compensation for personal injury in english, german...

Compensation for Personal Injury in English,German and Italian Law

Cross-border claims for personal injuries are becoming more common.

Furthermore, European nationals increasingly join class actions in the

USA. These tendencies have created a need to know more about the law

of damages in Europe and America.

Despite the growing importance of this subject, there is a dearth of

material available to practitioners to assist them in advising their

clients as to the heads of damage recoverable in other countries. This

book aims to fill that gap by looking at the law in England, Germany

and Italy. It sets out the raw data in the wider context of tort law, then

provides a closer synthesis, largely concerned with methodological

issues, and draws some comparative conclusions.

bas i l markes in i s qc , fba is Professor of Common and Civil Law

at University College London and Jamail Regents Chair in Law at the

University of Texas at Austin. He is the author or co-author of

twenty-five books and over a hundred articles published in major

European and US legal journals. He has received high decorations from

the Presidents of France, Germany, Greece and Italy for his work on

European law and European integration and is Corresponding Member

of the Academies of Athens, Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

michael coester has been an Ordinarius Professor of Law at the

University of Gottingen (1983–1994) and Munich since 1994. He was

Dean of the faculty in Gottingen and has served on the Senate of the

University of Munich. He has been Visiting Professor at the University of

Michigan, University College London, and University of Nanjing. He has

authored four books and over 130 articles published in journals of

several countries, and is the co-author of two leading German

commentaries on private and private international law.

guido alpa fba is Professor of Civil Law at the University of Rome

‘La Sapienza’ and Professor of Anglo-American Law at the University of

Genoa. He has been Vice President of the Italian Bar Council since 2001

and President of the Italian Bar Council since 2004. Professor Alpa has

published books on civil law, financial markets contracts and

regulation, consumer protection, tort liability and comparative law.

© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org

Cambridge University Press0521846137 - Compensation for Personal Injury in English, German and Italian Law: AComparative OutlineBasil Markesinis, Michael Coester, Guido Alpa and Augustus UllsteinFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/0521846137

http://www.cambridge.org


ii

augustus ullste in ll b . q . c . is a barrister practising in London.

He specialises in Personal Injuries and Product Liability cases arising

from accidents occurring in England, Europe and the USA. He has given

expert evidence in the USA on the English Law of damages in Personal

Injury cases.

With a Foreword by the Rt Hon. the Lord Steyn.






c ambr idge studies in internat ional and comparat ive l aw

Established in 1946, this series produces high quality scholarship in the fieldsof public and private international law and comparative law. Although theseare distinct legal subdisciplines, developments since 1946 confirm theirinterrelation.

Comparative law is increasingly used as a tool in the making of law atnational, regional, and international levels. Private international law is nowoften affected by international conventions, and the issues faced by classicalconflicts rules are frequently dealt with by substantive harmonisation of lawunder international auspices. Mixed international arbitrations, especially thoseinvolving state economic activity, raise mixed questions of public and privateinternational law, while in many fields (such as the protection of human rightsand democratic standards, investment guarantees and international criminallaw) international and national systems interact. National constitutionalarrangements relating to “foreign affairs,’’and to the implementation ofinternational norms, are a focus of attention.

The Board welcomes works of a theoretical or interdisciplinary character,and those focusing on the new approaches to international or comparative lawor conflicts of law. Studies of particular institutions or problems are equallywelcome, as are translations of the best work published in other languages.

General Editors James Crawford SC FBAWhewell Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, andDirector, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law,University of CambridgeJohn S. Bell FBAProfessor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Editorial Board Professor Hilary Charlesworth University of AdelaideProfessor Lori Damrosch Columbia University Law SchoolProfessor John Dugard Universiteit LeidenProfessor Mary-Ann Glendon Harvard Law SchoolProfessor Christopher Greenwood London School of EconomicsProfessor David Johnston University of EdinburghProfessor Hein Kotz Max-Planck-Institut, HamburgProfessor Donald McRae University of OttawaProfessor Onuma Yasuaki University of TokyoProfessor Reinhard Zimmermann Universitat Regensburg

Advisory Committee Professor D.W. Bowett QCJudge Rosalyn Higgins QCProfessor J.A. Jolowicz QCProfessor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QCProfessor Kurt LipsteinJudge Stephen Schwebel

(list continues at the end of the book)






Compensation for Personal Injuryin English, German and Italian Law

A Comparative Outline

Basil Markesinis, Michael Coester, Guido Alpaand Augustus Ullstein






publ i shed by the press s yndic ate of the univers i t y of c ambr idgeThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

c ambr idge univers i t y pressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, AustraliaRuiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, SpainDock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa


C© Basil Markesinis, Michael Coester, Guido Alpa and Augustus Ullstein 2005

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2005

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeface Swift 10/13 pt System LATEX 2ε [TB]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 521 84613 7 hardback






Contents

Foreword page xiiiPreface xvTable of cases xviiiList of Abbreviations xxxiii

1. Introduction 1Preliminary observations 1The problem of terms, concepts and language 2

English law 2German law 3Italian law 5

The impact of history: juries, non-juries, academicwriters 8


Levels of award: a first glance 16English law 16German law 17Italian law 18

Basic principles of tort law, especially to the extentthat they affect compensation practice 20


Size of judiciary, volume of litigation, delays and cost 26English law 26

vii






viii contents

German law 27Italian law 28

Who pays legal costs? Is legal aid available and, if so, towhom and on what basis? Does legal aid act as a brakeon litigation? Are conditional fee agreements orcontingency fees permitted? 29


Social security, other sources of revenue and tort law 33English law 33German law 35Italian law 36

Method of payment 36English law 36German law 42Italian law 44

2. General damages: non-pecuniary losses 45English law 45

Introduction 45Concept of general damages 46The ‘assessment’ concept of general damages 50Psychiatric injury 51Loss of marriage prospects 58Loss of congenial employment 58

German law 59Introduction 59Principles of fair compensation and satisfaction 62Assessment of non-pecuniary damages resulting from

personal injury in general 65Particular factors for the assessment of the

compensation 68Italian law 82

Introduction 82Principle of full compensation 83Danno biologico 84Statutory rules about danno biologico 86Methods for the liquidation of danno biologico 87Life and death 89






contents ix

Psychiatric injury 90Danno morale (pain and suffering) 91Quantification of danno morale 94

3. Special damages: past losses 97English law 97

Introduction 97Loss of earnings 98Past medical care 98Personal expenses 102Travel costs 102Aids and equipment 103Accommodation 104Other possible headings 105

