Delict and Torts by Yohannes Berhane (1969) by jahrastafari89

• •

••

• •

·-

•

·-

•

.. • •

•

• • •

•

• •

•

. .

•

•.

•

-•

• •

•,

•

• ' •

• •

•

\ -• ..

""-�·1

. 'i-

•

••

l {_

•

li-

L '.

·-

•

•.

•

• •

-�

11 '

•

' ,'

, t.

•

�

1- ('•

-1

•

. .. •,

. • • ..• , :, ' •1

•

(

••

,J·,� •.• �,. . !c_ ' ' • -, ... , L',. .'

/" ••• r

.\ ·fi'r • ' r•

'• ' -�

' 1· '

•'

;

-�

,- ..

r � .,"'c.., ··-

,.,

•

••

-,, .\' \. .. .,

' •

•

'•

• •

•'

• 1

1•

' '

•••t

•

. r •

, ,. Î!.

J ..

•

.. �

,.'

•.

••

•

t Î

•

r.'

' ,�,

• "l

•

L ,,, •

•

• •

•

1 • 1

•

•·

·•

(i\l

..'�-

•

. ( . . .. .. '

�

(

•

/J .,,,

. ..

(

•

-, •

'•

A-

• '

' .,.

-·· '' •

•

�

• ,,

' ,:-

�

1. , .

,J l, � ,_

. ' ,f ' ,...._

�

•

.. . ;','t,.-.nr,·

,;J

_.,. �

.,.,..

t .,

V 1-

•1

é' 1

V •"t_\

n t'

\> ,. • �

.• �

.- • '

·•...

\,�la , ' ... t,. ,

t.. '· i I ,'' . '· l

... 1 , .J,

•

.,.. < - ••

1.-' , 1 ·

. • r:: .'

J�

':' ,1_1�,--••

-r-' � � --

,r -

,·,,-

. ' [. '. •

••

•1

< '

,,,, '

' '

•

.. .'

•

' ��

.._ ,_ . • • ;

(.-'

(

,_•

••

• 1

.. •

•

,, ••.

f;,

,. '.

1•

r1-

•

' ..'

'1 .•

• •

Î ,. "

•

l '

•

'('

'·

. -

•

,, .,

' ......

' ' ••

' f

•

i ' .•

•

l',

• r ,

•

·•

,u r

' .. •

•

•-

..('

.....

•

.. ".,.

• l

( ...

'I . '

1e 1 ' ' .,_

1 --î l 1. •

, _

•

1•

•\\

··.j

;

·'

•1

) \

•'

â&#x20AC;¢

DELICT

AND

An Introduction to the Sources of the Law of Civil Wrongs in Contemporary Ethiopia ( Arts. 2027-2161 of the Ethiopien Civil Code of 1960 ).

YOHANNES BERHANE Jur. Dr,, LL. M., M. C. L., D. C.E. • Vice Preeideut of the Bigb Court and former Membcr of the Supreme Imperia! Court.

ASMARA

Publieher « IL POLIGRAFICO P. L C.

1969

ALL RIGI-ITS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR, including tl,e right t,o reproduce this book or portiorts tl&ereof in any form

1969

' .

• •

•

ÂŤ No law . . . can ever be effective if it fails to reach the heart of those to whom it is intended to apply and does not respond to their needs and customs . . . Âť

IIaile Sellassie I, the Emperor, in His Preface to the Civil Code of the Err1pire of Ethiopia of 1960.

To the Ethiopian Legal Scholar

' •

•

PRE FA C·E :

DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF WORK

1. The <<'\iVÏnd of cl1ange» l1as indeed s1-vept over Africa·, With this change came the inevitable realizaticn1, tl1at the previoicsly existing legal systems are no longer suitable to tl1e dyna11iic society of toda)'. .. Alo11.g with political, eco11omic and social transjprma_tions, Africa is also witnessing a legal re. vivat; legal cl1anges are taking place al111ost everywhere. ln titis, Ethiopia is in tlie forefront. Starti11g in 1957, no l�ss tha,i six codes - civil, penœl, Gom,nercial, 1na1·itime codes and the codes of . civil a1'id penal proced.ures have been enactect by its Parlia,nent. For such rich, bu't technical material, to be understood and applied _satisfactorily, . competent people are essential. ttniversity Ethiopian of To this enrl, early irr. 1962 a group trainecl lawyers -� started a prog1·an1me of extension of. in:strttction of law, whic/1 i111.n1ediately. fottnd a favourable response on the part of the public. With tfze opening of a regular Faculty of La,,v,_. in S�p�e,nqer 1963, this extensio11 programme, . beca,ne part of it. I·n order ta prodiLce sicfficient trained ,nan.power, with Law has also. ha_d to de-vice other the least possible delay, the Faciilty . of . methods, such as the Certificate in Prog·ram1ne, i n ad. . . La,,v c1.nd Diplo1na dition to the regitlar LL.B. Programme. lt .was, however, soon discovered that there was a dearth of legal n1aterial, pertai11i11g ta Ethiopian law, which vvould liave se·rved as a basis, bath for the purposes of teachirzg the law stiudents and for .the use of the Bench and the Bar. �

2. Being a 1nember of tl1e 11tzperial Si1p1·eme Coiirt, tlie writer has some persona[ experience as to tl1ese di' fficulties. 1t is exact/y this main r_eason, therefore, which has pusliecl hi,n t_o attenipt to ,,vrite tl'lis contribution which, it is hoped, 1nay, in son1e little ,neasure, help to fill this gap. Apart.froni its intririsic diff"iculties, such a task is also no easy matter as ta other proble111s. Where, for instance, sliould one start? Which .tapie

PRE.FACE

is of the. niost imn1ediate 11ecessit),? Ho1,i1 shoi,ld orze tackle tlie proble111 ? There beirig n:o co1nme11taries artel ot/1.e,· basic 1naterials available re. ga1 ·ding the elaboration of the codes i11 ge11eral and tl1e reten·tio ·n 01 custoniary law (if a.11.y) a.nd its place in the Civil Code, it was t/1.cntg/1.t best to start fro1'11 t1'z.e sources; the word ((sources» being u11.de' 1 ·stood in its broader and co11 ·1prel1ensive 111eani11g.1 T/1at sitc/1. a choice should l1ave had priority can be seen by the First Report fron1 tl1e Dea.n,2 1,,.,here, speakirig of Etlriopia,1 law as beùng a 1",1·itteri law, it is said that suc/1 law «draws on di-1,erse sources w/1icl1 need be studiecl if the laiv is to be u.nd·erstood», an.d that ((Little of t/1.is i,vork lias yet been syste111atically itrzdertake11». Agairr:, aboitt the sanie time a11oll1er nierriber of the Faculty, a.fter e111. pfiasising t/1cLt the reports of tlie Coclifying Co1n111.issio·ners lzad 11ot bee 11 . publis/1ed, p-0inted out tl1at as a oonsequ·eru:e «!lie sou1·ces fron1 1,v/1.ic/1 the particitla.r code pro1Jisions c,re ci. erfvecl cire not yet ascertained». 3 Out of t/1.e si.....: codes, t/1ere is 110 cloi,.bt that the Civil Code of 1960 is t/1e 01ie wliic/1 will liave· t/ie greatest i111·pacl ori the Ethiopictn society i11 ge11:eral. StiLcly of its sources will proditce a 111.ine of releva11t i11forn1'atio·n; but s1.tc/1 a 111oni1n1e:1Ttal v.1ork could 011ly be 11roperly itndertakerz. after a S")1stematic sc,utiny of the co 11ten.ts of tlie 1,i,hole code. That woi,td require bot/1 tinze ancl expertise. As il is, orzly a 111i11or sectiorz of the code has be·en selected. Book IV of tl1e Code cleals 1,vitfz Obligati011s i11 general. Title XIII thereof conlain.s t,,vo cliaJJlers, the first devoted to Extra.coctitractual Liability an.d the second to Unlawful Enrichn1en-t. Tl1e cho,ïce fell on the first c/1apter. As it v.,ill be sh011,n (ater, tliis is a subject ivhic/1 in our cocle presents «originality». Th.is in itself would 111.ake it a fasci11.·ating study. Many woi,ld agree also that this «is CL subject 1v, hich best allows its to understancl that t/1ere is 110 clearly n-zarked fro11tier between the coi,.,itries w/1ere the la1,v is codified a1id t/1e common· laiv co.untries».4 Prof. La,,vs011 in: the Preface of his Negligence in the Civil Law reniarks: «Ail students of law by the co111parative niethod must at a ve1-y early stage beco1ne familiar with these sources... of 111ocle,ï1. Fren.cJ,z law, and tl1ere is 110 better place at whic/1 to start t/1a11 tlie la,v of Civil Responsability».5 z·z·ate· · 01 1ce tlie c/1oice 0 11 tlze area of Civil Wrongs z·s mad . e, a11 z111n1ec . dzl �m1na loon1s forward - (a) s/1oulcl 011e e111bark 011 a detailed, but re. . . · strzcted, scl-zolarly work on a give11. topic out of the si, bJect,. or (b) zs it preferable that th.e ai,11 sliould ·be oriented ·t01va1 ·ds a general, con1prel1e11. . sive ancl to a large e,1,;te:11·t, su p�-rficial bict whic/1 fias a. practical valife?

