This paper looks at Texas tort law reform to make claims regarding the relationship between Texas tort reform and damages recovered. Starting with reform in 1977, Texas has passed 15 pieces of legislation that, in principle, restrict the damages plaintiffs recover. Most empirical analyses have focused primarily on analyzing behavior resulting from the tort reform. In other cases, research has looked at the impact the most recent reform has had on damages recovered in medical malpractice lawsuits. This paper is the first to study the impact of Texas tort law reform on damages recovered while looking at the entirety of recent law reform in the state. Specifically, I test the impact of the 15 different laws on total allocated loss, economic loss, and noneconomic loss recovered in all cases from 1988-2012. My findings suggest that caps on medical liability damages are successful at decreasing damages recovered when the cap is geared at either noneconomic damages, or a total damage figure that excludes punitive damages. This suggests that future caps on medical liability damages should explicitly cap either economic or noneconomic damages. Next, the results imply that caps on punitive damage legislature were most successful when using specific value caps paired with an evidence standard—caps of this nature decreased total damages by 28% in 1987 and 85% in 1995. Finally, an introductory legislation restricting the use of joint and several liability in cases when plaintiffs had little guilt was successful, it decreased total damages by 18.6%. This was followed by three failed attempts to impact the application of joint and several liability where the guilt threshold was higher, suggesting that joint and several liability is rarely used if the plaintiff has substantial guilt.

Cyberspace today represents an essential part of society. Its existence has launched a new phenomenon - "virtual reality" - in which similar interactions as in the real world occur. Since the effects of these virtual interactions affect all areas of human existence, as well as relationships in the real world, they must be subject to legal regulation. To be part of cyberspace, especially its most important part - the Internet, means the option to enter into legal relationships with entities regardless of their territorial restrictions. Therefore, these issues must be subject to special attention. In legal science, solutions of such cases fall under specific areas such as in matters relating to civil law into private international law. This dissertation thesis focuses primarily on exploring institutes of private international law within the virtual environment, particularly issues of jurisdiction and law applicable to torts that arise in cyberspace. The goal of this work is to answer the question of whether current standards of private international law are applicable in cyberspace - and what problems may arise in their practical applications. Emphasis is given to the standards applicable in the Czech Republic.

C’est à partir du XIXème siècle, qui signe l’avènement de la conception romantique de l'artiste, que l'authenticité devient la qualité première de l’oeuvre d’art. Conditionnant la valeur de l’oeuvre sur les plans économique et artistique, l’authenticité apparaît toutefois comme difficile à définir dans la mesure où elle repose sur une réalité complexe. Elle est en outre mal aisée à prouver, l’incertitude étant le propre de l’histoire de l’art. Amené à composer avec ces contraintes, c’est principalement via l'erreur sur les qualités essentielles et le droit de la responsabilité civile que le droit des obligations appréhende la question de l’authenticité. Les solutions qu’il apporte, satisfaisantes en terme de protection des contractants, manquent toutefois de pertinence face aux nouvelles formes de création et à la réalité du travail de l’expert. / As a consequence of the romantic conception of artists, the intense interest in authenticity of works of art is relatively recent. Being the key to the determination of both their economic and artistic values, authenticity is hard to define as it is based on a complex reality. It is also uneasy to prove, as art history remains uncertain in many aspects. As it is currently defined in french contract and tort law, authenticity is meant to ensure parties’ consent. However, this conception might not be relevant in the light of contemporary forms of art and art authentication.

This thesis examines approaches to establishing liability in corporate groups. It considers the problem that arises when an insolvent subsidiary's tort creditors suffer personal injury, and try to pursue recourse against other group companies - especially the parent company. Courts have tried to provide answers regarding the parent company's liability for the torts of their subsidiaries, but have had limited success. The thesis reveals difficulty in extending liability to the parent company by way of insolvency law provisions, and by piercing the corporate veil. It recounts the hesitation of the courts in broadening their perspective beyond individual companies, so as to take the group itself as the responsible entity. The thesis points, furthermore, to shortcomings in proposals for a new rule of unlimited pro rata liability. Motivated by the inadequacy of current solutions to this pressing group problem, the thesis explores alternative tort law remedies under an approach suggested by the Supreme Court in the leading cases of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others and Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. Chapter III discusses the role of tort of negligence in establishing the parent company's liability. The work analyses case law decisions on how to widen the application of negligence in the corporate group context, and compares UK law with relevant United States' and Australian case law. Since this group problem involves multiple legal entities, Chapters IV and V evaluate the possibility of using the doctrine of joint tortfeasance and/or the theory of vicarious liability in establishing the parent company's liability for its subsidiary company's torts. These two doctrines' extensions in corporate tort cases are seldom discussed in the literature. To conclude, tort law solutions, especially the doctrines of tort of negligence and joint tortfeasance based on participations are recommended to be further developed for corporate tort problems.

