In the wake of the German Civil Code (BGB), the codes of different
countries of Western Europe include an apparently distorting requisite for an
action in tort, which is the unlawfulness. This paper aims to clarify its
original meaning and the possibilities of accepting it in jurisdictions where
its law does not require expressly that
element, including those of Common Law. Before moving directly into the problem, a clarification seems
necessary for Common Law scholars, for this paper is focused on a
scientific European issue. In Common Law, it is debatable whether there is a
general tort law or different torts, but no
matter the opinion of the different authors is , each tort is supposed
to have its own requisites. In contrast, in Continental Law, the trend is to
establish common requisites for all torts (although it is distinguished between
“normal” and strict liability), and to insert subsequently nuances when dealing
with special group of cases. This paper deals with one of these general
elements of an action in tort in some codified systems: the unlawfulness, but
without rejecting its usefulness in Common Law jurisdictions.
Grundmann,
S. (2007) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. C.H. Beck, München, § 276, n. 19; Katzenmeier, Ch. (2005) Anwalt Kommentar
BGB, Deutscher Anwaltverlag, § 823, n. 99; In Contrast, the Unlawfulness of the Conduct
Is Defended, e.g. by Münzberg, W. (1966) Verhalten und Erfolg als Grundlagen
der Rechtswidrigkeit und der Haftung, Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M., passim; Wagner, G. (2013) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. 5, 6th, C.H. Beck, München, § 823, ns. 4 ff.
Finally, there Is an Opinion Halfway the Two
Former Ones, According to Which (and Starting from the Common Distinction in
Germany between Immediate and Indirect Damages) Unlawfulness Is Related to the Result
When Speaking of Immediate Damages, and to the Conduct When Speaking of Indirect
Damages. So, Looschelders, D. (2010) Schuldrecht. Besonderer Teil. 5th Edition, Vahlen, München, n. 1241; Lowisch, M. (2005) in Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Sellier-de
Gruyter, Berlin, § 276, n. 12; Medicus, D. and Lorenz, S. (2014) Schuldrecht
II. Besoderer Teil, 17th Edition, C.H. Beck, München, n. 1241.
Plescia, J. (1977) The
Development of “Iniuria”. Labeo, 23, 271 ff.; Pólay, E. (1985) “Iniuria dicitur omne, quod
non iure fit”, Bulletino del Instituto di Diritto Romano, 86, 76 ff.; Paschalidis, P. (2008) What Did Iniuria in the Lex Aquilia Actually
Mean? Revue Internationale des Droits
de l’Antiquité, 55, 321 ff. (Not Very
Convincing)
Arangio-Ruiz, V. (1958) Responsabilità contrattuale
in diritto romano. Reprint of 2nd Edition, Jovene, Napoli, 226 f.; Kaser, M. (1971) Das romische Privatrecht,
Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, § 41, IV, 2, p. 162 (dolusmalus); Plescia, J. (note 6), 272; d’Ors, (1989) Derecho privado romano. 7th Edition, §§ 361 and 374, pp. 418 and 426; Zimmermann, R. (1996). The Law of
Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1005.
As Castresana, A. (2001) Nuevas lecturas de la responsabilidad
aquiliana. Universidad de
Salamanca, 51 f., states, “When Iurisprudentia Includes Intentionality and Fault as Qualifying Elements of
the Human Conduct Which Causes the Result damnum, Unlawfulness Stops
Being the Variable (sic) That Founds Liability for Damage and Its Place
Is Taken by Culpa in Broad Sense”.
Bartolus
a Saxoferrato (1570) In Primam Digesti Veteris Partem. Iuntas, Venetiis, 192 reverse ff. In a Quick Survey the Word iniuria Is Found Once in Four Sheets
Devoted to the LexAquilia (in lex Liber homo, D.
9.2.37, pr.).
Domat,
J. (1767) Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel. Le Breton, Paris, III, V, II, pp. 238 ff.; Pothier, R. (1835) Traité des
obligations. In Dupin, M, Ed., Oeuvres de Pothier, Béchet, Paris, I, I, § II, ns. 116 ff., pp. 62 ff.