PREFACJ,�

111

While t/1e Code, iti ge1iera.l, is itself the prodicct af coniparative law, Title XIII better illustrates the har111onization of id•eas deriving fram the co1n. mon law, contin.en.tal la\,v atzd� it is si,ggested, traditio1ial customary law. If one could 1nake a stitdy of these sources of Title XIII, a heavy burden - one of the many - vl1ould have been · lif ted fro111· the slioulders of those whose task ,,vould brirtg then1 in direct contact ,vith it. Taki11.g into account these and other circu,nstances, the writer cho1se question (b ). 3. This is 11ot, l1owever, a st,udy of comparative law 1'tor a co11iparative study of laws.6 Its task is more n1oclest: that of makirzg an attempt ta discover the sources throi,gli whic11 the codifiers 1vere inspired in th:e draft. ing of that pa1·t of tl1e Ci11il Code with which we are here concerned. It will be the purpose of this book ta show that tlwse soitrces are grounded 011. the Conti11enta.l Lav., (with special refererzce to French Law), the Com. 1non Lav. , (mai11ly English Law) and' Traditio1ial Custo11iary La\lV. The exercise will lead to some comparison and ta· tl1at extent only 01ie may speak of comparative laiv, as is 11owdays u11dertood.1 The title given to this work is sig1ufica11t. It is wliat it says and nothi1ig more - an <cintroduc. tio11» ta tlie sources of the Law of Civil Wron.gs. Tl-l'e first impulse ,vas ta leave it at that bitt fitrther thoiLght made it necessary to add ta - ar rather ta precede it by - tlie familiar terms of «De.Zict» and «Torts». Suf. fice it to say here that «Delict» is a ivell known co1-rcept to the continental lawyers as «Tort or Torts» is to their co1nmon lai-v cou111terparts. The words Responsabilitè Extracontractuelle, i1i the Fre11c/1 text of the Code, have been translated in the English text as ccExtracontractual Liability». There are those:5 who think that ccLiability arising otherwise than from contract» would have sounded' better to the ears of a col'nmon la1ivyer. To say ccCivil Responsibility» with Ptof. Lal1,son would n.ot be accurate. As we shall see later, tliere is a tendency in Continenta.l Etlrope, which considers Respons. abilitè Civile as comprising of bath Contracts and Torts. To say «Law of Civil Wrongs» wo.uld avoid confusion a1id·, in tl1e opinion of the writer, better conveys t/1e idea. Wliat the Ethiopian Civil Code contains is, inter. alia, a combination of concepts deriving from both syste,ns. The result is a longwinded title which., although reluctantly, it is felt necessary to retain 4. The book is divided into two parts: The Introduction - which will show tfze legal background existing be. fore the drafting of the Civil Code of Ethiopia, 1960; the 1,vork involved in its preparation; and tlie resi,lts reaclied. Its tLltimate goal is to prepare the ground for the second part, ( the Analysis) and, al tlie same time, shol.v

PHl!:F,\CE

the importarzce of legal liistory '"'h.ich ca1111ot be over e,nphasizecl. The Analysis - 1-vill deal first with Tille }(Ill irr: general a11.d will at tempt to give a con cise introductio·n as to legal basis of liability in tlie three legal syste1ns. lt will tlien proceed with tlie acti tal analysis of the relevant provisions.

/t is r1.ecessarily longe1·, as clemo11.stration 1,vill be 1nade of each article

of the Title. /11. trying to trace tlie origi11s of a given article or secti011, a brie/ �xciLrsus in t. o history, especially as to tl1ose Civil Wrongs ,vhich take their inspiration from the Co111111ori T..aw, is inevitable. Such a m.ethod will en .tail re11etiti01i a11:d for this tlie ,vriter apologises at tl1e Otltset. An easier i111.derstandirig of the sou1-ces of our cocle 1.t1ill be better achieved if the discussion follo1,1,1s, i11 the ,nain, tlie ou.tline of the Code itself. Thal is the atte11ipt h.ere. In. that co11text, by discussing each syste111 i-n turrz, one· is bou1id to repeal J1i111self ofte11. The reacl'er can, 11.owever, be assured that no efforts liave been spcired to lesseri Lhi.s ordeal. Fina.ll)1 tliere 111ill be a CJ,zaJJter (VIII) 1.1,11:de·r '\tVhich ha11e bee11. groitped all those articles 111/1-ich see1n to s1'101,v a conibination and h.c,rmonization of all thr, ee S)1stems. 5. It rias 11.ot bee1i possible to cite many cases /rom Etliiopia. ln the first place the Etl1iopiarz Civil Code is still relatively you11.g. Seco,ully, t/1.e systematic stucly of case reporting was seriously i-tn derta.ken o nJy re centl)1. What few relevant ca.ses exist liave beert, œs far possible, referred to. Thirdly, bitt r1wst unfortit.na.tely, there have not been 1n.a11.y c01npeten1 judges9 or, tlie Be11c/1 a11cl consequently, it will be /1ardly desirable to see tfze tre·nd of a certain court, on a gi11en 111atter, fron-z Lheir decisions. Faurthl)1, it is 11.ot certain, strictly speaking /iow much of case..la,,V 1,vilt be relevant i11 Ethiopia.10 On the other hand, legal science11 - a.s forn1ulation · of faw as expounded by l_egal scholc1rs - has beerz. profusely drawr1. itpon. Tlie reason is si,1iple. In order to give a solutio·n ttnder t/1e Et/1io11iarz. Civil Cocle it 1vill be neces sary for our judges to know tlie general pri n ciples t1'iere e n i-tncia ted and in · ti. trn, t �eir un�e·rlying principle. If tlie '"'ay /1.as already bee n poi,ite� at �t - as zs tlie ain1 of t/1is work - t/1.ey niay easily fi,i'd tlieir wa y. They. wzll not apply otlier laws tl1an those of Ethiopia bi tt ,nay find inspiration . by read'l11.g, Sa)1, the legal cliscussio11 over a cert a1•1,.., ,natter 1.t,!1.ic/1, if no ,t identical, may be similar to the o11.e 11.01'\, . . . i11 is su e A . ga1 11., f or sititatzon s . . w/1.cch derive tlieir sai-trces from a f·ore1grz. syste111, tlie legal science of th at . 11artzcular system m.ig/1t be releva11t o1 1. . tlie partzcit lar poz nt.