German law 105Loss of earnings 105Past medical care 105Travel costs 107Aids and equipment 113Accommodation 114

Italian law 115

4. Future pecuniary losses 116English law 116

Introduction 116Principle of full compensation 117Method of calculation 119Future loss of earnings 123Medical treatment and therapies 126Third parties taking care of the claimant’s

needs 128Future loss: home care or an institution? 133Accommodation 134Future loss: aids and equipment 136Loss of pension 137The lost years 138

German law 138Future pecuniary losses 138Loss of earnings 142Future medical care 154






x contents

Is the victim bound to use the money he has received foradequate care, or can he do with it as helikes? 158

Other potential heads of damage 160Lost years 161

Italian law 162Introduction 162Method of calculation 163Future loss of earnings (capacita lavorativa specifica,

specific working incapacity) 164Loss of opportunities 168Method for the calculation of compensation:

lump sum, life annuity 168Medical treatment and therapies 169

5. Collateral sources of revenue: subrogation rights andmiscellaneous matters 171English law 171

Social security payments 171Pension losses 172Monies provided by the employer 173Benevolence of third parties 173Insurance policies taken out by the injured

person 174Duties of local authorities 174Interest 175Limitation periods 175Persons under a disability 177Miscellaneous matters 179

German law 181Introductory observations 181Social security payments 182Pension losses 186Services/payments from the employer, insurer,

family and friends 188Insurance policies 189Interest 190Limitation periods 191Persons under a disability 192






contents xi

Italian law 194Introductory observations 194Social security payments 194Insurance policies 195Interest 196Limitation period 196

6. Conclusions 197General observations 197The wider background 200More specific conclusions 207

‘European’ and ‘American’ law 207Punitive damages 209Variations in awards within national European systems 211Easy access to justice as a prerequisite to obtaining

compensation 212Problems of comparison with non-pecuniary damages 214Specificity about the size of awards 217Nature and wealth of the defendant as a determinant of

the size of the award 219Proposals for reform? 220

Appendix: Comparative tables on the evaluation of physicalinjury (IP) for micro-permanent injuries 225

Index 228






Foreword

In 1871, when reviewing Addison’s recently published The Law of Torts,Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the view that ‘Torts is not a propersubject for a law book’ ((1871) 5 Am.LR 340). In 1881 Holmes gave thelie to this idea in his famous book The Common Law which contained amagisterial chapter on the theory of the law of torts. Today, tort law hasa strong claim to have generated more case law and more literature thanany other branch of the law.

In an age in which comparative law has come of age the developmentof our tort law has benefited greatly from comparative methods. It has en-abled us to test our law against feasible solutions adopted in foreign legalsystems. Due perhaps in large measure to the relative inaccessibility ofsources in foreign languages, the comparative exercise has unfortunatelyin English legal practice largely concentrated on decisions in common lawjurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.That our courts need not be so inhibited has been underlined, for exam-ple, by three major works, i.e. Prof. Christian von Bar, The Common EuropeanLaw of Torts, vols. 1 and 2 (2000); Prof. Walter van Gerven (van Gerven, Leverand Larouche), Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and Inter-national Tort Law (2000); Prof. Basil Markesinis and Prof. Hannes Unberath,The German Law of Torts (4th edn, 2002). All three are, of course, essentialreading for practitioners. The decision of the House of Lords in Fairchild v.Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32, which concerned the age old tortproblem of uncertainty about which employment caused a disease, hasdemonstrated what can be done, if the complex foreign material is ‘pack-aged’ in an attractive manner. The opinion of Lord Bingham of Cornhill(at 58 to 63 and 66) relied strongly on the rich sources of modern civilianpractice and doctrine: see also the opinion of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

xiii






xiv foreword

(at 117 to 118). Practitioners need to take account of the important lessonof Fairchild that Continental jurisprudence really matters.

Now there is another great step forward with the publication of thisbook. The subject of compensation for personal injury is of great practicalimportance in all civil justice systems. The book compares the solutionsadopted in English, German and Italian law. The aim is essentially prac-tical, namely to make available to judges, practitioners and academiclawyers a detailed account of the decisions of foreign courts, packaged tomeet the needs of practitioners, in order to enable the comparative pointof view to play a dynamic role in the development of our law.

The book has been written by distinguished lawyers who share a pro-found knowledge of tort law and comparative methodology. Not surpris-ingly, they have produced a first class book which is a notable contributionto tort law and comparative law studies. It contains much material whichthose in practice cannot afford to ignore. I commend it unreservedly tojudges, practitioners and academic lawyers.

johan steynHouse of Lords, June 2004






Preface

Biblical texts warn us that no one can serve two gods. Lawyers, no doubt,have occasionally done so; and comparative lawyers must, surely, have adispensation to do so regularly. For the raison d’etre of the latter is to de-scribe and compare different systems without fear or favour, largely forthe sake of the advantages and the insights that flow from any compara-tive exercise. We have thus tried to present in a comparative juxtapositionthree major legal systems of the world and have addressed our text to tworeaderships which are often described as being very different – practition-ers (including judges) and academics. We have done this for two reasons.

Many have written about the respective tasks of these two kinds oflawyers; and in England those who have done so have stressed how differ-ent they are. There is, of course, some truth in these assertions; but in ourview these differences have also been exaggerated – at any rate wheneverone is trying to make the one group work closely with the other, as wefeel they must. For in such circumstances academics must try to presenttheir theories in any way that makes them palatable to practitioners; ifthey do not, their dish (for which read ideas) will not be savoured.

To the extent that the book describes in modest detail what can beclaimed in the event of personal (not fatal) injuries in the three sys-tems compared, it tries to serve the first constituency. Two of us – BasilMarkesinis and Augustus Ullstein – have encountered this need in ourprofessional careers; and one more – Guido Alpa – also practises as anavvocato in Rome and Genoa and knows the needs of the profession.

If the first of our targeted groups needs ‘usable’ data, the second needsthoughts and ideas that can promote further reflection. Here the effort hadto go into the ‘packaging’ of the information we assembled for this bookin a way that made it look more than just a list of similar and differentsolutions. Here, two of us – Basil Markesinis and Michael Coester – took

xv






xvi preface

more time to achieve this overall result by going over the entire text severaltimes and minimising, whenever possible, the effects of a presentationthat was too slanted towards national habits and methods. A few wordsneed to be said about the difficulties the authors encountered in carryingout this enterprise.

