No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Relative Wealth of the Parties as a Factor in Tortious Liability*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
Extract
In its desire to reduce the loss and expense involved in the occurrence of accidents, organized society is likely to consider various factors determining the nature of the rules (whether legal or other) that will guide it in its decision. These factors may include moral fault (in the accepted meaning of the term), economic fault or the relative wealth of the parties involved in causing the loss.
The purpose of this article is to examine the third factor, ie‥ relative wealth. By “relative wealth of the parties” we mean the quantity of property of monetary value in the hands of each of the parties relative to the aggregate property of the other parties and to the property of each. The parties in question are not necessarily those physically involved in causing the damage but those persons or groups which the rules for allocation of loss regard as potential bearers of the loss.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1983
References
1 The reference is to the failure of the party to prevent the accident at a cost lower than the damage caused, taking into account the probability of its occurring. For a comparative study of moral and economic fault, see Posner, R., “A Theory of Negligence” (1972) 1 Journal of Legal Studies 29–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Marshall, , Principles of Economics (London, McMillan, 9th ed., 1920) 94–96.Google Scholar
3 Simon, , “Interpersonal Welfare Comparisons can be Made and Used for Redistribution Decisions” (1974) 27 Kyklos 60.Google Scholar
4 Blum, and Kalven, , The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation (Chicago, U. of Chic. P., 1953).Google Scholar
5 Toharia, , “Interpersonal Welfare Comparisons and Welfare Economics” (1978) 31 Kyklos 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 See e.g., in Israeli law, sec. 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1 L.S.I. [N.V.] 145).
7 Calabresi, G., The Cost of Accidents (Yale, 1970) 40.Google Scholar
8 In Israeli law, see Tedeschi, , Law of Torts (Jerusalem, 2nd ed., 1977, in Hebrew) 123Google Scholaret seq. In English law, see Street on Torts (London, Butterworths, 5th ed., 1972) 3. In France, Mazeaud, H. L. and Tune, A., Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile délictuelle et contractuelle (6th ed., 1965) §2399, p. 762.Google Scholar In the United States, see McCormick on Damages (London, 14th ed., 1980) 360–1. In South Africa, Doll v. Kaiser 1939 s.w.a. 5.
9 At first sight it appears to be a factor in South Africa, at least in defamation cases, but defamation is regarded as an exception because the damages have a punitive aspect (relating in fact to the level of suffering they will cause the tort-feasor): See Amerasinghe, , Defamation in the Law of South Africa and Ceylon (Colombo, 1969) 565.Google Scholar
10 Where the matter has been considered by scholars, the conclusion has been that it should not be taken into consideration even in the most extreme cases: Glan-ville-Williams, , “The Aim of the Law of Torts” (1951) 14 Current Legal Problems, 137, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 “In situations where in accordance with secs. 402–405, the person is not under a legal duty to repair, the court may nevertheless compel him to repair the injury, depending upon his property status and that of the person injured”: Soviet Civil Law, transl. by Gsovski, V. (U. of Mich., 1949) vol. 2, p. 210.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 526.
13 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 212. By contrast in China the consideration of wealth is a mitigating factor only: Lao, Tsien Tshe, “Responsabilité Civile en Chine Populaire” (1967) 19 Rev. Int. de Droit Comp. 875, 882.Google Scholar
14 Civil Code of the R.S.F.S.R., (1964) in Law in Eastern Europe, vol. 11, p. 120.Google Scholar
15 Samilevici, R., “La réglementation de la responsabilité délictuelle dans les codes civils des pays socialistes européens” (1981) 33 Rev. Int. de Droit Comp. 821, 828.Google Scholar
16 See supra n. 13.
17 See Engel, P., “Traité des obligations en droit Suisse” (Neuchâtel, 1973) 345Google Scholar on sec. 44 of the Federal Code of Obligations which begins with the words: “De pure équité”.
18 International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. XI, Chap. 9, p. 11.
19 Ibid.
20 ibid.
21 The Netherlands Civil Code, Book 6: “The Laws of Obligations”, Draft text and commentary (Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 1977) 220.
22 Mazeaud-Tunc, op. cit. supra n. 8 at vol. 1, §475, pp. 537–8.
23 Langemeyer, J. E., “La Réforme du code civil néerlandais” (1965) 17 Rev. Int. de Droit Comp. 55, 70–71.Google Scholar
24 Le Code Civil de l'Empire d'Ethiopie de 1960 (Paris, 1962).
25 See Engel, op. cit. supra n. 17 at 321.
26 Ibid.
27 BG 12/12/33 BGE 59 II, 461, 466, and Loi Fédérale sur la circulation routière, Art. 62.
28 See supra n. 21 at 220.
29 Selmer, K., “Limitation of Damages According to the Circumstances of the Average Citizen” (1962) 6 Scand. Studies in Law 133.Google Scholar
30 See supra n. 18.
31 Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8 at 436; Prosser, Law of Torts (West, 3rd ed., 1964) 471; Fleming, , “Vicarious Liability” (1953) 28 Tul. L.R. 161, 171.Google Scholar
32 In the words of the Scottish scholar Baty, (1920) Jurid. Rev. 159.
33 Ripert, , La Règle Morale dans les obligations Civiles (Paris, 4th ed., 1949) 198.Google Scholar
34 See Gross, , Introduction to Economics (Jerusalem, Akademon, 1969, in Hebrew) 18.Google Scholar
35 Atiyah, , Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (London, Butterworths, 1967) 15–27.Google Scholar
36 See Barak, , Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Jerusalem, Kiryat Sefer, 1969, in Hebrew) 26Google Scholar and Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8 at § 302, 303. In Britain, Lister v. Ramford [1957] A.C. 555.