PltEFACE

6. One more '"-'Orel 011 tl1e importarice uf tech·11.ical legal te·rminology. The Ethiopiari j1,1.dge, law 11rofessor or practicing lai,,)1er, 1.vho will be called ·upo11. to i11terpret a given article of the Etfziopian Civil Code, vviil bè imn1.ediatel_y co11fronted 1Ji�it1'i t/1.e nei,i, legal ter1ninology. Botli the A,n. haric a11.d t/1.e English ,,ersions of tl'ie Cocle are translatio11.s from tl1.e 01·iginal Frencfz. The expert, autJ,101· of tl1.e Dra.ft, is himself a Frenchman. Wit/1.out any reflectio11. 011 his 71rofoit11.d kr101,vlectge of Co1nparative La,v, his basic trairzing is Fre11c/1. La,v. Wl1ile he may wis/1. to iise Comn1.or• t Law terms when referring specifically to this le gal systeni, it is reasonable to expect that /1.e ,,vould e111ploy Fre11cl1 legal tern1inolog1, 1,vl1e11. referring to concepts inspirecl by F1·e11.ch Lavv. While it is true t/1.at Parlian1e11.t ,,otecl 011 the Amharic text, it is like1-vise tr.iLe t/1.cit 111.a,1..y of the legal ter1ns ap. pearing on tl1e Ehio11iar1. Civil Cocle lzave bee11. coi11.ed, as it were, for the first ti,ne. S0111e reasonable ti1ne has to elapse before Ethio11ia11 la·i.vyers can get acquaintecl 1. vith tl1.e concepts tl-iere exp1·essecl and before thos· e A111. 11.aric legal terms can be com11-1only u11.clerstood as con1Jeying a defi11.ite tecf,z. nical meani11.g. lt is 11.ot t/1.erefore sa easy ta find oict tl1.e ratio legis throitgh tfze Amliaric versio11. alone, nor woitld' the clic[ of the Englis/1. text suffice. /11 tJ,ze pages t/1.at follow 1niLc.h eniphasis is placecl an tfze legal ter1ni. 11.ology used in the French version· of tl1.e Etl1iopia11. Civil Cocle. T/1.ere is no ir1.te11tiotr, by so cloirz.g, to rega1·<.l it as having any official stancli11.g. B)' a 111.ere conzparison witl1. the English text, it will be demanstrated 11.ow 1na11y discrepanciens there exist. îA/liile the SLLbstance 1nay not d:iffer sa n1.uch, inaccurate translation may lead ta results otl1.er thart those intended by Lhe codifiers. Adrnittedly, strictly speaking, while the Frenc/1 lavvyer would be n1ore concerned wit/1. tl1e ratio legis, t/1.e E11glishma ·11 would place 1nore importance on history. The latte1- 1-vould 11ot, conversely, be per1nittecl ta use the travaux prèparatoires as aid ta ir,:terpretation, biLt tfze fo,�m.er would.1z A Commo11. laVi,yer Vi,oitlcl try to give a 111.ore strict co11.stri1ction ta the letter of the legislative text tl1a11 fz.is Continental LaVi, brother, biit th.e legislative drafting is differe11.t in bot/1 syste,ns. Agai11., it will be fou11.cl tliat even legal 1naxin1.s whicli 111,ay give t/1.e i1npression of be-ing identical a.re not sa in practice. In spite of those differerzces of approach., hoVi,ever, bath sides would endeavoitr ta firzcl oitt the intended legislati11e 1nearting. And tl1is is done by way of const1·uctive itzterpreta.tio11. Jt is tl1e11 i11. t/1.is spi1·it r/1.at the frequent re-ferences to the F1·encl1. text of tfze Etfiiopian Ci-iJi/ Code 111.ust be it11.clerstoocl.

!'REF.ACE

7. And to conclude, it is the utmost Jzope of this write·r that this work

willl be regarded as one answer to the nian.y calfs 1nade - and rightly sv by the different foreign legal schofars as to t}ze need for Ethiopians to embark on a serious study of their law, and this 1vri.ter would add, tlzeir legal history. More tlia11. providing scliolary ivork, t/1.e main abject of this ,vork is to provoke thought and fu1·ther study. If, as a result, other Ethiop. ian,s co,ne forward with critical opi1'zion.s to the concl1,, sions reached by this writer, ltis efforts will have bee11. fcLr 111.ore tha11 co1·11.perzsated.

YOHANNES BERHANE, Bruxelles, September 1966.

â&#x20AC;¢

NOTES PREFACE 1.

See Allen, C.K., Law in the Making, 6th ed., O.U.P. ( 1963) in 27-23 Brooklyn L. Rev. 366 (1962) (Book Review) by F.F. Russel1.

Jan,es Paul, C.N., First Annual Report from the Dean, 1 JEL 335, 340 (1964).

Krzeczunowicz, G., Statutory lnterpretation in Ethiopia, I JEL, 315, 323 (1964).

Catala, P., & Weir, J.A., Delic:t and Torts: A Study in Parallel, 37 Tul. L. Rev. 573, 577 (1963).

Lawson, F.H., Negligence

in the Civil Law, vi, 2nd ed., Oxford, at the Clarendon

Press (1950). 6.

As to the controversy on the use of this term, see David, R., Précis de Droit Comparé, p. 6 n. 2, 2nd ed. 1966, Dalloz, Paris.

Id.

Russel, F.F., Lectures, at 182. Law Lectures (hereinafter called Lectures) - a series

of informai Law Lectures based on Roman Law, French Law, ltalian Law and the American Restatement of the Law of Torts, on the present Ethiopian Book of Obligations (while it was still a Draft) delivered in the Academic year 1957-1958 in Asmara to a group of students consisting mostly

of Judges

{ of whom the

writer was one), Members of the Bar and Public Prosecutors, by Dr. F.F. Russell (M.A., B.C.L. Oxon), J. D., Member of the Brookling Law School, N. Y. (19211942;

1960);

Legal

Adviser to the Representative in Eritrea of H.I .M., The

Emperor of Ethiopia (1957-1959); Author of many legal articles and a book, Outlines of Legal History (1929).

Although, unfortunately, the «Lectures» have never been published, they are, in

NOTES â&#x20AC;˘ PR,EFACE

the opinion of this writer, so far the best comn,entary on the Draft of the E.C.C., as far as the Law of Civil Wrongs is concerned. Dr. Russell is one of the few best qualified persans to treat this matter on a comparative basis and this writer will be drav-,ing heavily from him. 9.

Krzeczunowicz, G., supra note 3, at 318-19.

10.

Vanderlinden, J., An Introduction to the Sources of Ethiopian Law, 3 J.E.L. 37 ( 1965),

11.

ln the sense used by Vanderlinden ( Ibid., at 59) of formulation of law as expounded by legal scholars.

12.

See Amos and Walton, lntroduc;tion to French Law, 2nd ed. by Lawson et al. O.U.P.

( 1963) at 14-17.

