5780447532

44 r*vnatr Atfor

thc tcam’s performance in the championship and ihc financial lo»a resulting therefrom. It sccms hardly possablc to provc that thc abseooe o( a givcn player in thc cbampionship. cvcn thc best one. always incrcascs thc possibilily of a drop of such team in thc ranlungs. An inerease of thc probability of occurrencc of a particular conscqucnce cach timc is treated :t thc Polish legał scholarship as a principal enterion for thc cjustcncc of a normal causal link within thc mcaning Art. 361 § 1 Civ.C.ⁿ

Furthcrmorc. thc claim of thc team owners would conccrn lost bcncftti (lucrum cessans), as to which it is stressed that they arc to be rccovcrcd only wbere thc probability of gaining them is sufTiacntly high, i.c. bordcrini ccrtainty.¹² The naturc of sports cvcnts is such that one may do nothinf morc than cvalualc thc loss of a chancc to achjcvc (maintain) thc Hrst scorc in thc championshjp. What is at stakc herc js thc loss of chancc in sports. which cannot be assumed to be bordering certainty.*⁵

Casc 3

A cattle raiser alloned an infected animal to escape from his premises. Tht escape of the infected animal obliged thc aulhorities to close the cattle ani meat market for ten days. The cattle raiser is being sued by:

(a)    other cattle raisers mho for ten days ha\e not been obie to seU their catlk.

(b)    the market traders w ho have lost their supplies; and

(c)    thc butchers who during this tłme harc not been obie to conduci thev business.

I    It appears that nonc of thc persons named abovc is, under Polish law. cntitlcd to claim rccovay of thc damages incurrcd by them against thc nim of the infected animal. His negligent conduct was not dircctcd against thc legał interests of any of them. and thc damages dcschbcd do not bclong to normal conscqocnccs of negligenee of this typc.

^II    Sec; A. Koch. '/.wiązek petyczynowy jako pod* tawa odpawiedziaMci edszkadoHOwaę w prawie cywilnym [CmutaJ lok as thc barn of thc hability for <Umagc * ovil la»l War*?a«i 1975, p. 135 « %eą

° Sec: W. Czachórtki. op cii., pp. 102-103. For eaainplc. ihc judgement of tk Supremę Court of J* Octobcr 1979 (OSN 19S0. itan IM) sute* „Allhocgh Łssessktlg ii* damage ban* thc lott bcnefiu tt of kypothetkal naturę, ixr\crthck» ruch damage muli bi rco%cd by thc mjured pcf»ci wiih tuch rufficient probaNlity. that. in the light of hfc npericacc it is po«iblc to tttoirc that fuch a kHS of bcaefiU actually took place "

^u Part of the Połńh legał *cholarthip aminę*. that - by ccotrast to thc hentm ceisa* - lo\% of a chancc (ponóbfe lov%) u not digjbk to rccovery %ec: W. C i a c h o r i k i. op ci. p. 103 Morę (avourably to Ihc mjured person, afthough undrr thc ccndilioo of hjgh kvd d probabihty - A. S/ponar. OdtzS&Sfiwan*.. (CompenaaUoo. J. pp 4b>47 and the caie citcd thcrr.n

II.    lf thc liability of thc ncgligcnt cattle raiser was wdl-foundcd, it would be bascd soldy on of Art. 415 Civ.C., whereas thc application of Art 431 Civ.C. would be cscludcd The lattcr provision States that a person raising or employing an animal is liablc for thc damage caused by thc lattcr under the principlc of fault in supcrvision. IIowcvcr, the present casc docs not oonccrn thc damage caused "by thc animal", but rather the negligcnl bchaviour of thc raiser who is obliged under law to undertake specific iafety measures in casc of suspicion of an animal's contagious discasc.¹*

Shouki one assumc that thc raiser commilted ncgligcncc in the performance of his duties, mcaning that thc premise of fault of Art. 415 Civ.C. it met. doubts arisc as to another premise of liability - the existcnce of a normal ca u sal link within thc mcaning of Art. 361 § 1 Civ.C. bctwccn thc fault in hchaviour and thc purc cconomic losses incurrcd by other raisen, market traders and butchcrs. Their daims should be dismisted as unfoundcd sińce the negligencc in supcrvision ovcr an infected animal docs not causc, m the normal coursc of cvents, damages of such typc (tbcir probability is not increascd cvcry single timc as a conscqucnoc of this typc of carciessncss). Howem. tlić asscssmcni would be different in this respect if thc casc conccrned thc damage resulting from infccting other animal.

The defendant would also raisc objcctions by pointing out thc interrup-tion of a causal link by thc action of local authoritics, who decidcd to temporarily elose the market. Losses on thc part of thc plaintiffs undoubtcdly beJong to thc normal consequcnces of such a decision. whereas thc dccision itielf, probably taken after considcnng a number of vanous circumstanoes, only in ccrtain mstances may be considered a normal consequcncc of this kind of ncgligcncc of thc defendant.

Furthcrmorc, one should notę that thc cvidence. which thc plaintiffs arc burdencd with, establishing of thc fact that they incurrcd purc cconomic losses could be difTicult to produce in thcsc circumstances. If thc interruption in the functioning of the market was relalivcly short. the loss of bcocfits from trading would also probably be temporary and smali-scalę and thus could be compcnsated for by natunil intcnsification of income following thc rcnoval of the obstadc.

III.    As can be noticed. refusal to rccognizc the daims of the injurcd pasons m thc present casc is bascd on an interpretation of the notion of normal causal link in the light of Art. 361 Ov.C. As with any other vaguc legał term, thc notion of normality of consojuences is open to differing

^M Tiul bcing the cne ihc La* cf II* Much 2004 on Ihc prdcction of uumalt and contaun; oooupou* diwaiet of acnralt (OJ No 69. nero 623) imjwct • number cf duliea oo tU pottestor cf an animal, indtdirg the duły lo “le»ve thc atumai on Ihc spot »tere U Wajs and not to kad other animal* near it" (Art- 42 { 1(2) of the Law).