Since this book was written in English and primarily addresses an An-glophone readership, inevitably it had to take as its starting point theclassification structure known to the common law. If, as we hope, thereader thinks that, overall, the presentation of the English, German andItalian law makes good reading, it means that we have succeeded in our‘packaging’efforts of the other two legal systems. But this was by no meansan easy task, as the specialist reader of any of these systems can attest. Forthe truth of the matter is that the structures, divisions, concepts and no-tions used in this book, being of common law origin, did not always fitin easily with what exists in Germany and Italy, which is often very dif-ferent to the English. Even the writing style of lawyers who come fromdifferent countries is different and here, again, we have tried to producea work which will sit well in the library of a common lawyer. But ‘dif-ferent’ does not mean less valid, less interesting or less attractive. This,too, is made clear in several parts of the narrative; and tribute is herepaid to the two non-common lawyers who co-authored this book and sogenerously agreed to comply with the demands of English language andpractice.

‘Packaging’, thus had to take place for, otherwise, the Continental sys-tems discussed in this book, which have served as models for many coun-tries, would continue to be a mystery to anyone but their own nationalsand devotees. In our view, the increasingly transnational nature of per-sonal injuries litigation cannot tolerate such parochialism. Thus, the con-tribution to the art of ‘packaging’ forms the first part of the intellectualcontribution this book tries to make to the art of comparison; the synthe-sising conclusions form the other. Broadly speaking, the whole enterprisefollows the approach advocated by one of us on many occasions, most re-cently in his monograph entitled Comparative Law in the Courtroom and theClassroom: The Story of the Last Thirty Five Years (Hart Publishing, 2003) (thiswill soon appear in French, German and Italian translations, an indica-tion perhaps of the interest this method is attracting in these countries)and has tried to avoid the format of a questionnaire which jurists fromdifferent systems dutifully fill in. Such works may be useful in one sense;but from a scholarly angle they seem less appealing.

One last word is needed on ‘packaging’.






preface xvii

A number of contemporary comparatists have objected to such effortsat ‘packaging’ foreign law. They say it does not work. They also argue thatit ‘betrays’ the essential features of the foreign system, which must beseen in its wider environment. We see no betrayal whatsoever in an ef-fort which tries to make national wisdom and experience internationallyknown and appreciated. And we affected no cover-up of the essential fea-tures of a particular system, as our readers will see when reading carefullywhat one could loosely describe as the components of the book whichcontain the information about national law. For from them one can gleanadditional information about history, the sources of law, the identity ofthe major protagonists, the abstract or concrete mould of mind of eachsystem compared in this book, the style of judgments, as well as find outhow they compensate different headings of damage. Dare we thus say it?This book, like most books which contain personal experiences of manyyears and not just information, should therefore be read on two levels:the obvious and the concealed.

That despite our efforts, disagreements may still persist about themethod is as possible as it is likely that the information provided on eachparticular issue will not always be found to be as extensive in all threesystems under comparison. This, for instance, becomes obvious in chap-ter 3 as a result of the unwillingness of Italian law to devise different rulesfor calculating past and future economic losses. Here, then, no amount of‘packaging’could (or should) conceal existing difference. The reader mustbe left free to decide if the differences are ‘apparent’ rather than ‘real’, aswell as the more difficult question whether the approach of Italian lawcould be improved. Once again, the accusation of ‘betraying’ a foreignsystem by making it accessible to lawyers of another is, to us, ludicrous.

For us, however, making value judgments of this kind was a matter oflesser import. For, this, essentially, is an essay in comparative methodologywhich all of us, in our similar and different ways of ‘making a living outof the law’, are trying to develop in order to practise our profession. Ifthe attempt to innovate has carried with it problems, we were willingto confront them and even risk falling into error since we know that allhuman action entails the risk of error. For, as the great Goethe (in Faust,Part I (1790; Insel edn, 1965), p. 16) put it, Es irrt der Mensch, solang er strebt.The alternative – inaction – was not an option.

Basil Markesinis QC, FBA (London and Texas); Guido Alpa, FBA (Rome andGenoa); Michael Coester (Munich); Augustus Ullstein QC (Temple)London, Genoa, Munich, 24 December 2003






Table of cases

Common law cases

A v. National Blood Authority [2002] Lloyd’s Law Reports Medical 487page 181, 199

A.B. v. South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507, CA 3A.B. v. Tameside and Glossop Health Authority [1997] 8 Med. L.R. 91, CA 55A.E.I. Rediffusion Music Ltd v. Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR

1507, CA 29Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310,

HL(E) 51–52, 54, 56Andrews v. Reynolds Memorial Hospital, Inc., 499 S.E. 2d 846 (W.Va.

1997) 215Andrews v. Secretary of State for Health [2000] 54 BMLR 111 [2000] Lloyd’s

Reports Medical 121 56Annable v. South Derbyshire Health Authority [2001] QB 272, CA 49Appleton v. Garrett [1996] 5 PIQR P1, QBD 45Atkinson v. Seghal [2003] All ER (D) 341 (Mar), CA Civil Division, Judgment

of 21 March 2003 53Auty v. National Coal Board [1985] 1 WLR 784, CA 118, 138

Barnet Group Hospital Management Committee v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd[1960] 1 QB 107 99

Barrow v. Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 257, CA 36Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd [1957] 2 QB 1 54Bell v. The Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland (1890) 26 LR Ir.

428 53Bell v. Todd [2002] Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 12, QBD 134, 174Birkett v. Hayes [1982] 1 WLR 816, CA 10

xviii






table of c ases xix

Blamire v. South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] PIQR Q 1 123, 126Bourhill (Hay) v. Young [1943] AC 92, HL (Sc) 54Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc. (Shiley Heart Valve Litigation) 143 F.R.D. 141 (S.D. Ohio

1992), 159 F.R.D. 492 (S.D.Ohio 1994), 502, 521 202, 205Bradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] 1 FCR 425; [2002] LGR

489, CA 55Brightman v. Johnson, The Times, December 17th 1985 48British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1956] AC 185, HL (E) 98, 123Brittain v. Garner, The Times, February 18 1989 125Brown v. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Area Health Authority (Teaching)

[1982] 1 All ER 650, CA 135Browning v. War Office [1963] 1 QB 750, CA 173Brunsden v. Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141, CA 36Burns v. Edman [1970] 2 QB 541 123Byers v. London Borough of Brent, QBD, Judgment of 24 April 1998