•

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

PART I - INTRODUCTION - THE BTBIOPIAN CIVIL CODE OF 19 6 0 CHAPTER

CHAPTER II

Legel Background in the Pre-Code Era

The Travaux Préparatoires

CHAPTER III

The Result

PART Il - ANALYSIS - THE EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITIES PROVISIONS CH.,\PTER

1-\ Generel Survey

CHAPTER V

The Law from the Continent

CHAPTER VI

The Common Law Element

CHAPTER

VII

CHt\PTER VIII

Customary La,v Borderline Situation.a

CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPI-IY APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TITLE PAGE Preface - Design and Purpose of Work • • • • • • NOTES • • SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. • • • TAB.LE OF CONTENTS. • • • • TABLE OF CASES. • • • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • • • • ABBREVIATIONS.

•

I IX XI

•

PART I - DfTRODtJCTIOR - THE ETHIOPIA?i CIVIL CODE

XII

XIX XXI XXIII

•

or 1960

Cl1apter I - LEGAL BACKGROUND IN THE PRE-CODE ERA 1. Some lntroductory Remarks Conceming Ethio. . . . . . . pian Society 2. LegaJ Systems and Sources of Ethiopian Tradi. . . . tionaJ Law . . .· .

A. T!ie Fetha Negast.

•

a) Originality and Content •

b) Its impact on Custon1ary Law

Cuatomary Law

•

Ethiopian •

•

(i) Classical Definition

3. The Need for Codification •

•

Traditional •

•

8 •

(a) Ethiopia (in Genera1) . (b) Eritrea (in Partict1lar) •

•

(ii) Ethiopian Customary Law

NOTES

•

10 11 13

•

• •

•

Cbapter II - THE TRAVAUX PREPA RATOIRES • • A. Composition of Codification Con1mission . _ B. Underly1ng Policy of ork W • • C. Stages and Process of Elab�rati�n • •

•

CONTENTS

XIII

Page

NOTES

•

Chapte1· III - THE RESULT

•

A. The Gene1·al Framewo1·k of the Etl1iopian Civil . . . . . . . . Code . . . . B. Otl1er Sources (continuation) . C. Incorporation of Customary Lavv in the Code . NOTES

•

37 37 38

•

PABT Il - UALYSIS - THE EXTBA-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITIES PROVISIONS Chapter IV - A GENERAL SURVEY

•

1. Contents of Title XIII • 2. Classification • • • A. Law fro·nt the Continent

(i) Constitutive Elements (ii) Dommages • •

•

54 56 57

•

J';)

•

• (i) Theories • (ii) Constitutive Elements (iii) Damages • •

NOTES

51 53 53 53 54 54

•

(i) Criminal Nature (ii) Civil Natt1re . ( iii) Damages

•

B. The Common Law

C. Customary Law

•

1. Sou.rces of Extra-contractual Liability (Art. 2027). • • • 2. Continuation (Arts. 2028-2034) .

65 68

69 70

•

Cbapter V - THE LAW FROM THE CONTINENT I - Ge11eral Rules

•

• (i) Reasonable Man . • (ii) Professional Fat11t . (iii) Infants and Insane Pe1·sons • . (iv) «Simple» Negligence • . . . . ( v) Act. .

(a) Abus cle Droit . (b) DétoiLrnn1ent cl'e

(vi) Abstension

•

Pouvoi1· .

•

71 73 74

•

• •

•

CON1'ENTS

XIV

Page • • 2035) (AI·t. Law of Infringement 3. • • 4. Hiera.rchical Order (Art. 2036) • 5. No11-Pe1iormance of Contract (Art. 2037)

II - Particular Illustrations

•

• • • • A. Nominate Torts Ct1lpa in Contrahendo (Art. 2055)

•

82 84

•

88 88

•

B. Strict Liability (or Liability Without Fault)

•

• • • • (i) Animals (Art. 2071-76) • • (ii) Buildings and «choses» (Arts. 2077-80) (ili) Macl1ines and Motor-Vel1icles (Art. 2081-84)

89 90

•

C. Mode a11.d Extent of Co-1npensatio11

•

95 96 96 97 98 98 99 99

•

Introductory (a) Material Dct111ages (i) Articles (ii) (iii) (iv) ))

))

•

2090-91, 2099, 2101-03 2092, 2097, 2104 • • 2093-94 2095-96 • • •

(b) Moral Da1n.ages

•

(i) Principle (Art. 2105) (ii) Articles 2106-11 •

•

• •

•

(i) Restitution (Art. 2118) • • (ii) l{estitution in Kind (Art. 2119)

• •

•

99 100

D. Vicarioi,s Liability ( or Responsibilit)' for the

Actio11s of Others)

•

(i) Father and Guardian (Arts. 2124-25) .

100

•

100

(ii) State Liability (Arts. 2126-29) (iii) Cumul of Liability (Art. 2136)

• •

•

E. Actio11. for Dan1ages (De l'Action erz Répara. . . . tio11.) • • • • • (i) Reference ( Renvoi) to Adminis trative La\v (Art. 2140) . . . • • (ii) Burden of Proof (Art. 2141) . (iii) Undiscovered Author of D amage ·(Art:

2142)

. . (iv) Heirs (Art. 2144) .

•

s) �

(v) Victi1n's Creditors (Art. 21 4

•

101 103 10 3 103 104

•

104

•

105 106

CONTENTS

Page

(vi) No11.trans1nissibility of Clai1n (Art. 2146) . (vii) Agreements Exclt1di11g Liability (AI·t. 2147). (viii) Date of Assessment 'of Damage and Re. . . lated Topics (Arts. 2150-54) (ix) Joint Liability - Soliclarité - (Art. 2155) . (x) No Partition (Partage) of Liability and . Relative Extenuation (Arts. 2156.59) . . . . (xi) .St1brogation (A1·t. 2161) . NOTES

•

Chapter VI - THE COMMON LAW ELEMEtlT A. Nomi11ate Torts ( Special Cases)

106 107 107 108 111 111

•

115

•

141

•

. . (i) Introductory • • (ii) Pbysical Assat1lt (Art. 2038) • (iii) Justifiable Grouncls (Art. 2039) .

141

•

141 141 143

. . . . fit injuria and . . . . . . . .

144 144

(iv) Wrongft1l lnterference ,vith the Liberty of Anotl1er and Related Topics (2040-43) . (,;) Defamation (A1-ts. 2044-49) . . .

145 147

(a) Reasonableness (b) Consent (Vole11.ti asstrmption risk) (c) Foreseeability

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

. 11011 . .

. . Introductoiy . . . . . Defarnation in General Libel and Slander . . . . Objective Test and Class of Persans . . Special Defences . .

(vi) Injury to the Right . . 2050-51) (vii) Duty to Educate and . . 2052) .

. . . . .

of Spot1ses (Art. . . . . . to Supervise (Art. • • • • .

(viii)Trespass (Arts. 2055-54)

•

. . (a) General . (b) Trespass to Land . (c) Trespa.ss to Goods

. . .

•

143

147

148 149 150 151

154 155 159

159

. .

159 163

(ix) Interference witl1 Contract (Art. 2056) (x) Unfair Competition (Art. 2057) . . . (xi) Deceit and Injurious Statements (Arts. 2059-62) . . . . . . .

164 165

B. St1ict Liability

•

(i) Dangerous Activities (Arts. 2069-70) . (ii) Manufactt1red Goocls ( Art. 2085) •

• • •

166 168 168 170

CONTENTS

XVI

Page

171

C. Mode and Exte11t of Cornpensation .

(a) Moral Damages (Arts. 2107-12, 2114-15) . (b) Other Modes of Compensation (Arts. · · . . . . 2120, 2122) D. Vicarious Liability (or Responsibility for the . Action of Others) Defamation (Art. 2135) .