Grotius,
H. (1625) De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, Buon, Parisiis, Prolegomena: “Eatiamsi daremus,
quod sine summo scelere dari nequit, non esse Deum, aut non curari ab eo negotia humana”.
(1707) Cottae, Tubingae, Pars prima, Ad
Legem Aquiliam, II, p. 667: “Damnum cum facientisinjuria per injuriosam rei corruptionem,
(Dolovel culpa) datur”.
Thus, B. Windscheid, during the Discussion of
the ErsteKommission of the German Civil Code, Proposed without
Success the Removal of the Requisite of the Unlawfulness. See Jakobs, H. and Schubert, W. (1983) Die Beratung des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs in systematischer Zusammenstellung der unver？ffentlichen Quellen. Recht der Schuldverh？ltnisse. III, de Gruyter, Berlin, §§ 823 and 826, p. 873.
Silva, J.M. and Baldó, F. (1989) La teoría del delito en
la obra de Manuel de Lardizábal. In Estudios de Derecho penal y criminología. En
homenaje al profesor José María Rodríguez Devesa, II, UNED, Madrid, 345 ff.
Although It Is a Fairly
Widely Debated Topic. Some Think That the Explanation Is the Desire to Embrace the
So- Called Grounds
of Justification. See, among Many, Fraenkel,
M. (1979) Tatbestand und Zurechnung bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB, 71 ff., Putting Forward That, Although the BGB Drafters
Did Not Pay Much Attention to the Topic, for It Was Considered Something
Natural, in the Motive zum Vorentwurf einesBGB It Can Be Read That Damage Has to Be
Compensated “Except When It Is Made an Exception in a Certain Case Because of Special
Reasons” (p. 4); These Exceptions Were the So-Called Grounds of Justification (p.
13) (see Fraenkel, 100).
von Bar, Ch. and Clive, E. (2009)
Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft of
Common Frame of Reference. Vol. 4, Sellier, München, 3093.
Authors Use
Here a Different Terminology, Distinguishing between Objective (Result) and Subjective
(Conduct) Unlawfulness. The Former Is Maintained e.g. by
Honsell, H. (2005) Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht. 4th edition, § 5, ns. 1 ff., Who Deems Damage Always Unlawful except When
There Is a Ground of Justification; the Same Point of View Is Shared by
Oftinger, K. and Stark, E. (1995) Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht. Vol. I, 5th
Edition, § 4, n. 9, and Werro, F. (2005) La responsabilité civile. ns. 291 y 326.
The Opposite Opinion Is Defended by Schwenzer, I. (2003) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht.
Allgemeiner Teil. 3rd Edition, para
50.04, p. 305, with the Arguments That It Has the Advantage That Protects Not
Only Property Rights But Purely Economic Damages As Well, and That It Makes It
Possible to Establish a Limit to Liability through the Introduction of Determined
Duties of Care; More or Less the Same, Brehm, R. (1998) Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht.
Das Obligationenrecht. Vol.
VI, 1; 3, 1, 2ndEdition, art 41, n. 33, p. 18 f.; Widmer, P. (1998) Function and Relevance under Swiss Law. In Koziol, H., Unification of Tort Law: Wrongfulness, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 116, Appealing As Well
to the Semantic Structure of
art 41 Or in Comparison with the Italian Civil Code; Stockli, H. (2007) Notizen zur Widerrechtlichkeit. In Niggli,
M.A., Hurtado,
J. and Queloz, N., Eds., Festschrift für Franz Riklin, 227
ff., Arguing That the Problem of the Purely
Economic Damages Does Not Force to Accept an Objective Conception of Unlawfulness.
Hesitant,
Schnyder, A.K. (2003) Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht. Obligationenrecht.
I, 3rd Edition, art 41, ns. 30 ff., pp. 329 f.