(Unreported) 59

Callery v. Gray (Nos. 1 and 2) [2002] UKHL 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2000 30Cassell v. Riverside Health Authority [1992] PIQR Q168, CA 126Chatelain v. Kelley, 322 Ark. 517, 910 S.W.2d 215 (1995) 215Clarke v. Rotax Aircraft Equipment Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1570, CA 10Coenen v. Payne [1974] 1 WLR 984, CA 39Connolly v. Tasker [2001] QB 272, CA 49Cook v. J.L. Kier and Co. [1970] 1 WLR 774, CA 47Cookson v. Knowles [1979] AC 556, HL(E) 122Cooper v. Firth Brown Ltd [1963] 1 WLR 418 98, 123Cunningham v. Harrison [1973] QB 942, CA 98, 100, 104, 129, 133, 172

Daly v. General Steam Navigation Co. Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 120, CA 99Despina R., The [1979] AC 685, HL(E) 36Dews v. National Coal Board [1988] AC 1, HL(E) 98, 137Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 484 (1935) 209Dobbie v. Medway Health Authority [1994] 1 WLR 1234, CA 176Donelly v. Joyce [1974] QB 454, CA 97, 100, 102, 129–30Dooley v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 271 56Dow Corning Corporation, In re, 255 B.R. 445 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.

2000) 199, 201, 202, 205, 206, 210Dulieu v. White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 53Duller v. South East Lincs Engineers [1981] C.L.Y. 585 123Dunn v. Rose Way, Inc., 333 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 1983) 215






xx table of c ases

Dunnett v. Railtrack plc (in railway administration) [2002] EWCA Civ 303;[2002] 1 WLR 2434, CA 206

Evans v. Pontyprida Roofing Ltd [2001] EWCR Civ 1657 100

Fashade v. North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust November 10th 2000, WrightJ. [2001] C.L.Y. 1712 42

Firle Investments Ltd v. Datapoint International Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ1106 29

Fish v. Wilcox and Gwent Health Authority [1994] 5 Med. L.R. 230 101Fitzgerald v. Ford [1996] PIQR Q72 100, 116Fletcher v. Autocar and Transporters Ltd [1968] 2 QB 322, CA 47Fournier v. Canadian National Railway Company [1972] AC 167, PC 36Fuhri v. Jones [1979] CA (Unreported) 50

Galt v. British Railways Board (1983) 133 NLJ 870 56George v. Pinnock [1973] 1 WLR 118, CA 10George v. Stagecoach [2003] EWCH 2042 126Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412; 545 A.2d 139 (1988) 215Gower v. London Borough of Bromley [1999] ELR 356, CA 55Greatorex v. Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970 81Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal. App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348

(1981) 209

H. v. Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 QB 103, CA 9H. West & Son Ltd v. Shephard [1964] AC 326, HL (E) 47, 48Hale v. London Underground Ltd [1993] PIQR Q30 59Halloran v. Delaney [2002] EWCA Civ 1258; [2003] 1 WLR 28 30Hardwick v. Hudson [1999] 1 WLR 1770, CA 101, 130Harris v. Brights Asphalt Contractors Ltd [1953] 1 QB 617 127Harris v. Empress Motors Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 212, CA 138Harris v. Harris [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 445, CA 10Haumersen v. Ford Motor Company, 257 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa1977) 215Heil v. Rankin [2001] QB 272, CA 16, 49, 50Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 2 Cal.3d 1, 465 P.2d 61

(1970) 213Hewson v. Downs [1970] 1 QB 73 (Sheffield Assizes) 172Hicks v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65, HL(E)

47Hinz v. Berry [1970] 2 QB 40, CA 51






table of c ases xxi

Hodgson v. Trapp [1989] AC 807, HL(E) 102, 173Hoffman v. Sofaer [1982] 1 WLR 1350 36, 47Hogg v. Doyle, CA, Judgment of 6 March 1991 (Unreported) 101Housecroft v. Burnett [1986] 1 All ER 332, CA 48, 101, 125, 131Hunt v. Severs [1993] QB 815, CA; [1994] 2 AC 350, HL(E) 100, 129,

130–1, 157Hunter v. Butler [1996] RTR 396, CA 123Hussain v. New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd [1988] AC 514, HL(E) 173

Ichard v. Frangoulis [1977] 1 WLR 556 47

Jaensch v. Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 53Jefford v. Gee [1970] 2 QB 130 9, 10Jones v. Jones [1985] QB 704, CA 105Justus v. Atchison, 19 Cal. 3d 564, 565 P.2d 122 (1977) 215

Kars v. Kars (1996) 141 ALR 37 100Kent v. Griffiths (No.2) [2001] QB 272, CA 49King v. Phillips [1953] 1 QB 429, CA 54Kralj v. McGrath [1986] 1 All ER 54 3, 45Krishnan v. Sepulveda, 916 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.1995) 215Kroeker v. Jansen (1995) 123 DLR (4th) 652 100Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29; [2001]

2 WLR 1789 45

Lanford v. Hebran [2001] EWCA Civ 361; [2001] PIQR Q160 59Leon Seng Tan v. Bunnage July 23rd 1986 (Unreported) 102Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, CA 45Lim Poh-Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1979] QB 196,

CA; [1980] AC 174, HL(E) 10, 37–8, 47, 48, 118, 127London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v. Swan, CA, Judgment of 12 March

1999 (Unreported) 138Longden v. British Coal Corporation [1998] AC 653, HL(E) 172

Masterman-Lister v. Jewell [2003] 1 WLR 1511, CA 177McCamley v. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 963, CA 132McFarlane v. EE Caledonia Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 1, CA 56Meah v. McCreamer (No.1) [1985] 1 All ER 367 53Metcalfe v. London Passenger Transport Board [1938] 2 All ER 352 36Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443, HL(E) 36






xxii table of c ases

Milton v. Cary Medical Center, 358 A.2d 252 (Me. 1988) 215Mitchell v. Mulholland (No.2) [1972] 1 QB 65, CA 118Moeliker v. A. Reyrolle & Co. Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 132, CA 126Moen v. Hanson, 85 Wn.2d 597, 537 P.2d 266 (Wash. 1975) 215Moore v. Shah, 458 N.Y.S. 2d 33 (1982) 133Moriarty v. McCarthy [1978] 1 WLR 155 58, 104, 133

Nash v. Eli Lilly & Co. [1993] 1 WLR 782, CA 176, 177Nobles v. Schofield, CA, Judgment of 14 May 1998 53North Glamorgan NHS Trust v. Walters (2002) EWCA Civ 1792; [2002] All ER

