On Reasonable Liability

J. A. Diening

ISBN 10: 9060002504 / ISBN 13: 9789060002506

Editore: Springer Netherlands, 1982

Riguardo questo articolo

Codice articolo 5823008

Dati bibliografici

• Titolo: On Reasonable Liability
• Editore: Springer Netherlands
• Data di pubblicazione: 1982
• Lingua: Inglese
• ISBN 10: 9060002504
• ISBN 13: 9789060002506
• Rilegatura: Kartoniert / Broschiert
• Condizione: New

Descrizione articolo

Riassunto

The topic of thls paper lS a comparative study of the posi­ tlon of two different law systems, Dutch Civil Law and Canadian Common Law, in their treatment of liabllity problems arlsing from negllgent conduct at one hand, or In no-fault situatlons on the other, that lS In their treatment of strict liability issues wlthln the amblt of the crlminal law, wlth some digressions lnto tort law. At the suggestlon of the wrlter's Promotor, Prof. Dr. G.E. Mulder, a brlef overvien of the common law system, its develop­ ment between 1066 A.D. and 1867 A.D., and of some of the relevant baslc notions, precedes the discussion of the maln topic. Its purpose lS to asslst the Dutch reader in assessing the merits of the concluslons suggested. The dlscussion of topics of a purely lntroductory nature has been kept succlnct In order to keep the size of this paper wlthin reasonable limlts. Practlcally, thls means that no detailed discusslons of diverglng points of view regarding certain doc­ trines are being presented. Rather, the writer has limlted him­ self to statlng generally accepted prlnciples, contrasted against a hlstorical backdrop where thls would clarify the statements made. An attempt was made to arrange this lntroductory material in such a fashion that it will lead up to and prepare for a detailed discussion of strict liability. -5- Jus est norma recti, et quicquid est contra normam recti est in­ juria. Dig.l,l,l,l; Bract.fol. 2b.