Kortmann, C.N.J. (2006) Onrechtmatige overheidsbesluiten. Kluwer,
Deventer, 22. That Was
As Well the Intention of the Drafters of the Book of Obligations, Who Wrote
That “In the Draft, as in the Existing Dutch Code Adopted in 1838 Wrongfulness
Is Considered a Qualification of the Conduct”; see (1977) The Netherlands Civil
Code. Book 6, The Law of Obligations, Draft Text and Commentary. At 6.3.1, p. 378.
Asser, C., et al. (2002) Goederenrecht. Zakelijkerecht. 14th Edition, Kluwer, Deventer, 37 f. In the Same Sense,
Jansen, C.H.M. (2009) Onrechtmatige daad: Algemene bepalingen. 2nd Edition, Kluwer, n. 12, p. 23; Schut, G.H.A. (1997) Onrechtmatige daad. Kluwer, Deventer, 58;
van Workum, P. and Arets, L. (2007) Arrestenbundel HBO Rechten, Kluwer, at NJ 1996, 403, p. 788. Hesitant and Critical, Spier, J. (1998)
Wrongfulness in the Dutch Context. In Koziol,
H., Unification
of Tort Law: Wrongfulness, Kluwer Law International, The
Hague, 87 ff.
That Is Corroborated
When Reading Antunes Varela, J. (1971) Rasgos innovadores del Código civil
portugués de 1966 en materia de responsabilidad civil, Madrid, 32-35. Joao de Matos Antunes Varela (1919-2005) Was
Minister of Justice from 1954 until 1967 and the Main Promoter of the New Portuguese
Civil Code, Taking an Active Part in the Code Draft. Still in Favour of the Unlawfulness
of Result, de Almeida Costa, M.J. (2001) Direito das Obrigacoes, 9th Edition, 513 ff.
In It, It Is
Literally Said That with the Unlawfulness of the Damage “It Is Made Clearer than
in the Norm of the Civil Code of 1865 That Fault and Unlawfulness Are Different
Concepts; and, Therefore, It Is Demanded That the Act or the Omission, to be Source
of Liability, Must Be Intentional or Negligent, That Is, Imputable, and It Has to Be Carried Out through Damage to Another’s Legal Sphere. It Will Be No Liability
When the Damage Is Caused in Self-Defense Because Who Acts in That Case Has the
Power to Defend His Own Right against the Aggressor; the Damage Caused in That
Situation Cannot Be Qualified as Unlawful. In Other Words, There Is
Unlawfulness When You Harm, without Justification, Another’s Sphere”. Quoted Following Alpa, G. (1990) Danno
ingiusto e ruolo della colpa. Un profilo storico, Rivista di Diritto Civile, 36-II, 133 ff.
Bianca,
C.M. (2012) Diritto civile, 5, 2ndEdition, Giuffrè, Milano, n. 254; Busnelli, F.D. and Commandé, G. (1998)
Wrongfulness in the Italian Legal System. In Koziol, H. (1998) Unification
of Tort Law: Wrongfulness, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 69 ff.;
Inzitari, B. and Piccinini, V. (2009) La responsabilità civile.
Casi e materiali, Cedam, Padova, 3 ff. The Change Is above All Based on
the Air Accident Suffered by the Football Team Torino on the 4th May 1949 and
the Damage Caused to the Club (Supreme Court Decision 4 July 1953 [1953] Foro italiano,
I, 1087 ff.); up to That Moment Case Law Required for an Action in Tort Damage on
Property Rights. Besides, the Same Club Suffered the Death of One of Its
Players in a Car Accident, Which Set off Again the Same Problem (Supreme Court Decision
29 March 1978 [1978] Foro italiano, pp. 833 ff.).
Santos Briz, J.
(1963) Derecho de da？os. Edersa, Madrid, 24 ff. Supreme Court Decisions of 10 September
1968 (Repertorio de jurisprudencia—hereinafter RJ-4271) and 25 October 1968 (RJ
4796).
Pantaleón, F. (1991) Comentario del art. 1902. In Paz-Ares, C. et al.,Eds., Comentario del Código
Civil, Vol. II, 1993 ff. The Comment Had as Its Basis the Author’s Ph.D.,
from 1981, Unpublished, Which, However, on Account of Its Quality Was Soon
Circulating among Scholars Interested in Tort Law.