(D) 87 (Dec); [2003] Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 49 53

Ornelas v. Fry, 727 P.2d 819 (Ariz. App., 1986) 133Osman v. United Kingdom [1999] 1 FLR 193 201

Page v. Sheerness Steel Co. Plc [1996] PIQR Q26. 122, 138see also Wells v. Wells

Page v. Smith [1996] 1 AC 155, HL(E) 53, 54Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, HL(E) 55Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136, HL(E) 10, 161Prather v. Lockwood, 19 Ill.App.3d 146; 310 N.E. 2d 815 (1974) 215Pratt (Keith) v. Collie Smith Mr David Froskett Q.C. (Unreported) 59Pritchard v. J.H. Cobden Ltd [1987] 2 WLR 627, CA 105

Ramsay v. Rivers [2002] QB 272, CA 49Rees v. Mabco (102) Ltd (in liquidation) [2001] QB 272, CA 49Rialas v. Mitchel (1984) 128 SJ 704, CA 98Roach v. Yates [1938] 1 KB 256, CA 128Roberts v. Johnstone [1989] QB 878, CA 135Robertson v. Forth Road Bridge Joint Board [1995] IRLR 251, Ct of

Session 56Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Exch. 850; 154 ER 363 117Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct 705 (1973) 215Ryan v. Liverpool Health Authority [2002] Lloyd’s Rep.Med. 23 134, 174

Sayers v. SmithKline Beecham plc [2002] EWHC 1280 202, 210Schofield v. Saunders & Taylor Ltd [2001] 1 QB 272, CA 49Schott Kem Ltd v. Bentley [1991] 1 QB 61, CA 39Shaw v. Wirral Health Authority [1993] 4 Med. LR 275 99Sirianni v. Anna, 285 N.Y.S. 2d 709 (1967) 133






table of c ases xxiii

Smith v. Manchester Corporation [1974] 17 KIR 1, CA 126Smoker v. London Fire & Civil Defence Authority (1991) 2 AC 502, HL(E) 173Spittle v. Bunney [1988] 1 WLR 847, CA 175State of Missouri ex rel. Hardin v. Sanders, 538 S.W.2d 336 (1976) 215Stubbings v. United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 213 176Stubbings v. Webb [1993] AC 498, HL(E) 176Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985) 215

Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1997) 215Taylor v. O’Connor [1971] AC 115, HL(E) 118Thomas v. Brighton Health Authority, see Wells v. WellsThompson v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Hsu v. Commissioner of

Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498, CA 9, 45Thurston v. Todd (1966) 84 WN Pt 1 (NSW) 231 118

Urbanski v. Patel [1978] 84 DLR (3d) 650 133

Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas (1888) 3 App. Cas. 222, PC 53Volk v. Baldazo, 103 Idaho 570, 651 P. 2d 11 (1982) 215

W. v. Meah (1986) 1 All ER 935 45Wadey v. Surrey County Council [2000] 1 WLR 820, HL(E&Sc) 175Wagon Mound, The (No. 1), [1961] AC 388, PC 54Ward v. James [1966] 1 QB 273, CA 9Warren v. Northern General Hospital NHS Trust [2001] QB 272, CA 49Warriner v. Warriner [2002] EWCA Civ 81; [2003] 3 All ER 447 121Wells v. Wells [1997] 1 WLR 652, CA; [1999] 1 AC 345, HL(E) 38, 118,

119, 120, 122, 135, 138White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455,

HL(E) 53, 56, 57–58Willett v. North Bedfordshire Health Authority (1992) 143 NLJ 745,

QBD 136Williams v. BOC Gases Ltd [2000] ICR 1181, CA 174Willson v. Ministry of Defence [1991] 1 All ER 638 40–41, 42Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company Ltd v. English (1938) AC 57, HL(Sc) 57Winkworth v. Hubbard [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 150 98Wise v. Kaye [1962] 1 QB 638, CA 46, 48Witty v. American General Capital Distributors, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.

1987) 215Wood v. British Coal Corporation [1981] 2 AC 502, HL(E) 173






xxiv table of c ases

Woodrup v. Nicol [1993] PIQR Q104 98, 126, 127Wright v. British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773, HL(E) 10, 175

X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633, HL(E) 55,201

Z v. United Kingdom [2000] 2 LGLR 212 201

German cases

Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

BVerfG 23 June 1999, NJW 1999, 3186 31BVerfG 8 March 2000, NJW 2000, 2187 4, 18BVerfG 25 July 2003, NJW 2003, 2598 205

Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court

BGH 3 December 1951, BGHZ 4, 133 148BGH 4 April 1952, BGHZ 5, 314 43BGH 19 June 1952, BGHZ 7, 30 152BGH 13 May 1953, BGHZ 10, 6 143BGH 6 July 1955, BGHZ 18, 149 4, 62, 63, 65, 79, 80, 190BGH 19 November 1955, BGHZ 19, 94 190BGH 30 November 1955, BGHZ 19, 177 182BGH 22 June 1956, BGHZ 21, 112 188BGH 12 July 1957, VersR 1957, 574 140BGH 29 October 1957, NJW 1958, 627 154, 160BGH 17 November 1957, BGHZ 25, 322 190BGH 14 February 1958, BGHZ 26, 349 61BGH 13 March 1959, NJW 1959, 1031 68BGH 20 December 1960, BGHZ 34, 110 139, 140, 141, 146BGH 19 September 1961, NJW 1961, 2059 211BGH 16 November 1961, NJW 1962, 243 75BGH 20 March 1962, NJW 1962, 1054 147BGH 3 July 1962, VersR 1962, 1100 144BGH 25 September 1962, BGHZ 38, 55 150, 151BGH 2 April 1963, VersR 1963, 682 147BGH 9 April 1964, BGHZ 41, 292 188BGH 10 November 1964, NJW 1965, 102 107, 161BGH 5 January 1965, NJW 1965, 1376 190BGH 8 January 1965, VersR 1965, 439 106