•

174 174 175

Effect of Criminal on Civil Action (Art. 2149) .

175

•

179

•

201

•

201

•

202

E. Actio·n for Damages

NOTES

171

•

Cbapter VII - CUSTOMARY LAW Introductory

•

A. General

•

(i) Intentional and Unintentional Wrongs . . . . . (ii) Justifications

(iii) Hierairchical Order

B. Naminate Torts

•

Assault and Battery (ii) Defamation • • (iü) Loss of Consortium (iv) Trespass • •

•

(i)

• •

202

•

202

•

203

•

D. Mode and Extent of Compensation

203 203 204

204

205 207 208

•

208

•

(a) Material Damages (Arts. 2095-96) (b ) Mora[ Daniages . . • •

• •

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Cl1aritable Bodies (Arts. 2106.11) • Custom (Art. 2116) . . . Pl1ysical Injuries (Art. 2113) lndecent Assault and Injury to ·Wif � (Arts. 2114.15) . . . · . (v) Repre.sentative of th e Fa mily (Art 2117)

•

202

•

. . C. Strict Liability . . • • • . (i) Bodily Harm (Art. 2067) • • (ii) Ani1nals and Other Property (Arts. 2071. . . . . 2076) • • (iü) Macl1ines and f\1otor.Vehicles (AI·t. 2081 (2))

202

•

208 210 210

210

212

212 212

•

213

•

213

Restitu tion and Compe11satio n in Kind (Arts. 2118-19) • • • •

CONTENTS

XVII

Page

E. Actio,i fo r Darnages

NOTES

•

214

(i) Collective Liability When Author Un. . . . . known (Art. 2142) . . . (ii) Compromise (Art. 2148)

214

•

Chapter VIII - BORDERLINE SITUATIONS: . A. Nominale Torts (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Simulatio11 (AI·t. 2058) . Distraint (Art. 2063) . Execution of Court Order Prescription (Art. 2065)

. . (Art. .

•

215

•

219

•

223

•

. . . 2064) . .

223

•

223 225 226 227

•

228

. (i) Necessity (Art. 2066) . (ii) Sporting Activities (Art. 2068) . . • (iii) Exoneratio11 from Liability (Art. 2086) . . (iv) Otl1er «Tl1ings» (Art. 2087) . . • . • (v) Contractual Relation.s (Art. 2088) (vi) Disinterested Relations (Arts. 2089) •

228 23l 232 234 235 236

B. St1·ict Liability

C. Mode and Extent of Con1z;ensatio1i . . . (i) Fault of the Victim (Art. 2098) (a) Material Dan1ages

•

• • •

•

. . (a) Causation . . . . . (1) The Tl1eory- of Equivalence of Condi. . . . . . tions • (2) Tl1e Theory of Adeqt1acy of Cause • (b) Contributory Negligence

( 1) Citlpa C01npensatio . . (2) Last Clear Chance . . . (3) Comparati,,e Negligence (4) Fattte Com,11011: (Common Fault)

(ii) Neces,ity (Art. 2103)

•

• •

238 238 238 239 239

240

240 241 242 242

243

•

244

•

245

•

245

D. Vicarious Liability (or Responsibility for the . . Action of Otl1e1·s) . . . . .

248

(i) Liabilities of Bodies Corporate (Art. 2129). (ii) Employer's Liability (Art. 2130) . . ( iii) Performance of Dt1ties and R-elated 1'opics

248 249 249

(b) Other Modes of Corripensatiotz

Injunctions (Art. 2121)

•

CONTENTS

XV Ill

Page

(a) Se1·\rant (b) Age.nt

•

251 252 252

•

255

•

256

(iv) Independent Contractors (Art. 2134) • • • • E. Action for Da1nages (i) Legal Jnzmu1'tities (Arts. 2137-39)

(a) Contine11tal Europe (and Other parts .

. .

•

265 266

•

267

•

279

of the World) . . . ( b) The Comm .on Law World

. .

(ii) Prescriptio.n (Delai) (Art. 2143) (üi) Collective Liability (Art. 2160)

NOTES

•

CONCLUSION

•

BTBLIOGRAPRY APPENDICES

•

259 262

•

281

•

291

«A>> - Title XIII of tl1e E.C.C. (Amharic Text) «B» -

))

(English

«C» -

))

})

))

(French

))

)

» )

•

333

•

291

•

363

TABLE OF CASES

ETHIOPIA

n) Addis Ababa Aclvocate of Ministry of Finance v. Nicola Sarris, Civil Case ( H.C.) 782/53 E.C. Antonis Hajoglou v. Imperia( Highway Authority, Civil Case ( S.I.C.) 204/53 E.C. Eftyn1ia Mamalingas & Panayotis Mamalingas v. Messrs. Zappula & Kan1pus Ltd.; Civil Case (H.C.) 258/56 E.C. Francesconi Fecondo & Ghiandoni Trenzio v. Pedretti Giuseppe C.C. (S.I.C.) 413/49. Highway Authority & Escamisa Co., v. Mebrahtu Fessaha, C.A. (S.I.C.) 1665/56 E.C. Wez. Workinesh Bezabih & Others v. Wez. Yedenekou, C.A. ( S.I.C.) 883/55 E.C. b) Asmara Beraky Demsas v. Ogbé Hailé, Civil Case (S.I.C.) Nos. 50/57 & 22/58, E.C. Bernoldi Marcello v. Afro-American Racing Club, G.C.-H.C., Civil Case no. 41/62 (20.3.64 G.C.) Fiorini Oreste & Giacon10 Norma v. Pietro Tringali & S.A.R.B.E., Civil Case Supreme Court of Eritrea no. 55/61 G.C. Grebremeschel Ghebremedhin v. Wez. Kidan Bainot, C.C. ( S.I.C.) no. 83/57 E.C. Medhanie Tesfanchiel ( Enda Zeru) v. Qashi Ogbanchiel ( Enda Laguen) C.C. (S.I.C.) 75/57 E.C. Universal lnsurance Agents Trading Co., Ltd., v. Ghebremeskel Tekle, C.C. (S.I.C.) 90/56 E.C. B)

ENGLAND Bebee v. Sales, (1916) 32 «The Tirnes». L.R. 413 (1916) 32 T.L.R. 413. Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co. Ltd., (1964) 3 W.L.R. 1162. Donaldson v. Mc Niven, (1952) 2 Ali E.R. 691. Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) A.C. 562. E. Hui ton & Co. v. James, ( 1910) A.C. 20. Hev,itt "· Britt., (1940), 1 K.B. 188, 199. Limpus v. London Omnibus Company, (1862) 1 H. & C. 526. Lumley v. Gye, (1853). 2 E. & BI. 216. Mecring v. Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd., (1920) 122 L.T. 44. Youssoupoff v. Metro Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd., (1934), 50 T.L.R. 581 (C.A.).