Pantaleón,
F. (Note 45), 1993-1995. Following in His Wake, e.g. Asúa, C. (2000) in Puig i
Ferriol, Ll. et al., Eds., Manual de
Derecho Civil. Vol. II, 3rd Edition, Marcial Pons, Madrid-Barcelona, 477;
Reglero Campos, F. (2008) Tratado de Responsabilidad Civil. 4th Edition, Vol. I, Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, 59 ff.; Roca Trias, E. (2011) Derecho de danos, 6th Edition, Tirant lo Blanch,
Valencia, 73; Yzquierdo Tolsada, M. (2001) Sistema de responsabilidad civil, contractual y extracontractual. Dykinson, Madrid, 110-113; etc.
See Especially Busto Lago, J.M. (1998), La antijuridicidad
del dano resarcible en la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, Tecnos,
Madrid, passim, but 175 ff.;
Albaladejo, M. (2008) Derecho Civil. II, 13th Edition, Edisofer, Madrid, 923; Bustos Pueche, J.E.
(2004) La antijuridicidad, presupuesto de la responsabilidad extracontractual. La Ley, 22 September 2004, 1 ff.; Carrasco,
A. (1989) Comentario al art. 1101. In Albaladejo, M., Ed., Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones Forales, Edersa, Madrid,
593, on Contractual Liability; Lacruz, J.L. (1985) Elementos de Derecho Civil. Vol. II, 1.o, 2nd Edition, J.M. Bosch, Barcelona, 502, text and fn. 2;
Martín Casals, M. and Solé, J. (2005) Fault under
Spanish Law. In Widmer, P., Ed., Unification of Tort Law: Fault, Kluwer
Law International, The Hague, 227 ff.; Pena López, F. (2013), Comentario al
art. 1902. In Bercovitz, Ed., Comentarios al Código Civil, IX, tirant
lo blanch, Valencia, 12969-70; Plaza Penadés, J. (2011) Comentario al art. 1902. In Canizares, A., et al., Código civil
comentado, IV, 1457 ff.
The Court Repeats Again and Again That “the
Respect and Observance of the Administrative Provisions Do Not Exonerate from Liability the One Who Caused
Nuisance, and the Administrative Regulations Do Not Change the Liability
of Those Who Fulfil Them, When the Security Measures Are Not Really Enough to Avoid
Harmful Events”.
This Strict
Liability Is a Nonsense, Criticized by Many Scholars, and Usually Even Repelled
by Administrative Courts (Especially in Cases of Public Administration’s Medical
Liability), Although Not Directly, But Using Other Arguments, Like Lack of Causation
by the Defendant, Act of God, etc. The Issue Is Too Complex to Explain Here in
a Few Lines. See, in English, González
Pacanowska, I. (2010) The Development of Traffic Liability in Spain. In Ernst,
W., Ed., The Development of Traffic Liability, Cambridge University
Press, 151 ff.; González Pacanowska, I. and García-Ripoll, M. (2012) The Impact
of Institutions and Professions in Spain. In Mitchell, P., Ed., The
Impact of Institutions and Professions on Legal Development, Series Comparative
Studies in the Development of the Law of Torts in Europe, Cambridge University
Press (2012), 233 ff.
Kolakowsky, Quoted
by Bayón Mohino, J.C. (1991) La normatividad del
Derecho: Deberes jurídicos y razones para la acción. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid,
389, fn. 200.
Fleming, J.G. (note 52), 114; Dobbs, D. (2000)
The Law of Torts, West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota, 275. In Spain, with regard
to contractual liability, Carrasco, A. (note 47), 594. In Italy, Cian, G. (1996) Antigiuridicità e
colpavolezza. Saggio per una teoria dell’illecito civile. 173.