table of c ases xxv

BGH 2 December 1966, VersR 1967, 256 81BGH 7 January 1969, VersR 1969, 350 190BGH 23 September 1969, NJW 1969, 2281 106BGH 13 January 1970, MDR 1970, 315 140, 154BGH 5 May 1970, BGHZ 54, 45 148BGH 22 September 1970, VersR 1970, 1053 184BGH 15 December 1970, VersR 1971, 442 154, 159BGH 11 May 1971, BGHZ 56, 163 82BGH 13 July 1971, NJW 1971, 2069 190BGH 23 March 1973, LM RVO § 1542 Nr 78 184BGH 18 June 1973, BGHZ 61, 101 80BGH 25 September 1973, NJW 1974, 41 150, 161BGH 25 September 1973, VesrR 1974, 142 144, 150BGH 13 November 1973, NJW 1974, 134 153BGH 3 July 1974, MDR 1975, 490 69BGH 3 December 1974, BGHZ 63, 295 218BGH 17 December 1974, NJW 1975, 1467 75BGH 7 May 1975, BGHZ 64, 260 188BGH 11 November 1975, NJW 1976, 326 187BGH 16 December 1975, NJW 1976, 1147 73, 161BGH 23 March 1976, BGHZ 66, 239 158BGH 8 June 1976, VersR 1976, 967 66, 67BGH 8 February 1977, NJW 1977, 1283 153, 154BGH 18 October 1977, BGHZ 69, 347 186BGH 8 November 1977, VersR 1978, 149 114, 154, 155BGH 15 December 1977, VersR 1979, 164 72BGH 19 December 1978, NJW 1979, 760 190BGH 21 December 1978, NJW 1979, 598 111, 113BGH 23 January 1979, NJW 1979, 2142 146BGH 10 April 1979, VersR 1979, 640 184BGH 26 April 1979, BGHZ 74, 231 191BGH 8 May 1979, NJW 1979, 1654 72BGH 22 January 1980, NJW 1980, 1787 140, 144BGH 8 January 1981, NJW 1981, 818 43, 141, 142BGH 19 May 1981, NJW 1982, 757 107, 113, 114, 154BGH 22 September 1981, NJW 1982, 168 76BGH 23 March 1982 VI ZR 85/81 (not published) 148BGH 4 May 1982, NJW 1982, 1864 158BGH 22 June 1982, NJW 1982, 2123 73BGH 21 September 1982, NJW 1983, 340 69






xxvi table of c ases

BGH 30 March 1983, NJW 1984, 1552 43BGH 12 April 1983, VersR 1983, 663 186BGH 5 July 1983 VI ZR 269/82 (not published) 147BGH 31 January 1984, NJW 1984, 1405 82BGH 19 June 1984, NJW 1984, 2520 151BGH 23 October 1984, NJW 1985, 791 160BGH 4 December 1984, NJW 1985, 735 161BGH 5 February 1985 BGHZ 93, 351 82BGH 21 May 1985, NJW 1985, 2757 112BGH 15 October 1985, VersR 1986, 264 156BGH 4 December 1985, VersR 1985, 356 152BGH 14 January 1986, NJW 1986, 1538 106, 159BGH 25 February 1986, VersR 1987, 1140 70BGH 25 November 1986, BGHZ 99, 133 3BGH 30 June 1987, BGHZ 101, 207 186BGH 29 March 1988, NJW 1988, 1783 156BGH 6 October 1988, VersR 1989, 94 153BGH 6 October 1988, VersR 1989, 1150 68, 154BGH 18 October 1988, NJW-RR 1989, 670 106BGH 22 November 1988, NJW 1989, 766 112, 155, 157BGH 4 April 1989, NJW 1989, 2317 82BGH 9 May 1989, WM 1989, 1481 81BGH 23 May 1989, BGHZ 107, 325 188BGH 26 May 1989, NVwZ 1990, 406 75BGH 10 October 1989, NJW-RR 1990, 34 151, 156BGH 12 October 1989, VersR 1990, 852 68BGH 24 October 1989, NJW 1990, 1037 113BGH 24 April 1990, NJW-RR 1990, 962 156BGH 12 July 1990, NJW 1990, 3020 43BGH 15 November 1990, VersR 1991, 678 153, 154BGH 28 November 1990, NJW-RR 1991, 514 43BGH 13 February 1991, NJW 1991, 2340 108BGH 19 February 1991, NJW 1991, 2340 106, 108, 110, 111, 112BGH 9 April 1991, NJW 1991, 2347 72, 78BGH 30 April 1991, NJW 1991, 1948 162BGH 10 December 1991, BGHZ 116, 260 186BGH 14 January 1992, MDR 1992, 349 65BGH 14 January 1992, NJW 1992, 1043 67BGH 11 February 1992, NJW-RR 1992, 791 160BGH 18 February 1992, NJW-RR 1992, 792 161






table of c ases xxvii

BGH 18 March 1992, NJW-RR 1992, 1091 43BGH 31 March 1992, NJW-RR 1992, 852 149BGH 28 April 1992, NJW-RR 1992, 1050 147BGH 20 May 1992, VersR 1992, 975 71BGH 22 September 1992, VersR 1993, 55 145BGH 13 October 1992, BGHZ 120, 1 72, 78BGH 15 October 1992, NJW 1993, 648 191BGH 16 February 1993, NJW 1993, 1531 73, 79BGH 6 July 1993, NJW 1993, 2673 149BGH 13 October 1993, NJW 1993, 781 5BGH 19 October 1993, VersR 1994, 186 186BGH 10 February 1994, VersR 1995, 796 76BGH 25 October 1994, NJW 1995, 1238 44BGH 15 November 1994, NJW 1995, 389 140BGH 15 November 1994, NJW 1995, 861 4BGH 29 November 1994, BGHZ 128, 117 63, 79BGH 1 December 1994, VersR 1995, 1316 68, 74BGH 15 December 1994, VersR 1996, 243 70BGH 17 January 1995, NJW 1995, 1023 139, 143, 145BGH 21 January 1995, DAR 1991, 302 70BGH 24 January 1995, VersR 1995, 469 145, 146, 147BGH 7 February 1995, NJW 1995, 1438 79BGH 16 February 1995, VersR 1996, 712 74BGH 26 April 1995, NJW-RR 1996, 986 69BGH 9 May 1995, BGHZ 129, 366 186BGH 27 June 1995, NJW-RR 1995, 1272 139BGH 26 September 1995, NJW 1995, 3313 139BGH 24 November 1995, NJW 1996, 921 155BGH 5 December 1995, NJW 1996, 984 62BGH 12 December 1995, NJW 1996, 726 182, 186BGH 14 December 1995, NJW 1990, 1062 43BGH 16 January 1996, NJW 1996, 1591 63, 64BGH 30 April 1996, BGHZ 132, 341 75BGH 25 June 1996, NJW 1996, 2508 155BGH 5 November 1996, NJW 1997, 455 75BGH 10 December 1996, NJW 1997, 941 148, 149BGH 4 March 1997, NJW 1997, 1853 155BGH 4 March 1997, NJW 1997, 2175 184BGH 17 February 1998, VersR 1998, 770 147BGH 1 March 1998, BGHZ 103, 338 81