TABLE OF CASES

X-, "' ,1:\. .. ,

C) FRANCE

Colmar, May 2, 1885 (1956) D. Il 9. Ill . 17, 20; S. 1873 Il. 153. 73 18 D. . 73 18 8. . Feb n. Co de b. Tri , (Blanco) (Pelletier), Dall. Pér. 3.5 (1874). (Lemmonier), Dall. Pér. 3.9. (1918). L'Affaire Jand'Heur, Ch. réun., Feb. 13. 1930. D.P. 1930. 1. 57; S, 1930 1. 121. re). Poitiers, Nov. l 2, 1935 ( 1936) D. 11. 25 { note Salle de la Marinié (note Marty). 321 8) S.l. (193 , tier) Sava {note 5 . D.P.I 8) (193 , 1937 25, July Civ. L'Affaire Franck, Ch. réun., Dec. 2. 1941, D.A. 1941, J. 369. S. 1941 1. 217. Trib. Seine, Nov. 13, 1945 (1946) G.P.I. 93. Aix, June 6, 1950 ( 1951) D. 173 {note Besson) { 1950) J.C.P. Il 5736 (note Rodiére). Civ. 1. Feb. 27, 1951, 19 (1) D. 329, (1951) J.C.P. Il 6, 193; Civ. 1. Feb. 27,

1951; D., 329 (note Desbois), (1951) J.C.P. li. 6. 193. ( Lauelle), Conseil d'Etat, Assemblée Statuante au Contentieux, July 28; 1951 D. 1951, J. 623, S. 1952 Il. 25, 29 (note Mathiot). Civ. March 18, 1955 (1955) D. 573 (note Savatier), (1955) J.C.P. Il. 909 (note Esmeln). Civ. May 18, 1955 (1955) J.C.P. 11. 8793 (note Esmein). Civ. June 5, 1957 (1957) D. 493 (note Savatler).

Nimes_, Feb. 18; 1959 (1959) J.C.P. Il. 11374 {note Vîenne), (1960) R.T. 301.

GERMANY T. v. S. (Reichsgerlcht), First Civil Senate, 33 Jan. 1920 E.R.G. (Z) 336.

ITALY Cass. Civile, January 14, 1944 N. 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Davis v. Pringle, 268 U.S. 315 ( 1925). Mc Pherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 383, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). Po �sgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).

Railroad Company v. Stout,... U.S. ... ( 1873). United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt., 258 U.S. 268 (1922).

•

A CKNOTf/LEDGEMENTS

In the si,mmer of 1959, I 1,vas fortunate enottg/1 to obtain leave of ab sence from the Courts and tl1rough the aegis of the [1'z.ternational Coopera tio11 Admi1'zistration (11rese11.tly krzov..,n as AID), I spent 011.e acade11'zic year at tl-ze George Wasl1i11gton University ( Law School) in Wa.shi11.gto11. D. C., · where I was initiated to the study of Co1nparative La1,v. Again, in 1964 leave of absence for two years was graciousty allo'\<vecl to 1ne. U11..cler Fellows/1.ip froni Yale University, I spent the acacle·n1.ic year 1964-1965 Ne,,v Haven, Co1tnecticut, with the additian , al be11.efit of access to the libra1'y of the Yale Law School. I1i Octob · er 1965, I 1-\,ent to Bruxelles a Scholarship for stttdy of 12 111onths fron1 the Belgiarz Governnzent. 1'zere, I vvas able to ha've access to bot/1 the library of tlie Cent1·e universitaire de Droit Comparé a,1·d the Law Library of lfie Libre de Bruxelles. This book is the result of tliese last two years of 1.. A large nu1'11ber of people have helped me in one way 01' a.11.other ta make the publication of this book possible. I acknowledge 111y indebtness lo each and everyone of them. It is diffidult enough to show on·e's apprecia. tion ta 011.e persan, it is harder still whe11. the people and institr,ttions whom one owes gratitude are many. I cannot, however, help 111e11tioning SJJecifical ly H.H. Ras Asrate Kassa, Governor Gene1·al of Eritrea, for the significant and sitbstantial financial help; Dr. F.F. Russell, Brooklyn Law Scfzool, N.Y.; Prof. René Dekkers, Université Libre de Bruxelles; Prof. René David, Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Economiques d:e Paris; Prof. Myres S. Mc Dougal, Sterling Prof. of Law, Yale University, for their criticism a·nd/or suggestio11:s. I am also indebted ta the Staff of the Libraries above mentio11.ed; to the Baile Sellassie I University (Faculty of Law) far /1elpi11.g to get nie the Fellowships; ta my irnmediate s1,tperiors botrz at t/1.e Courts and at tl1e Governorate General's Office irz A.51nara, for n,1aking it possible for me ta obtain the nec·essœry leave of absence; t0 the typists bath in the Courts of Justice and elsewhere who /iave had to work overtinie to l1ave the manuscript ready in time; ancl last but not least to tf1.e Alf.a11.ager of the

X,lll

ACICNOWLEDGEtlJENTS

,,Il Poligrafico Prin.ti11g Press»1 AsmarcL, Dr. G. Storelli, for h.is unswerving encoitragement a11d siLbstantial help. Final/y to my f amily, which has sitff�ed SO' mitch i11. order to e 1iable ,rze to con1.plele n1y 1·esearch, I owe it eterfr:al gratitude. Wliile ack1101!i!ledgi11.g my indebt11.ess to the vari.ous people arzd institit.• tiorzs, hov.,ever, I take entire responsibility for any faitlts whicli tlie book may contai11..

ABBREVIATIONS

Ali E. R. A. C. -Art. B. C.C. B. G.B. B. P. C. BIICL BYIL Camb. L. J. Ca tala & \,Veir -

Cl1. Réu. Cfr. C. C. E. C. E.C. C. E.Co.C. E. P.C. Dalloz David P/C.

F. C.C. G. C. I-I SIU Har. L.R. I. C. C. ICLQ I-I. C.J. H.L. I-I. P.C. J.A. L. J. C.P. J. E. L. J.I.C.J.

Alinéa. All England Law Reports. Appeal Court (Englancl). Article. Belgian Civil Code Burgerliches Gesetzbuch (G.erman Civil Code of 1900). Belgian Penal Code. British Institute of International & Comparative La,N. Britisl1 Yea1·book of International Law. Cambridge Law Journal. A series of articles (I-IV) by same a11thors pt1blished in tl1e Tulane La\v Review (U SA). Chambres Réunies (France). Conf1·ont. Cotir de Cassatio11 (France). Etl1iopian Calendar. Etl1iopian Ci\1il Code. Etl1iopia11 _Comme1·cial Cocle. Ethiopian Penal Code. Dalloz Périodique or I-Iebdomadaire (France). P1·ivate Communications «A» and «B» between Prof. Réné David and the writer, on specific replies given to specific questions. The French Code Civil. Grego1·ian Caleodar. Haile Selassie I University. Harvard Law Review (U.S.A.). Italian Civil Code of 1942. International & Comparative La\v Qt1arterly (G.B.). 1-Iigh Court of J11stice (Ethiopia). Hot1se of Lords (England). Hungarian Penal Code. Journal of Africa11 Law (G.B.). Jurisclasset11· Juricliqt1e (France). Jour11al of Ethiopia11 Law. Journal of the International Co1nmissio11 of Ju1·ists (Geneva).

xxiv L. Q. R. L.R. Lect1rres L. T. Mich. L. Rev. N. Y., N.B. OX. U. P. Pen. L. Rev. P. U. F. Q. S. J. Sec. S.P.C. S. C. C.

s.c.o.

S. I. C. T.L.R. Trib. de Cao. Tt11. L. Rev. U. N. O.

V. Q

\V.L.R. Yal. L. J.

A.BBREVIATIONS

= JJa\.V Quarterly Revie\V (G.B.). = La\V Reports (G.B.). = A series of Lectures 011 the Ethiopian Civil Code. = Law Times (En.gland). = Micl1igan Law Revie\.v (U.S.A.). - New York, North East (U.S.A.). = Oxford University Press. = Pennsylvania Law Review (U.S.A.). = Presses Universitaires de France. = Que Sais Je? (French paperback books). = Section. - Soviet Penal Code. = S\.viss Civil Code. = Swiss Code of Obligations. = Supreme Imperia! Court (Etbiopia). = Times Law Reports (England). = Tribunal des Conflits (Fran.ce). = TuJane Law Review (U.S.A.). - United Nations Organization. = Versus. = Weekly Law Reports (England). = Yale Law Journal (U.S.A.).