Welzel,
H. (1931) Kausalitat und Handlung, Zeitschriftfür das gesammteStrafrechtswissenschaft, 51, 703 ff. Collected in Welzel, H., Abhandlungen zum Strafrecht
und zur Rechtsphilosophie, de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1975, 7 ff.; (1969)
Das Deutsche Strafrecht. 11th Edition, de Gruyter, Berlin, passim.
In Tort
Law as Much as in Criminal Law, Authors Tend to Speak Simply of “Defenses”,
without Any Further Distinction. See, as to Tort Law e.g. Rogers, W.V.H. (2010) Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort. 18th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, para 25-1; McBride N. and Bagshaw, R.
(2005) Tort Law. 2nd Edition, Pearson-Longman, London, Devote a Special Chapter in Each Tort to “Lawful
Justification or Excuse”, That Is, without Distinguishing Justification and Excuse. A Good Part of Them
Even Includes the Contributory Negligence among the Defenses, and, besides, as
a Defense inside Negligence. So, Deakin, S., Johnston, A. and Marquesinis, B. (2008),
Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law. 6th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 892 ff.; Dobbs, D. (note 57), 494 ff.; Lunney, M.
and Oliphant, K. (2010) Tort Law. Texts and Materials. 4th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 300 ff.; Weir, T. (2002) Tort Law. OUP,
Oxford, 119: “Contributory
Negligence Is Unquestionably a Defense”. But, on the One Hand, Contributory Negligence
Has Nothing in Common with, Say, Insanity, and, on the Other Hand, Negligence
Means per se Unlawfulness. One Thing Is Unlawfulness and Other Liability;
in Case of Contributory Negligence, the Negligence of the Tortfeasor Does Not
Decrease the Disvalue of the Conduct or State of Mind, But Only the Liability: Münzberg, W. (note 5), 81, fn. 161.
As to Criminal Law,
e.g. Asworth, A. (2003) Principles of Criminal
Law, OUP, Oxford, 204 ff.; Ormerod, D. (2005). Smith & Hogan Criminal Law. 11th Edition, OUP, Oxford, 296 ff.
Exceptions to What
Has Been Exposed Are, as to Tort Law, e.g. Dobbs, D. (note 57), 156 f. As to Criminal Law, W.R. LaFave, W.R. (2003) Criminal
Law. 4th Edition, § 9.1, 447 ff.; Although Recognizing That
“The Actual or Proposed Defenses in the Present Chapter Are More of a MIXED bag”
(450).
The Work
of McBride, N. and Bagshaw, R. (note 60), 496 ff., Is a Good Example. The Authors Treat Some Defenses under
the Heading “Limits on the Right to Sue”: They Include the defense volenti non fit iniuria, But According to the Civil Procedure
Rules for England and Wales That Defense Is a Matter of Substantive Law and That
Does Not Bar the Lawsuit from the Beginning, But It Has to Be Settled in the Final
Court’s Decision.
In This
Country Parents Are Always Held Liable If the Tortfeasor
Is under 14, No Matter How Careful They Were; between 14 and 16 Parents Are
Liable If They Could Have Avoided the Harm; Otherwise, the Minor Him or Herself
Is Liable; That Is to Say: Someone Has to Foot the Bill, Art 6:169 BW. In Contrast,
Art 6:165 Sets Out That the Circumstance That the Act Was Done under the Influence
of a Mental Disorder It Is Not an Obstacle to Deem the Tortfeasor as Liable.
In France, Art 414-3 CC Lays Out That “Whoever
Caused Damage to Another When He Was under a Mental Disorder Is Not Less
Subjected to the Obligation of Redressing the Damage”.
Dobbs, D. (note 57), § 120, 284 f and
§ 124, 293. The Same Opinion Is Held by Fleming,
J.G. (Note 52), 126; Winfield & Jolowicz
(note 60), para 24-16; Lunney, M. and
Oliphant, K. (note 60), p. 196.
See Koziol, H. (1998) Conclusions. In Koziol,
H., Unification of Tort Law: Wrongfulness, Kluwer Law International, The Hague,
130. See Also the Seminal Work of Viehweg, T. (1953) Topik und
Jurisprudence. C.H. Beck, München.