xxviii table of c ases

BGH 3 March 1998, NJW 1998, 1634 149BGH 12 May 1998, VersR 1998, 1034 78BGH 7 July 1998, NJW 1998, 3276 187BGH 10 November 1998, NJW 1999, 421 155, 156, 181BGH 25 February 1999, NJW 1999, 2041 191BGH 20 April 1999, VersR 2000, 233 143, 145, 146, 147BGH 8 June 1999, NJW 1999, 2819 106, 155, 157BGH 28 September 1999, NJW 1999, 3711 182BGH 21 January 2000, NJW 2000, 1256 43BGH 25 January 2000, NZV 2000, 252 186, 187BGH 6 February 2000, NJW 2001, 1640 148BGH 17 February 2000, NJW 2000, 1498 191BGH 7 November 2000, NJW 2001, 1274 188BGH 16 January 2001, NJW 2001, 1431 43BGH 21 February 2001, NJW-RR 2001, 937 43BGH 6 March 2001, NJW 2001, 1721 191

Decisions of the Courts of Appeal and Lower Courts

OLG Freiburg 30 June 1953, JZ 1953, 704 82OLG Munchen 14 May 1959, VersR 1959, 957 190OLG Celle 22 January 1962, VersR 1962, 623 114OLG Celle 9 November 1967, NW 1968, 1677 81LG Tubingen 29 November 1967, NJW 1968, 1187 82BayObLG 11 July 1968, BayObLGZ 1968, 184 140OLG Dusseldorf 30 December 1968, VersR 1969, 671 160LG Frankfurt 28 March 1969, NJW 1969, 2286 82OLG Nurnberg 7 November 1969, VersR 1971, 260 114OLG Munchen 16 December 1969, VersR 1970, 643 161KG 26 February 1973, NJW 1974, 607 161OLG Dusseldorf 18 June 1973, NJW 1973, 2112 111OLG Koln 9 January 1978, VersR 1979, 166 111OLG Zweibrucken 24 February 1978, VersR 1978, 1029 152OLG Hamburg 19 January 1979, MDR 1970, 670 152OLG Frankfurt 2 November 1979, VersR 1981, 239 111OLG Munchen 29 October 1980, VersR 1981, 560 111LG Hechingen 9 January 1981, VersR 1982, 253 81OLG Koln 29 January 1981, 7 U 85/80 148OLG Koblenz 23 March 1981, VersR 1981, 887 111OLG Celle 12 November 1981, VersR 1983, 40 151KG 15 February 1982, VersR 1982, 978 159, 161






table of c ases xxix

OLG Koln 11 March 1982, ZfS 1984, 132 151OLG Nurnberg 31 January 1984, NJW 1998, 2292 82OLG Dusseldorf 28 May 1984, VersR 1985, 644 106OLG Munchen 30 November 1984, VersR 1985, 868 70, 218LG Munster 15 May 1985, ZfS 1988, 69 111LG Amberg 29 April 1986, NJW-RR 1986, 1357 70OLG Saarbrucken 16 May 1986, NJW-RR 1987, 984 68OLG Hamburg 19 August 1986, VersR 1988, 720 68OLG Hamburg 7 August 1987, VersR 1988, 858 106OLG Koln 17 September 1987, VersR 1988, 61 114OLG Saarbrucken 23 October 1987, NZW 1989, 25 109LG Saarbrucken 18 December 1987, NJW 1988, 2958 109, 111LG Augsburg 11 March 1988, ZfS 1988, 239 111OLG Koln 13 April 1988, NJW 1988, 2957 107OLG Koln 19 May 1988, VersR 1988, 1185 140, 148OLG Munchen 8 July 1988, VersR 1989, 1056 80OLG Stuttgart 21 July 1988, NJW-RR 1989, 477 82OLG Munchen 20 September 1988, VersR 1989, 1203 68OLG Stuttgart 6 October 1988, VersR 1989, 1150 75OLG Karlsruhe 25 November 1988, VersR 1989, 1101 148OLG Koln 4 October 1989, VersR 1989, 1309 107OLG Dusseldorf 12 October 1989, VersR 1990, 852 75OLG Frankfurt 21 March 1990, NJW-RR 1990, 990 17OLG Hamburg 20 April 1990, NJW 1990, 2322 162OLG Munchen 24 July 1990, DAR 1991, 301 77OLG Schleswig 9 January 1991, NJW-RR 1992, 95 80OLG Frankfurt 21 January 1991, VersR 1992, 621 71OLG Oldenburg 21 January 1991, DAR 1991, 302 68OLG Nurnberg 21 June 1991, DAR 1994, 158 18OLG Koln 14 November 1991, NJW-RR 1992, 221 63OLG Dusseldorf 10 February 1992, NJW-RR 1993, 156 17, 68, 69OLG Karlruhe 6 March 1992, DAR 1993, 391 151, 161OLG Koln 20 May 1992, VersR, 975 68OLG Oldenburg 28 July 1992, VersR 1993, 1491 161OLG Koln 16 October 1992, NJW-RR 1993, 350 71OLG Oldenburg 10 November 1992, NJW-RR 1993, 798 149OLG Celle 26 November 1992, VersR 1993, 976 63OLG Koln 17 February 1993, NJW-RR 1993, 919 76OLG Schleswig 24 February 1993, VersR 1993, 310 73OLG Hamm 7 June 1993, NJW-RR 1994, 94 63