The Utah Tort Liability law was defined and a teacher understanding of the law and their liability was determined. Physical Education teachers do not have a good knowledge of the state's liability law, nor are they aware of the liability they are open to. Where opportunity was afforded, teachers were anxious to place the responsibility for their actions on someone of a higher position. This could be attributed to the fact that district and state administrators have not made an awareness of our new law. The area of liability least understood is inadequate use of professional knowledge and skills. Sending a boy into a ball game not recognizing he has an injury, or letting a student participate With a letter of permission from home when it is obvious that he should not be allowed to participate are examples. Teachers do seem to be aware of safety practices and the need to make students more aware of them; however, their reluctance to accept liability for neglecting to follow those practices would tend to overshadow the response to this section. Physical educators must become more and more aware of the safety of pupils and provide the necessary supervision to make this possible. Much more confidence and discretion needs to be employed in making professional decisions; and if the teacher's knowledge doesn't merit a decision, then additional professional advice should be sought when a student's well-being is in danger.

A responsabilidade civil foi a área do Direito que mais sofreu mudanças a partir do século XX, sobretudo em decorrência da revolução industrial que intensifica a produção e o consumo, culminando no reconhecimento de novos danos. Neste contexto, torna-se necessário repensar as funções da responsabilidade civil sendo que, além do escopo compensatório a indenização deve atender a uma finalidade punitiva ou pedagógica, à semelhança dos punitive damages nos Tribunais norte-americanos. A pesquisa tem o objetivo de analisar as críticas formuladas à introdução do instituto em nosso ordenamento, bem como delimitar os critérios para a sua aplicação. / The civil liability is the field of law that has incurred in the most intensive changes since the 20th century, due to, mainly, the development of new technologies that have increased the production and the consume, resulting in the recognition of new sort of damages. In this context, it is paramount to revisit the purposes of the civil liability system, because the indemnification must attend the purposes of punishment and deterrence. This research aims to analyze the critics to the introduction of the punitive damages in Brazilian civil law and to fix the criteria to its application.

<p>Rules for damages that are effective are important to create legal security and a public procurement that fulfil economic effectivity. Those rules are effectivly created for example when the demand of evidence is possible for the damaged supplier to fulfil. Yet the rules cannot be too low without leading to an uncertain procurement for the public purchaser. Thus one have to balance the interests of a public purchaser against the interests of a damaged supplier. This balance leads to a public procurement involving rules of damages where the public purchaser cannot escape duty of damages just because the demand of evidence is too hard to fulfil.</p> / <p>Effektiva skadeståndsregler är ett viktigt verktyg för att skapa en rättssäker och ekonomsikt effektiv upphandling. Effektiva skadeståndsregler skapas bland annat genom att de beviskrav som uppställs på den skadelidande leverantören är möjliga att uppfylla. Detta utan att beviskraven för den skull är allt för lågt ställda eftersom något sådant skulle innebära att en osäker upphandlingsprocess för den upphandlande enheten. En avvägning måste således ske mellan den upphandlande enhetens intresse och den skadelidande leverantörens intresse, då en skadeståndssituation inom upphandlingsrätten uppkommer. En avvägning måste vidare ske ifråga om den kategoriseringen av inom- och utomobligatoriskt skadestånd vilken förkommer inom juridiken. Resultatet av detta är att den juridiska kategoriseringen till viss del måste frångås för att täcka de situationer som kan aktualiseras inom upphandlingsrätten. Vidare når uppsatsens författare resultatet att ett användande av överviktsprincipen är en lämplig metod för att undvika att upphandlande enheter som inte efterlevt upphandlingsreglerna undgår skadestånd på grund av de skadelidande leverantörernas bevissvårigheter.</p>

