt where providcd for otherwise by stalutc or legał act. the debtor is liable for his/her o»a aetions under the principle of fault (Art. 472 Civ.C.) and for the aclio* of persons bclping him/ber in performance under the principle of risk (Art. 474 Civ.C.).

4)    Within the ddictual rćgimc liability can be bascd on the principle of fauli, risk, or cquity. Equitv is a source of liability only in caceptionai cascs, in a few instanoes clearly provided for in a statute (c.g. Art. 42$, 431 § 2 Civ.C.). The principle of risk is no longer of an cxtraordinarj naturę. Duc to its broad and still cxpanding scopc of application it u nonnally pcrccived of as a principle of dclictual liabilily cquivalcnt to the principle of fault.*

The principle of fault maintaios its fundamental rclcvancc not only due to its historical prcocdcnce. but also by reason of the fact that it is espresso! m the generał elause of liabilily for onc's own fault (Art. 415 Civ.C\ modclcd on the pattern of Anicie 1382 of the French Civ.C. This rcgulatioa is suppłemented by Artidc 430 Civ.C. providing for vicarious liability of tht superior for the faulty bchaviour of the subordinatc (a person under supcrvision and control).

5)    During almost 70 years of practicul application, the rcgulation ic-ferred to above bas met wilh the approbation of the legał scholars and courts.⁴ It is stressed that Art. 415 Civ.C. cncompasscs a flcxiblc formuli allowing for accommodation to ncw nceds and cfficicntly climinatcs the risk of legał lacunac in debctual protcction. At the same time the widc scopc of the provision allows for avoiding dispulcs. frcqucntly fmillca ones. regarding the qualification of particular instances of causing damages. Such disputes are characteristic for legał systems unfamiliar with tbc generał dausc of liability under the prindplc of fault (c.g. German law. common law).

’ Soc c.*. Z- R adwański, A. Olejniczak. ć/tbewutzaąta - etęti ogólna (OblijnuoM generał purt] 6“ bditiun. Wannw* 2005, p 85.

‘ Nearly idcnitcal rtgalauoo eawted in Hut report ilready under ihc Codę of Ofcliguiow of 1933 (in Art 134 ind 145) Uiai rercamod m force ennl I* January 1965 when Ihc preieot Ci»il Codę of 1964 estered łnto fotce.

On the other hund the generał wording of Art. 415 Gv.C. is susccpliblc to lead, if impropcrly upplicd, to an cxces$ivc broadening of liability. la order to avoid that risk, the legislator has attempted to determine morę precisdy tłic premises which have to be met so that the obligation to redress damage, providcd for in the aforcmcntioncd provision, will ansę. Thus tbcir diligeat mterpretation seems to be ncccssary. Apart from that, certain further limitations on liability, derivmg from other provisions of the Codę, should be taken mto account.

The premises for liability under Art. 415 Civ.C. enoompass the damage, faulty bchaviour, and the causal link hetwcen them.

6)    As far as the damage is conccrncd. the Gvil Codc contains no stalutory definition thereof. It is acccptcd m the legał writings that the damage consisls of injuring legally protcctcd valucs and interests. Al the same tmte no hierarchy of legally protcctcd interests is intrnduccd. As a rcsult, in principle cvcry materia! damage is subjcct to compcnsation. induding purc cconomic loss. This is dcrivcd from the principle of fuli compcnsation espressed in Art. 361 § 2 Civ.C. This provision providcs that redress of damage covers iwo situalions: (a) the losscs incurrcd by the injurcd person, and (b) the benefits which that person ooukl have obtaincd had hc/shc not suffered the damage. It is assumed that the second position. lucrum cessans, cncompasses also loss of opportunity only if the rcalisation thereof was highly probablc.⁵ It should be highlighted that the aforcmcntioncd principle has various exccption$. For cxamplc, damage consistiog of loss of benefits gaincd in an illegal or dishonest manner (lucrum tilicitum vcl inhonestum) is not subjcct to redress. Im-materiał damage may be redressed by pecuniary means only whcrc it is so providcd in a statute (Art. 445, 448 Civ.C).

7)    Fault as the premise of liability under Art. 415 Civ.C. is defined in tbc majority of legał treatises as a ncgativc assessment of the behaviour of the person causing the damage.⁴ This pcrsonal charge can be raiscd only agairut a perpetrator to whom the fault can be ascribcd having regard for his/her age (An. 426 Civ.C.) and mcnul or physical condition (An. 425 Gv.C.), prOYiding that his/her hehaviour was unlawful and hc/shc was acling in a mtcntional or negligeni manner. The establishment of the

•Sec A. Szpudar. OdpowirdsiaUaU ta szkody majątkową Szkoda na muwu t osob* [Lubliny for matcrul duaige. Daicagc io property ot person!. Bydgoszcz 199$. pp. 46-4T; vc< lho: judgctŁcnl of the Supremę Court of 16* No^cobcr 1962 (Panu*o i Prano 1964. uu.e 7. p. 165. »ith the comracnury by W'. Siedlecki). *bcrc the Coort rcoognitfd the babdUy ot tbc scfedior tn caaes wfcere his ncghgencc led io the fact that ócfauliod jud gemem becaroc b®d«g

• Sec c.g. W. Czachórski. Zóton\ąxaaia. Zarys wykładu [Obtigauom. An outine of fedure], 9° Fdition, Waruawa 2004. pp. 210-211.