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. 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. 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. / 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. 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. 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.

The United States has faced a number of medical malpractice crises over the past four decades. In response to these crises, state legislatures have enacted a variety of tort reforms of varying strength. This paper seeks to explore the determinants of such reforms. This study uses a dataset composed of state tort reforms, indicators of political partisanship, healthcare campaign finance contributions, malpractice payments, and malpractice lawsuits. This paper finds that political partisanship is a key determinant of the relative strength of reforms, with Republicans likely to pass hard reforms of economic significance and Democrats likely to pass soft reforms with little impact.

This study analyses certain controversial issues commonly arising when a claim for restitution is brought against a bank. Chapter 1 considers the equitable claim traditionally labelled ‘knowing receipt’. Three issues are discussed: (i) the basis in principle of the claim for ‘knowing receipt’; (ii) whether the claim requires proof of fault on the part of the recipient; and (iii) whether the claim can be brought in relation to the receipt by a bank of a mortgage or guarantee offered to the bank in breach of trust or fiduciary duty. The conclusions are (i) that ‘knowing receipt’ is often a claim in unjust enrichment, though the dishonest recipient will also be liable for an equitable wrong; (ii) that when the unjust enrichment version of ‘knowing receipt’ is in issue, the claim should be one of strict liability; and (iii) a claim in unjust enrichment can be brought against a bank to defeat its interest in a mortgage or guarantee offered in breach of trust. Chapters 2 to 4 concern a concept within the law of unjust enrichment that has come to be called ministerial receipt. A ministerial receipt is a receipt of money or property by an agent on behalf of his or her principal. Banks often receive money as agents on behalf of account holders. Chapters 2 and 3 analyse that concept as it is dealt with at common law and in equity respectively. At common law, ministerial receipt is a defence which exists only if the agent pays over the money in question before receiving notive of the right of the plaintiff to restitution. By contrast, ministerial receipt in equity operates to restrict a right to restitution which would otherwise arise. A claim for 'knowing receipt' cannot be brought against an agent in equity. Chapter 4 argues that the equitable tratement of agents is correct as a matter of principle, and that no common law claim in unjust enrichment should be maintainable against a person who receives as agent. Special attention is given to banks. Chapter 5 analyses three other defences which a bank can plead in answer to restitutionary claims: 'good consideration', bona fide purchase and set off. It is concluded that there is no general defence of 'good consideration'; that the bank can plead bona fide purchase in relation to money deposited into an account in credit; and that in the context of combining two or more bank accounts set off is merely a species of bona fide purchase.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Greifswald.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of British Columbia (Canada), 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--Wisconsin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 223-230).

The main focus of the thesis is the issue of determining jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict with regard to the internet. The author finds that the general rules of determining jurisdiction are suitable for use even in disputes arising with connection to the internet. However, strict application of the aforementioned rules would lead to undesirable results. Therefore it is necessary to construe the general rules in such a way that takes into account the unique characteristics of the internet environment. Given the fact that courts are mainly responsible for the interpretation and application of the general rules, significant decisions of European and American courts are thoroughly analyzed. Even though the main focus of the thesis are the decisions of the courts, recent findings of jurisprudence and recommendations of the international bodies are taken into account as well. In the opening chapters, the unique characteristics of the internet and basic rules for determining the special jurisdiction are presented. Although the issue of determining jurisdiction in contracts is also mentioned in chapter 3, this topic exceeds the scope of this work and is discussed mainly in connection with the "targeting" criterion, which is also significant for out of contract issues. Chapters 4 and...

English abstract This diploma thesis deals with tort liability in the area of animal protection. It summarises international legislation, EU legislation and also the Czech one. At the beginning, it deals with the definition of essential terms such as definition of an animal and its categorisation and introduction into the issue. It provides insight not only into the status of animal in public law but also into its status in private law. Subsequently, it analyses liability, its elemental features and classification. Afterwards, is describes important international treaties, including the conventions of the Council of Europe. At the EU level, discusses primary legislation, secondary legislation and conceptual tools. The part of the thesis which concerns Czech law focuses on the Act no. 246/1992 Coll., on protection of animals against cruelty, where it emphasises on administrative offences concerning this area. Also mentioned are some other acts regarding the animal protection. In conclusion, it does not forget to define crimes in the area of animal protection and against animals and subsequent sanctions.

It has been suggested by some commentators that the ‘real’ damage (as opposed to that pleaded) in the cases of Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] 1 AC 309 and Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 was the claimant’s lost autonomy. Arguments have consequently been put forward that lost autonomy either already is or should be recognised as a new form of actionable damage in medical negligence cases. Given the value placed on respecting patient autonomy in medical law and bioethics, it might be thought that such a development should be welcomed. But if lost autonomy is accepted as a new form of damage in negligence, it will not be confined to the two scenarios that were present in those cases and it may be inconsistent with other established negligence principles. This thesis considers whether lost autonomy ought to be recognised as a new form of damage in negligence and concludes that it should not. A close textual analysis of Rees and Chester is undertaken in order to determine whether a ‘lost autonomy’ analysis actually provides the best explanation of those two cases. I then look at how the concepts of autonomy and harm should be understood to determine whether, ethically speaking, to interfere with someone’s autonomy is to cause them harm. The final part of the thesis considers important doctrinal tort law considerations that have been overlooked in the medical law literature. I argue that the nature of autonomy means that it cannot coherently be considered actionable damage within the tort of negligence and that recognising a duty of care to avoid interfering with people’s autonomy would be inconsistent with the restrictive approach the courts take to recovery for psychiatric injury and economic loss. My ultimate conclusion is that the benefits of allowing such claims do not outweigh the undermining of established principles that would ensue if lost autonomy were recognised as a form of actionable damage in negligence.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity in the Commonwealth of Virginia has evolved over time and the redefinition of the doctrine has been subjected to the interpretation by courts involving cases with varied facts and circumstances that have challenged the boundaries and flexibility of this legal concept. Determining the protection that a state agent was entitled to was the guiding principle in case law regarding sovereign immunity; however, understanding the purpose and intent of the doctrine of sovereign immunity was critical to determining the boundaries and criteria of the doctrine of immunity. In this dissertation, the researcher analyzed tort law as it applied to educators and public-school districts through the Virginia court system under common law and the Virginia Tort Claims Act (VTCA, 1981). The case analysis provided an overview of lawsuits heard and decisions rendered in negligence cases brought against educators and educational entities prior to and after the enactment of the Virginia Tort Claims Act in 1981.