Contenuti

― Prologue.- One ― Summary Notes on the Criminal Law of Canada.- One ― Introduction.- Two ― Canadian Common Law.- A. Common Law.- a) Definitions.- b) Common Law Countries.- c) Common Law in Canada.- d) The Law of Torts.- B. Resume of Common Law History.- a) Introduction.- b) The Period before 1066 A.D..- c) William The Conqueror.- d) The Period after William.- 1) Royal Power.- 2) King and Nobility.- 3) Parliament.- 4) The Church.- 5) The Commoners.- C. The Court System.- a) The Common Law Courts.- b) The Residuary Courts.- c) The Writ System.- d) Equity.- e) Sources of the Common Law.- 1) Customary Law.- 2) Statute Law.- 3) Judge-made Law.- 4) Academic Writing.- D. Sources of and Influences on the Common Law.- a) Ancient Customary Law.- b) Roman Law.- c) Canon Law.- Three ― Dutch Civil Law.- A. Civil Law.- A. Civil Law.- a) Definitions.- b) Civil Law Countries.- c) Civil Law in The Netherlands.- B. Resume of the History of Dutch Law.- a) Introduction.- b) The French Occupation.- c) Separation of The Netherlands and Belgium.- C. Sources of Dutch Law.- a) Ancient Customary Law.- b) Statute Law.- c) Judge-made Law.- d) Academic Writing.- D. Sources of and Influences on Dutch Law.- a) Source of Law.- b) Ancient Customary Law.- c) Roman Law.- d) Canon Law.- e) Continental Civil Law.- Four ― Legislative Powers in Canada.- A. Legislatures.- a) Distribution of Legislative Power.- 1) The British N.-America Act.- 2) Assignment of Legislative Power.- 3) The Dispute between the Federal and Provincial Governments.- 4) Parliament.- b) Criminal Law.- 1) ‘True’ Criminal Law.- 2) ‘Quasi’-Criminal Law.- 3) The Canadian Criminal Code.- 4) Criticisms on the Code.- 5) The Law Reform Commission of Canada.- c) Legislator and Judiciary.- 1) Statute and Case Law.- 2) Legislator and Case Law.- 3) The Statute Prevails.- B. The Courts.- a) Judges create Law....- b)... but are bound.- c) Genesis of a Judgment.- d) The Concept of ‘Stare Decisis’.- e) Statutes, though accessory, are binding.- Five ― The Judiciary.- a) The Supreme Court of Canada.- b) The Courts Below.- 1) Courts with Civil Jurisdiction.- 2) Courts with Criminal Jurisdiction.- 3) A New Approach: from Accused to Defendant.- Six ― Sources of Canadian Criminal Law.- A. The Canadian Criminal Code.- a) Historical Notes.- b) English Common Law still in Force in Canada?.- c) Organization of The Code.- d) Quasi-criminal Offences.- Seven ― Basic Notions.- A. Semantics.- a) The Forbidden Conduct: ‘Aotus Reus’.- b) The Mental Element: ‘Mens Rea’.- c) Commission.- d) Omission.- e) Partyship.- 1) The Direct Participant.- 2) The Indirect Participant.- (i) Instrumental Person.- (ii) Aiders, Abettors.- (iii) Counsellors.- 3) Cooperation after Completion of an Offence.- f) Inchoate Offences.- 1) Incitement.- 2) Counselling.- 3) Criminal Attempt.- 4) The Impossible Attempt.- Eight ― The Qualifying Factors.- A. Introduction ― Semantics.- B. Actus Reus.- C. Mens Rea.- a) Mens Rea ― Dolus.- b) Mens Rea ― Wilful Blindness.- c) Mens Rea ― Recklessness.- d) Included Offences ― Specific Intent.- e) Mens Rea ― Criminal Negligence.- f) Attribution of Mens Rea.- 1) Homicide.- 2) Murder.- 3) Rape.- 4) Robbery.- 5) Arson.- 6) Manslaughter.- 7) Callous Disregard as Malice.- 8) Imputed Mens Rea.- 9) The Principle of Legality.- Nine ― The Disqualifying Factors Grounds for Impunity.- A. General Notes.- B. Classification of Defences.- a) The Excuses.- 1) Age.- 2) Insanity.- 3) Necessity.- 4) Compulsion or Duress.- b) Justification.- 1) Performance of Legal Duty.- 2) Exercise of a Legal Right.- 3) Obedience to a Lawfully given Order.- 4) Consent.- c) Denial Defences.- 1) Lack of Mens Rea.- (i) Automatism.- (ii) Somnambulism.- (iii) Drunkenness.- 2) Violation of the Principle of Legality.- 3) Mistake and Ignorance.- Ten ― Negligence.- A. Negligence in the Criminal Law.- a) Negligence Defined.- b) Degrees of Negligence?.- c) Negligence and Intention.- d) Casus or Accident.- B. Negligence in Tort Law.- Eleven ― Causality.- A. Causality Defined.- B. Today’s View.- Twelve ― Reasonable Attribution of Liability.- A. Introduction.- a) The Dutch Viewpoint?.- B. The Fatal Chain.- a) Actor ― Conduct ― Consequence ― Liability?.- b) Exit Foreseeability?.- c) Post Quod or Propter Quod?.- d) Reactions.- e) Towards Strict or Absolute Liability?.- Thirteen ― Criminal Liability.- Two ― On Reasonaple Liability.- One ― Strict Liability.- A. Introduction.- B. Preliminary Remarks.- C. Semantics.- a) Guilt means Schuld?.- b) Culpa means Schuld?.- c) Culpa equals Schuld equals Negligence.- D. Different Approaches.- Two ― Strict Liability in Dutch Criminal Law.- A. Narrowing the Issues.- a) When is an Offence one of Strict Liability?.- b) Quest for a Dutch Term.- c) Negligence/Culpa Recklessness/Roekeloosheid/ Rashness?.- Three ― Some Fictions in Common Law.- A. Echos from the Past.- B. Strict Liability and Real Crime.- a) Homicide.- b) Criminal Negligence.- c) The Generally Wicket Spirit.- d) Strict Responsibility in Dutch Law.- e) Probability of Risk.- f) Dolus Generalis.- C. Offences Qualified by their Consequences.- a) Secondary Consequences.- b) Pack to Causality.- c) Hindsight as Foresight?.- Four ― Strict Responsibility and Penal Offences.- A. Introductory Remarks.- B. Culpa Lata before The Courts.- a) Medical Cases.- b) Highway Traffic and other Cases.- c) Interference by Third Parties.- d) The Problem of the Unknown Driver.- 1) In The Netherlands.- 2) In Canada.- e) The Proof of Culpa Lata.- Five ― An Aside with Respect to Evidence.- A. Circumstantial Evidence.- B. ... used too liberally?.- Six ― The Res Ipsa Argument.- A. Res Ipsa Loquitur.- B. The Problem of Proving.- C. Polarized Evidence?.- Seven ― Justification of Punishment for Negligence.- Eight ― The Case in Favor and Against Strict Responsibility.- A. Arguments in Favor.- B. Arguments Against.- C. Is Strict Responsibility Acceptable?.- D. Expert Conduct.- E. Garantenstellung.- F. Role Playing.- Nine ― Separating the Strict from the Absolute.- A. Clarity of Terms.- B. Preventing Incidents from becoming Bad Habits.- Ten ― The Halfway House Doctrine.- A. A Premium on Diligence.- B. Diligence Must be Proven.- Eleven ― Due Diligence Before the Courts.- Twelve ― In Defence of Due Diligence.- A. Introductory Remarks.- B. Impossibility.- C. Compulsion or Duress.- D. Necessity.- E. Ignorance and Mistake of Fact.- F. Ignorance and Mistake of Law.- Thirteen ― The AVAS Defence.- A. Diligence means No Fault At All.- B. Selected Cases on AVAS.- Fourteen ― The Defence of Due Diligence in Canadian Criminal Law.- A. Introductory Discussion.- B. After the Sault Ste Marie Decision.- C. Recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.- D. Absolute Liability Has Its Place.- - Epilogue.- - Samenvatting.- - Footnotes.- Table of Cases.- Common Law Cases.- Dutch Case Law.- Curriculum Vitae.