<p>Produktansvar är det ansvar en tillverkare, säljare eller någon annan har för skada som uppkommer genom en levererad produkts skadebringande egenskaper. Enligt gällande rätt kan en säljare bli ansvarig gentemot en kommersiell köpare i Sverige för produktskador på två grunder, dels culpa, dels garanti. Garantiansvar innebär att en säljare blir strikt ansvarig för skadan, om han på ett eller annat sätt har garanterat att den levererade varan inte skall ge upphov till några skador. Vad som kan rymmas inom en säljares garantiansvar är oklart, det finns i dagsläget inga fastställda regler för när en säljare kan bli ansvarig till följd av garanti men genom praxis kan man utläsa att den kan vara både uttrycklig och underförstådd.</p><p>Enligt min mening finns det två – eventuellt tre – slags underförstådda garantiförpliktelser. Den ena är då säljaren garanterar att varan kan användas till ett visst angivet ändamål. Exempel på sådana garantier, vilka jag kallar instruktionsfelsgarantier, kan spåras relativt tydligt i praxis. Den andra är då säljaren levererat en vara med andra egenskaper än de som köparen uttryckligen efterfrågat. Även i fall av denna art har man bedömt att säljaren skall ha ett garantiansvar. Den tredje, och svagaste garantiförpliktelsen som man kan hävda föreligger utgörs av de fall då säljaren sålt varan under en viss beteckning och att varan sedan visar sig avvika från denna.</p><p>Utvidgningen av garantiansvaret medför konsekvenser för skadevållaren då han i egenskap av försäkringstagare i sin tur inte kan få ersättning ur sin ansvarsförsäkring. Trots att utsikterna att kräva en part längre bak i distributionskedjan ofta är goda, finns det emellertid en viss risk att kostnaderna stannar hos en säljare vars agerande inte varit det "egentliga" upphovet till skadan. Garantiundantaget medför inte bara konsekvenser för säljaren, utan indirekt även för köparen. I och med garantiansvarets utvidgning riskerar garantifiktionerna närma sig culpaansvaret på ett sätt som gör att de likväl, eller rentav hellre, åberopas och tillämpas. För köparens del innebär en sådan utveckling att hans utsikt att faktiskt få betalt för sin skada, äventyras om säljaren av denna anledning inte får ersättning ur sin ansvarsförsäkring.</p> / <p>Product liability is the liability held by a producer, seller or third party for the damage his products inflict on others. According to present/existing law a seller can be liable to a commercial buyer in Sweden for product damage on two counts: culpa and guaranty. Guaranty liability means that a seller is strictly liable for any damages if the seller in any way has guaranteed the harmlessness of the product. The precise standard for imposing guaranty liability on a seller is not codified in the law, but it can be inferred through case law that a guarantee can be either explicit or implied.</p><p>There are two – possibly three – types of implied guarantees. One is when the seller guarantees that the product can be used for a certain specified purpose. Evidence of these guarantees, which I call “instructional defect guarantees,” is found throughout the case law. The second type of implied guarantee is when the seller delivers a product with different characteristics than those expressly asked for by the buyer. The third and weakest type of guaranty occurs when the seller sells the product under a label that designates certain characteristics and the product later proves not to meet the wording on the label.</p><p>The extension of guaranty liability to these kinds of implicit guarantees results in negative consequences for a seller who causes harm, because in his capacity as policy holder, he will not be compensated by third-party insurance for the damages he pays. Although he will have a good possibility to claim that the damage was caused by a party further back in the distribution chain, there is still a risk that the cost will remain on the seller, even if he is not the one who actually caused the damage. The extension results in consequences not only for the seller but, indirectly, also for the buyer. With the extension of guaranty liability the guaranty risk to nearer the culpa in a way that makes it more likely to be invoked than culpa. For the buyer this means that his chance of being compensated for the damage suffered is jeopardized if the seller in this situation does not receive compensation from his third party insurance.</p>

<p>Ersättning för inkomstförlust vid personskada betalas enligt 5 kap. 1 § Skadeståndslagen (1972:207) och 9 § Trafikskadelagen (1975:1410) och utgör normalt den största delen av ersättningsposterna för personskada ekonomiskt räknat. Beräkning av esättning för inkomstförlust är i flera fall ett komplicerat och tidskrävande spörsmål för försäkringsbolagen och andra inblandade organ. Detta särskilt när det handlar om att fastställa den framtida inkomstförlusten för till exempel barn, arbetslösa, hushållsarbetande och egna företagare med flera.</p>

<p>In the autumn of 2007, the Swedish Chancellor of Justice rejected a claim for damages by an individual against the Swedish state on the grounds that the breach was not to be regarded as sufficiently serious. The claim for damages was based on the Swedish custom authority’s confiscation of alcoholic beverages imported to Sweden by individuals, an act that the ECJ had found contrary to Community law.</p><p>This study is evaluating the compatibility of the Chancellor of Justice´s decision with Community law. An analysis of the guidelines given by the ECJ concerning state liability in general, and the sufficiently serious criterion in particular, are also presented in order to make this evaluation. This analysis illustrates that there are some conditions which are crucial when a national court is to make the assessment whether a breach is considered sufficiently serious to warrant restitution to an individual. Most importantly, the clarity of the infringed Community provision and the margin of discretion awarded to the Member State when committing the breach are factors that, according to the ECJ, are decisive when making this assessment.</p><p>The Swedish Chancellor of Justice´s decision to deny the claim for damages is, when comparing it to the guidelines given by the ECJ, definitely questionable.</p>