5780447537

54 Tomas; Tajot

generał elause of dchctual Iiabilily lor any culpablc bchaviour (Art. 415 Civ.C.). ncYcrlhelcss does not allow the unhmited imposition of a com-pensatory obligation. To the contrary. one can dearly notice the tcndcncy to maintain a proper cquilibrium bctwcen the protcctson of the injurcd person and the freedom of individuals, m particular as regards the pursuit of economic or Professional activilics.^:ł While cnacting and applymg the law on avil Iiabilily the Polish legislator and courts cmploy difTerent mechanisms which providc for kecping the compcnsatory obligation withia rcasonabic limils.

2)    The notion of a normal casual link, based on the objcctivc pro-bability of oocurrencc of the conscqucnccs triggered by the injunng cvcnt (Art. 361 § 1 Civ.C.). is of particular relevancc in this respect. This instrument of sclcction allows for rcducmg the risk of liability, espccially in cascs of an "avalanchc" of claims. where, in ccrtain circumstanccs. single and minor negligence rcsults in an unhmited number of injunouj conscqucnccs which are likely to ovcrload the perpetrator with an un-bcarablc burden (sec: casc 3).

3)    This instrument does not always lurn out to be sufficicnt though, is particular where purc economic loss occurs in relation to which the causal link is morę dilTicull to track down and contro!, sińce the former is not assoaatcd with a physical infringement of the legał interesu of the injured person. Thercforc the risk of anmodcratc catcnsion of Iiabilily cm er ges, through covcnng thereby the damages of such typc as those suflfered by subscqucnl person¹ as a rcsult of initial damage causcd to the person direetiy injurcd by the dchctual evenl (see: cases I, 2, 4 and 5). Reduction of thł! risk is supported by the prmciplc according to which only the person wban the dchctual cvcnt was directed against can raise the dchctual daun. The majority of the legał scholarship and the casc law rccognizc this principle, dcriving it usually from Art. 446 Civ.C. It should be observcd though thal it dcrivcs cqually, if not abovc all, from ccrtain generał assumptions signified by the distinction of two rćgimes of civil liability. Rejcction of the aforemea-tioned principle not only would lead to the imposition of an unbearable and, most frcqucntly. unforcsccabłc burden on the person dclictually liablc, but a would also providc for an cxtcnsion of dchctual protcction to interests whiet are contractual by their naturę, rooled in the fact that the direetiy injurcd person remained in contractual relations with other persons. It should be elear that the protcction of thesc kinds of interests and espcctations, basoi on the bmding contr aa. is assumed to be subjcct to contraaual liability and only exceptionally can be realized within the frarocwork of ddictual liability.

4)    U ought to bc notcd that the principle referred to abovc is not of an absolute charactcr and has ccrtain exccptions. As was alrcady discussed, they may result from a statutc (Art 446 Civ.C.). Moreovcr, a person who suffers purc economic loss as a result of damage causcd by a dclict incurred by another subject may, in ccrtain circurastanocs, bc considcrcd direetiy injurcd. i.e. the person again&t whom the dclictual cvcnt (bchaviour) was directcd.

Such dircction of the cvent can be a conscqucncc of various circumstan-cts. It may result from the intent of the perpetrator causing the damage intemionally, i.e. hcjshc wants to cause it or accepls its occurence. This kind of dclictual interferenoe in contractual relations often constilutes an act of illicat compctition" and providcs grounds for liability even in the abscncc of normal causal link.

Dirccting the dclictual cvcnt on a ccrtain person or persons can also bc the result of factual circumstanccs other than mcntal processes of the perpetrator. c.g. it may result from the cxercisc by a given person of dependent possession of a thing damaged or destroyed in a dclictual evcnt (ice casc 4) or from situations of the actuai prox unity of a givcn person to such an cvcnl (c.g ccrtain nervous shock cascs).^N

5)    The mstances whereby a purc economic loss occurs are not limited to cacumstances in which the dclictual mtcrfcrcncc into contractual (or other relativc) relations of the injurcd person takes place. Another group of cascs rdates to - as a matter of fact - an opposite typc of inlerfcrcncc: the existenoc of a contract influences the content and iorm of dclictual duties. For csamplc, casc 8 conccrns the violation of a generał duty of coopcration with the party to a contractual rdation which has already comc to an cnd. If it happened to bc the case that the car rcntal contract had not cxistcd, the aforcmentioncd duty of coopcration ncither would havc malcrialiscd as to its content, nor directcd as for the subject (the former le&see). Simdarly

-    in casc 9: if the contract with the Broker had not bccn formed. thcrc would have bccn no materialisation of the content and direcimg the violatcd duty against the wife of the crcditor. Also in casc 6, the dclictual liability of the auditor to the acquircr of the company is rclalcd to her improper drafting of the opinion.

In all thcsc cases the rccognition of liability for purc economic loss constilutes a dcnvation of dclictual conscquenccs from the cxistcncc of a contractual relation. Dclimitation of the boundarics of thcsc consequcnccs

1

Aft 20 ind 22 of the CoiłUltuOon proMCU the freedon of etfabinhment u one ot 0¹ fundamentu; pnaaplea et the Pdbłh legał and ecoownk fyitem