PART I

IN fRODUCTION THE ETHIOPIAN CIVIL CODE OF 1960

CI-IAPTER I LEGAL

BACKGllOUN'D

THE PRE-CODE E RA

l. SOME INTRODUCTURY REMARKS CONCERNING ETHIOPIAN SOCIETY

Tl1e n1eani11g of ·the ,vords «Etl1iopia» and «Abys5inia» l1ave been clefi11ed 1nore tha11 once. 1 The l1istory of tl1e Empire of Etbiopia, too, has been tl1e st1bject of 111any accot1nts and this is not the proper place to re-tell it once mo1·e. For a p1-oper understa11ding of the task now set, l1o'V1.1ever, it \VOt1ld not be so i1-i-elevant if a few wor1ds are spent in briefly describing its geographical and sociological characteristics. Within its 395,000 square miles, Ethiopia l1as a population of abot1t 22 millio11. It is a vast a11d geograpl1ically divers.e area. Tl1e cool lllgl1lands cont1·ast \Vitl1 tl1e l1ot desert plains. As tl1ere is no l1omogenous region, so there is no homogenous po1Julation.2 Writers seem to agree3 tl1at the cl1aracter of the country l1as moulded the character of its people. These are as diverse in origi11, temperan1ent and outlook as diverse is tl1e country. Howard has made a rot1gb division of fot1r groups.4 Though a sub stantive majority professes the Ch1·istian faith, Mt1slims abouncl. Tl1e1·e are also Pagans. 2. LEGAL SYS'fEMS AND SOURCES OF E'fHIOPIAN TRADITION AL LAW

For a long time of its very long l1istory, Ethiopia had no moclern, unified, written 01- codifiecl legal system. Especially in tl1e area of Civil legislation had been passed, thougl1 since time immeLaw no sianifica11t o n1orial Etluopian Emperors legislated by Decrees.5 Except for a «La\v of Loa11s» of 1924 no other important legislation hacl been enae::ted,' until 1930 when the fi1·st Penal Code and, 1931, tl1e fi1·st written Con sti ttrtion, vvere enac· ted.

A. Tfie Fetl1ci Negast. a) Originality a11cl Conte11ts: Ne,,ertheless, Etlllopia could rigl1tly boast a venerable and rich legal traclition. 7 Tl1e most autl1011.tative legal doct1ment '\.\1as, incleed,

C11Al'1'Ell l

ained i11 it, a fe\v nt co es pl ci in pr . e . 1a th to e pl o e p n p io h t E e by t h nce attacI1ect rta po im 8 the of \.v vie In t. gas Ne a th e F d e t a r e n e the ,, e rm «FETHA NEGAST» t e Th . te ria op pr ap e . . would b . . . ,.vords on 1t ed . pp 1a r1 of ail its St op h1 Et of e ag gu n . la . t en ci an e th e ' z, denves f rom G e 9 stood to mean . l defin·ition er d . be n u. n ca y pl m si it s ' · . uca· mystery and techr 10 , s» g in «Justice of t11e K d become so weak ia ha dr an ex Al of h rc 1u Cl e th y, ur nt ce By the thirteenth l1 rc ia tr en Pa th Cy1illus III e th at tb rs e t ar qu l al m fro s at e r th to t and subjec e ssary to ha ve so me ge ne ra l reforms c ne s \va it t tha d e d eci d (1235-1243) d , be sa\.v to it that a Co de ( or rather en s thi ÎQ h. urc Ch I1is o i11t d uce d intro 1 e as a d ate to s sen cre ,va ts) cep pre il civ and s ou igi a con1pi1atio.n of 1-el 11 th e sources tl1en used seem sy ver tro con e guid e. A1tl1ou.gh tl1ere is som to l1ave been the Old a.nd the New Testan1ent, a certain num ber of original apostolic ,vritings, tl1e ca.nons of tl1e ear'ly Cou.ncils, and other writings from different parts of Egypt wl1 ich appeared to reflect tl1e principles of the compilation of Justinian.12 Dr. Margery Perham, in fact, indicates the various sou1·ces as follo,vs: «It was a compilation of the thlrteen century, put together by a coptic churcbn1 . a n in Egypt from a number of sources including th.e Pentateuch, Roman Law, th e New Testa1nent, the Cano11s som e of then1 apocrypl1al - of th e eastem cl1urcl1, and th e pro ceedings of th e early councils, sucl1 as those of Nicaea and Antiocb. Finally, since the compil er live d un.der the Calipl1s, he also bor rowed from Mohamm edan Law of tl1e Cairo school».13 A translation of this work into Arabie was ren de red by an Arab Christian, Abu Ishak Ibn-El Assai, for it ,vas then 1nea.nt to apply to, an d serve as a guide for, among oth ers, the Cl1ristians wl10 li\,ed a mong the Muslims of Egypt. It seems also likely that A l -Assai const1lted tl1e Ti11i bick of Abu-Isak-As-Sirazi \vhich was compiled arou 11d 1060 A.D., and that b e may ,vell have be en influencecl in bis de cision by tl1 e collection of canons �ade by a man ,vho was well admired by l1in1 - the Nesto1·ian lb11-at-Ta)1• y1b who died in . . . ,v1th . · 1043 A·D·14 The Fetha Negast came mto Etl11op1a . certainty between tl1e sixt een th an d se ve nte entl1 centt1ries and w as subsequently translated into Ge'ez - probably under· the aegis of E m peror Iya ssu l's \Vife, wbose t a ste for arts was ren owned '15 _ by a p1�ie st named Abraham or b a certain Pe te r Abd u. Said or by botl1. 16 There Y . is som e controversy l1e re· Accor ding to one sourc e 17 long before that · t·ime It. had alread y . . . been adoptecI 1n Eth1op1a by E1npero1· Zera Yacob