37 See Atiyah, op. cit. supra n. 35 at 426–7.
38 Fleming, , The Law of Torts (Sydney, 5th ed., 1977) 248, n. 38.Google Scholar
39 (Consolidated version), 1968, 22 L.S.I. 114.
40 2 L.S.I. [N.V.] 5. See generally, Procaccia, A., “The Allocation of Loss in Industrial Accidents” (1973) 5 Mishpatim 105.Google Scholar
41 See Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8 at §302, p. 508.
42 See Fleming, op. cit. supra n. 38 at 25, and Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8, at 217, n. 23.
43 See Atiyah, op. cit. supra n. 35.
44 Although there is no vicarious liability in the torts of assault, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, which are intentional according to Israeli Law.
45 (1973) K.T. 1752.
46 15 L.S.I. 101.
47 17 L.S.I. 193.
48 29 L.S.I. 311.
49 See supra n. 18 at 14. In many states of the United States (Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachussets, Missouri, New Hampshire) the ceiling exists on damages for loss of expectation of life. It could be argued that these maxima favour the poor as they derive a smaller benefit from life. This question is more philosophical than anything else. In the Philippines and New Brunswick there is a ceiling on the compensation recoverable by dependants. See also the Norwegian case cited by Selmer, supra n. 29, on limitation of damages on the basis of standard criteria.
50 Ison, , Accident Compensation (London, 1980) 5–14.Google Scholar
51 (1982) K.T. no. 4407, p. 1663.
52 See Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8, at §143, n. 29, but cf. the dissenting opinion of Berenson J. in Nathan v. Abdullah (1968) 22 (i) P.D. 433, 462.
53 Collins v. Edinburgh & District Water Trustees [1907] A.C. 291, 303 and McGregor on Damages (London, 14th ed., 1980) § 241, p. 173. This rule is known also in the United States: see 22 Am. Jur. 2nd, pp. 54–55.
54 See Natanya Drilling v. Biton (1966) 21 (i) P.D. 281, 284.
55 See Chap. 8, Art. 2 and Table XI of the National Insurance Law; and the National Insurance Regulations (Special Instruction for Payment of Premiums) 5731–1971, reg. 10.
56 The Treasure participates in the financing of other funds, e.g., 15% for old-age insurance. See the National Insurance Law, Table XIV. This is not only typical of Israel; for other examples of this situation see Dupeyroux, , Droit de la sécurité sociale (Paris, 7th ed., 1977) 798–803.Google Scholar
57 Sec. 53 of the National Insurance Law lays down a maximum of 3/4 of the average salary up to the ceiling fixed in Table 5.
58 Social Security Programs Through the World (Washington, U.S. Dept. of HEW, 1971) xii, 8, 198, 218.
59 Sec. 127 MM (a) (1) and (2) of the National Insurance Law (27 L.S.I. 240).
60 Russell v. Men of Devon 16 East 305 cited in Feezer, ; “Capacity to bear loss as a factor in the decision of certain types of tort cases” (1929) 78 U. Pa. L.R. 805–819.Google Scholar
61 See Tedeschi, op. cit. supra n. 8 at 44 and Street (London, Butterworths, 6th ed., 1976) 459. Also Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, sec. 2(1), Federal Torts Claims Act, 1946, 28 USCA §1346 (b), 2774, and Prosser, , Law of Torts (St. Paul, 4th ed., 1971) 970, 982.Google Scholar
62 6 L.S.I. 147.
63 Cited in Puissage, J.: “Le Principe de l'égalité devant les charges publiques comme fondement de la responsabilité de la puissance publique” (1964) 20 L'Actualité Juridique droit Administratif 140.Google Scholar
64 Loc. cit.
65 This was not the only ground. On the limits of this approach, see Paillet, , La faute de service public en droit administratif Français (Paris, 1980) 391–2Google Scholar, and Klein, Claude, “New Remedies in the High Court of Justice” (1975) 10 Is.L.R. 582.Google Scholar
66 This is so even in the People's Republic of China, see supra n. 13.
67 U.S. v. Carroll Towering Co. 159 F. 2nd, 169, and Posner, op. cit. supra n. 1 at 29.
68 Blum & Kalven, op. cit. supra n. 4.
69 pigou, , “Some Aspects of Welfare Economics” (1951) 41 Am. Econ. R. 282, 301.Google Scholar
70 Ibid., at 291 and Tohaira, op. cit. supra n. 5.
71 Galanter, , “The Direct Measurement of Utility and Subjective Probability” (1962) 75 American Journal of Psychology 208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 212 and Simon, op. cit. supra n. 3 at 63, 69.
72 Calabresi, op. cit. supra n. 7.
73 See Selmer, op. cit. supra n. 29 at 135.
74 Also in China: see Tsien Tshe Lao, op. cit. supra n. 13.