xxx table of c ases

OLG Hamm 17 August 1993, NJW-RR 1994, 415 157OLG Frankfurt 22 September 1993, DAR 1994, 21 81OLG Koblenz 7 October 1993, NJW-RR 1994, 1049 161OLG Frankfurt 11 November 1993, DAR 1994, 119 68, 71, 79OLG Dusseldorf 19 November 1993, NJW-RR 1994, 352 107OLG Nurnberg 7 December 1993, DAR 1994, 157 68OLG Hamm 17 March 1994, DAR 1994, 496 161OLG Oldenburg 19 April 1994, VersR 1994, 1071 161OLG Frankfurt 26 October 1994, VersR 1996, 864 76OLG Dusseldorf 1 December 1994, VersR 1995, 1316 68, 81OLG Hamm 15 December 1994, VersR 1996, 243 71OLG Hamm 8 March 1995, VersR 1996, 892 74LG Bonn 12 April 1995, VersR 1996, 381 160OLG Munchen 30 May 1995, NJW-RR 1995, 1239 157, 158OLG Hamm 2 June 1995, VersR 1996, 1515 111OLG Brandenburg 24 October 1995, OLGR 1996, 76 149OLG Frankfurt 21 February 1996, VersR 1996, 1509 17, 69AG Radolfzell 25 April 1996, NJW 1996, 2874 18OLG Hamburg 25 July 1996, NJW 1996, 2870 4, 18OLG Stuttgart 30 January 1997, VersR 1998, 366 154OLG Nurnberg 25 April 1997, VersR 1998, 731 79, 81OLG Munster 12 June 1997, NJW 1998, 1801 110, 111OLG Karlsruhe 11 July 1997, VersR 1998, 1256 106, 110OLG Saarbrucken 27 November 1997, OLGR 1998, 381 148OLG Hamm 17 December 1997, VersR 1998, 1392 80OLG Bremen 21 April 1998, NJW-RR 1999, 1115 154, 155, 157,

161OLG Frankfurt 7 January 1999, NJW 1999, 2447 81OLG Koln 19 May 1999, VersR 2000, 1021 159OLG Bremen 31 August 1999, FamRZ 2001, 1300 108, 109, 110,

111

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the German Reich

RG 5 April 1906, JW 1906, 359 148RG 27 September 1906, JW 1906, 718 148RG 24 April 1911, RGZ 76, 174 77RG 15 February 1927, RGZ 116, 151 3RG 23 May 1935, RGZ 148, 68 154, 159RG 11 June 1936, RGZ 151, 298 159, 160






i tal ian c ases xxxi

Italian cases

Constitutional Court

Judgment, 20 December 1996, n. 399 in Cons. Stato 1996, II, 2090 85Judgment, 11 July 2003, n. 233 7

Court of Cassation

Palermo (4 June 1898) in Foro sic., 1898, 486 93Turin (22 November 1913), in Giurisprudenza torinese, 1914, 33 921967, n. 774 (28 April 1967) in Res.civ.prev., 1967, 572 951971, n. 174 (26 January 1971) in Foro it. 1971, I, 342 151979, n. 3996 (11 July 1979) in Resp.civ.prev. 1980, 436 951980, n. 537 (7 October 1980) in Foro it., I, 1051 951980, n. 5484 (13 October 1980) in Resp.civ.prev., 1981, 403 951982, n. 4815 (4 April 1982) in Giur.it.Mass. 1982 941982, n. 6234 (18 November 1982) 1651983, n. 2396 (6 April 1983) in Resp.civ.prev. 1983, 760 951985, n. 4947 (11 October 1985) in Arch.giur.circ. 1986, 100 951990, n. 399 (Labour section, 10 March 1990) in Crit.Pen. 1995, 50 851992, n. 7194 (11 June 1992) in Foro it. 1992, I, 2079 1961993, n. 5832 (24 May 1993) 1661993, n. 11271 (15 November 1993) 1661993, n. 13013 (30 December 1993) 1681994, n. 6228 (1 July 1994) in Riv.giur.Enel, 1996, 467 1951995, n. 755 (23 January 1995) 1681995, n. 4255 (13 April 1995) in Resp.civ.prev. 1995, 519 2121995, n. 12299 (28 November 1995) in Foro it. 1996, I, 3120 901997, n. 9742 (7 October 1997) 1951997, n. 9959 (13 October 1997) 1661997, n. 10923 (6 November 1997) 1671997, n. 11439 (18 November 1997) 1681998, n. 1285 (6 February 1998) 51998, n. 12195 (1 December 1998) in Dir.famiglia, 2000, 681999, n. 491 (20 January 1999) 89, 901999, n. 500 (22 July 1999) 151999, n. 1135 (10 February 1999) 1961999, n. 4231 (28 April 1999) in Resp.civ.prev. 2000, 110 1642000, n. 2037 (Labour section, 23 February 2000) in Giust.civ. 2000, I,

1655 88, 1702000, n. 9228 (12 July 2000) 168






xxxii table of c ases

2000, n. 15580 (11 December 2000) in Resp.civ.prev. 2001, 609 1672001, n. 4783 (2 April 2001) 892001, n. 6023 (24 April 2001) 862001, n. 13409 (29 October 2001) in Giust.civ.mass. 2001, 1814 1642001, n. 15034 (27 November 2001) 86

Courts of Appeal and Lower Courts

Turin, 1880 (4 June 1880) in Giurisprudenza torinese, 1880, 447Turin, 1885 (3 November 1885) n Giur.tor. 1886, 104 93Bologna, 1889 (4 February 1889) in Riv.giur.bol. 1889, 38 92Bologna, 1889 (11 October 1889) in Riv.giur.bol. 1889, 309 92Trani, 1898 (13 June 1898) in Riv.giur.Trani 1898, 747 92Catania, 1900 (12 April 1900) in Giur.cat. 1900, 48 93Bologna, 1902 (14 February 1902) in Monitore dei Tribunali 1902,

750 92, 93Florence, 1905 (13 September 1905) in Monitore dei Tribunali 1906,

215 92Parma, 1910 (14 June 1910) in Giur.tor. 1910, 1054 93Milan, 1920 (11 May 1920) in Riv.dir.comm, 1921, II, 448 93Rome, 1921 (23 July 1921) in Riv.dir.comm 1922, II, 178 93Florence, 1967 (6 January 1967), 1969 Arch.resp.civ 130 84Pisa, 1985 (16 January 1985) 166Genoa, 1988 (13 January 1988) 96Trieste, 1988 (14 January 1988) 170Milan, 1988 (18 February 1988) in Resp.civ.prev. 1988, 454 85Milan, 1993 (2 September 1993) in Nuova giur.civ.comm. 1993, I,

680 91Milan, 1993 (19 October 1993) in As. 1994, II, 2, 126 166Venice, 1994 (8 June 1994) in Arch.giur.circ. e sin.stradali 1995,

637 167Milan, 1998 (21 April 1998) in Dir.lav. 1998, 957 85Rome, 1998 (12 December 1998) 170Milan, 1999 (1 April 1999) 86Milan, 1999 (26 June 1999) in Lav.nella giur. 1999, 1075 85Rome, 2002 (20 June 2002) in Foro it. 2002, I, 2882 94






compensation for personal injury in english, german...

Documents