5780447530

40 Toman Pajor

unlawfulncss of a pcrpctrntor’s bchaviour is of purticular rclcvancc for the dclimitalioD of coniractual and dclictual liabiiity. Speaking in broad temu. a perpetrator can be hcld liablc under Art. 415 Civ.C. where he/shc viołated commoo dutics ineumbent on him/her indepcndcnlly of tbe esistcnce of any contractual rclationshjp (dclictual unlawfulncss). Where such a violation of dutics was sunultaneously a breach of contractual obligations binding upoo the perpetrator (contractual unlawfulncss), a concurrence of liabiiity and effeets defined in Art. 443 Civ.C. muy oocur (the choicc of claims is up to the injured party).

8)    The third and the lasl pranisc of liabiiity pursuant to Art. 415 Gv.C. is the existcnoe of a causal link bctwccn the faulty bchaviour of the perpetrator and the damage. This element is dellned in greater detail io Art. 361 § I Civ.C.: "A person obliged to render compensation is liabłe only for the normal consequcnccs of tbe act or omission froen which the damage rcsultcd.” It is worth noting that the critcrion regarding the norma! charactcr of conscqucnccs. stated in the provision, is a uscful instrument in the selection of damages cligiblc for red rew and it allows for kccping the liabiiity within rcasonablc limits. Prom that point of vicw it constitutes as imporlant supplcmenl (and, amultancously, a limilalion) of the generał elause of Art. 415 Civ.C.

9)    As it was already mentioned. defining the boundaries of the discussed liabiiity is done not only through interpretation of its premises. Other rcgulations also ought to be taken into account to that cod, in particular - Art. 446 Gv.C. According to this provision if, as a result of bodily hanu or causing a disturbancc of hcallh, the injured person dies. ccrtain persons, norraally related to the dcccascd, arc entitłed to claim compensation fot their own losses. Legał scholarship and the casc law pcrceive this norm as an e.iccption that provcs the nslc that only the person dircctly injured, Le. the one whom the action (or cvcnt) resulting in liabiiity⁷ has bcen dirccted against, is entitłed to claim compensation. It is to be understood csscntially as the csclusion of claims of the persons injured indircctly only. par ricochet,

^ł See: A. S r. p u n • r, Wynagrodzeni* szkody wynik Irj wskutek śmierci osoby bliskiej [Rcdros of the damage causod by death of ibc rdalcd person], Bjdgoczcz 2000. pp 58 61; Z. Radwański. A. Olejniczak. op eU . p. 245; 7. Masłowski, m Kodeks cywilny. Komrman |Qnl Codę. Ccmmentaryl, Vol. 2, Zobowitiimia [Obligatioml, Warszawa 1972. p. 1110; tn thu way the judgements of tbe Supremę Courl: of 28* Decem ber 1972, OSPiKa 1974, itero 7; of 13* October 1987. OSNC 1989. item 142 wrth approróg ccmmeou frora R Kasprzyk. OSPiKA 1989, itesn 146 and cntical fron L. Stecki, Sm,/ Prawo 1990, No. 4-6. p 225 rt stą Mon r oceniły M. Safjan pubkshed his critical comiocot on tbat pnnaple "Problcmałyka im bezprawności względnej oraj zwia/Au przyczynowego na tle odpowiedzialności ra niezgoda z prawem akty normatywne'' [Problem* of the to callcd rriaiisc unlawfulncss and cautahty ii caac* of the łiability for tt< normalne acta which are mcompatihle with law], in: Rozprawy prawniete Kutka pamiątkowa Profesora Maksymiliana Paidmut [legot eswtys .), pp. 1327-1329.

cven where their damage rcmains in a norraal causal link with the dclictual cvcnt.

10) Slill another limitolion to the scopc of liabiiity is advocatcd by the proponents of the theory of rclativc unlawfulness.¹ They assumc that liabiiity shall cover only such persons, valucs, and interests wbose protcction was the purpose of the norm infnngcd. Howcva, this theory docs not havc a statutory basis in Polish law and is not gcncrally approvcd⁹ Its apphcaiion poses a number of difficultics, sińce it requircs establishing what aims arc served by the norm infnngcd, which is frequently vaguc. As a rcsult. the risk arises of limiung the scope of compensatory protection by arbitrary interpretation. For tbesc r ca son¹ the detcrmination of purpose of the norm infnngcd should not be treated as an autonomous criterion for defming the limits of liabiiity. Howcvcr, such criterion can be applied as a subsidiary aid when establishing whether a normal causal link cxists bctwccn the infnngcmcnt and the damage.

II. ANAI.YSLS OF TIIK CASKS

Ctse l

While maneuMering his mcchanical fxcavotor, an employee of the Iłolly road works company cut the cabłe belonging to the publlc utUity which delivers chctricity to the Black factory. The uncxpcctcd black-out causes the loss of two days of prodiurlion. Black has to lay off a number of k orkers hired on a day-to-day basis These workers are no² claiming compensation from the Holly road works company for the loss of two days' pay.

I. The basis of the claims of the Black factory itsclf. as wcll as its eroployccs. against the road works company could be Art. 430 Civ.C. It seans vcry likcly though that ncither the factory nor (evcn morc) its employccs will obtain compensation from the Holly Company, sińce their losses rcsult from the injury incurrcd by the clcctric power station (public utility) and conscquently, they arc only mdircctly injured persons.

1

S«: A. Szpunsr, coramcnl¹ on the Judof the Supremę Couri of 3² March

2

1958, OSPiKA 1959. item 197; idem, Odpon\edUalnoiC Skarbu Paiitw za funkcjo nar im (Lubliny of the Sute Irewuiry for stale functiooanci]. Wari/³ 1985, pp 136-133; R Katpr/yk. "BaprŁv¹no6i ¹7gJędru¹' frfce fd.uoc unh¹fulnewl. Studia Praurmcu, Vol. 3, p. 149 et %eq.

3

⁹ Critically on thut conccpL¹ T. Pajor, ^Ml.'influence du Codo dvg francai¹ iur d¹ftntres MghUbofts - lA droit de La re¹poa¹Łbililć". (in:] 1¹ Codę eirU et PEmope - influence¹ et modermtł, Strwbourg 2004, pp. 3607, cxtenuvdy ind critK¹ll> on the isaur M. Safjin, op. clr., p. 1321 // uą