lNTRODUC'flON · 'fl:lE ETIIIOPIAN CIVIL COD� OF 1960

(1426-1460). There is also cont1·oversy as to \,\T}1etl1e1- a translation into Am.l1aric exists; vvlule s0111e18 see1n to think tl1at tbere is none otJ1 ers19 affi1·1n tl1a t tl1ere is. Its tra11slation and con1 mentary in Italian by the lea1·ned at1tl101-, Igna.zio Guicli, are \,\Tell known to need any introduc tio11 .20 A S);ntl1etic stt1dy a11d résumè of the part dealing with secular tl1ings basecl 011 tl1is montunental '"'orle of Guid.i, has also been macle by anotl1er Italian, R. Rossi Cane,,a1·i, almost witl1 the same title.21 An E11glisl1 translation by Aba Pattlos Tzadt1a is also soon to appear and ,,vill b.e pt1blisl1ed by tl1e Facwty of Law, HSIU.22 But goi11 g back to the Ge'ez t1·anslation, it is certain that in Ethiopia tl1e Fetftza Negast so t1·anslated, achieved success beyond its original inten tion. In tl1e wo1·ds of P1·of. Graven, such was its valtte tl1 at «it became fo1· Etl1iopia tl1e fou11dation and the gt1ide of tl1e law and acquired the autho1·ity of a t1·ue a11d uniqtte code».2J It seems, ho,vever, that the Ge'ez translation was son1etin1es obsct1re and certain s.e11tences n1ade no sense. The Ethiopian Ma1nmerarz (Commentators) of Gondar,24 were tl1us obliged to l1ave ce1·tain necessary co1·rections made,25 thereby rendering the Fet!za Negast even n1ore applicable to local conditions. These ar1·angen1ents, one ventures to thin.k, must l1ave contrib11tecl mucl1 to 1�ender it mo1·e popu1ar and give it that sanctity wl1ich it reqt1ired. Tl1e Fetha Negast is divicled into two parts, subdivicled into fjfty chap ters and an additional 1Jarag1·apl1 011 inhe1itance. The first part (Chapters 1-22) refers to religio11s life and liturgy; the second part (Chapters 23-51) is entitled, «Of secular tl1ings and of Govern1nent», dealing ,vith civil and crin1i11al matters. Tl1is last, «ci\ 1il» part, o,ves n1 uch to ccun ensen1ble de rè gles et serzte1'zces» of the Nicaea Co1mcil, convened by Emperor Constantine the G1·eat in 325 A.D.26 A1nong the «civil» sections are some n1les regard ing respo11sibility for dan1ages cat1sed to tl1i1·d party by animais or by dangerous constructions, restitution of lost a1·ticles, and fraud (Chapters 40, 45); t1nde1· tl1e title «Various other fa1tlts», a.re intentional and uninten tional a1·son, a11cl trespass to land (or violent occt1pation of another's land), distt1rbanœ of pt1blic assemblies and right of sa11ctuary in ch1rrcl1es (Ch. 50); homicicle (47), fornication (48) and theft and b1·igandage (49).27 Other matters sucl1 as 1narriage (Cl1s. 24, 25, 48), i111movable property (37), power of attorney a11d age11cy (30), donation (26) sale and pu1·cl1ase (33), consent in contracts (35), cleposits (29) a11cl partnersl1ip (34 ancl 38) are also dealt witl1. 211' Canevari also says that tl1e Fetha Negast contained rules ,vhereby in case of contradiction between one canon and another, the one wl1ich l1ad the con1mon acce1Jtance ancl was more in l1armony ,vith reason was to p1·evail.29

CHAPTEil 1 6

: w a l L cl 1'Z io it d a r T i r ia z1 io th b ) Jts Jmpa.ct on E \vriters tl1in k l10,veve1·, In spite of le t o do ,-vith p1·actical tt li ry e v d a h y ll a 1·e t s a g tl1at tl1e Fet/1.a 1Ve 30 is s,1id, is that after it , on as re e 1 Tl ts ur co i·tJ,, iIJ the ap1Jl.1cab·11 l1 rc 1e 1u tl . That to Cl ed ct ri st re as ,v n io at ic pl ap a periocl its tlie Chw·cll sllOLtlcl have guarded it jealously is only natural. Tl1e Churcli in Ethiopia plays, a11d has played in the past, on the ,-vl1ole, a very sucl1

j 111porta11ce,

prominent part in the life of the Ethiopia11 people. I t was tl1e Cbttrch's main duty to see that the JJrecepts of Cl11istian 11101·ality of the Fetlia Negast were not lost, forgotten, or misinterp1·eted; tb.at the precepts s.l1ould be taL1gl1t by tl1e Churcl1 ,vhich it1 a11cie11t times \vas also the main educator; that tl1e Cburcl1 sbould serve. as a guide for tl1ei1· intelligent tmdersta11diag. It wot1ld seem to follo\v from this that as tiI11e went by, tl1e Fet/1.a Negast's a1Jplication would be 1nore p1·on1u1ent \vithin the Church . a.nd would tl1e11 be largely left i.11 its l1ands, while secular affairs would be gradu.ally develo1Jing outside of the Cl1t1rcl1 but in accordance with the princi1Jles laid do,v11 bJr tl1e Fet/1.a Negast. The a11alogy ,,vith the influence of Roma11 Law in Continental Euro1Je is perti11ent l1ere. Wl1e11 Ettrope lost the Ro1na11 grip, Roman law was not lost or forgotten for the «Ch L1rch preserved in its la,.vs a11d cultw·e mt1ch of Roman civilization».31 Tl1e a.n alogy can also be found in the rnetl1od of eclL1cation giv@n by mo11asteries and catbedrals ( co1nprising of t,\10 cycles tl1e so-calleà Tri11ium and Qua.cl rivlum) .ll It is contention of tlus book, ho,.vever, that the application of the Fetlia Negast in matters of Ia,-v and justice was not so rernote from the actual day-to-day practice of tl1e peo1Jle. One of tl1e cocles of ct1ston1ary law i11 Eritrea, in the Nortl1ern part of EthiOJJia., was ke1Jt u1 the cl1t1rch of a vil lage called Sarda. 0stini, ,vhe11 refer1i11g to tl1e I-Iabsellt1s Gab1·ecristos Eclict,3a states tbat he could 11ot obtain a copy 011 the grotlncl tl1@.t tl1e origi11al copy (it · · appears to ha,,e been tl1 e onIY one ) was tlnder t Adcli Conc tl1e of ct1stody . lage .3◄ The . place . . v1l mere fac c t tha t a l aw 1s Jealously g11arded at a certam • • . woulcl not, It 1s SL1b1l11·tt ed, neœssa11ly . sense every rencler i t obsolete in When deal1•n o-0 '"r:itb some Of· t ·he contents of tl1e codes of ct1ston1ru-y Ia,.v at a later sta0oe' it \Vill be seen that most, if not all' of tl1e p1iociples derive . from tl1e . apFet/1.a Negast· M oreover, ,v1tl1 Prof. Grave11, after quoting proval Mgr. Galbiati ,�rh ·o \\ro and , te , . the boo . k pref ace Ca11 evar of i's painting Ottt t1iat tlu.s . ,,iew 15 8l 1ared by others statecl: ,

----------

lN'fflODUCTION · TUE ETHIOl'IAN CJVJL CODE OJ;' 19GO

«On tl1e co11t1·ary, v,,e are also co11vincecl, after several years of Ii,ri11g in Etl1io11ia and \Vo1·ki11g witl1 tl1e p1�sent gt1a1·clians of tl1e Fetha Negast i11 tl1e legislative commission, tl1at tl1e re1nembered app1·eciatio11 is jt1st a11cl tl1at tl1e «La\v of tl1e Ki11gs» l1as i11deed been tJ,ze «Book» i11 s01ne sacrecl \vay. It is also tl1e f1111clarnent al and t 111iqt1e sot11·ce of tl1e w1·itte11 lavv, witl1ot1t ove1·lool<:ing ct 1sto1na1-y lnv\7 \Vl1icl1 is so in1porta11 t and alive ... ».33 Agai11, Dr. Talbot, who as Eclitor of tl1e «Etllio1)ian Heralcl» spe11 t m . any )1 ears in Etiopia, says: «it1.a11y of tl1e elclers witl1 whon1 I l1ave spoken l1a,,e attested to tl1e f act t11at moral and le gal codes used up to the 1·eig11 of Menelik II were ve1-y effective a 11d conducive to peace, security ancl co11te1 1tment a 1110 1 1g tl1e l)eople...».36 He f11rthe1· gives an illustration of jttdges dispt1ting as to tl1e inte1-preta tion of tl1e Fetlia Negast rules on matters clealing witl1 st1ccession of an illegitimate child of a fatl1er wl10 had diecl Ï11testate.37 This, it is st1ggestecl, \.vould mea1 1 that tl1e principles of the Fetha Negcist were constantly pre sent in tl1e minds of tl1e juclges wl10·, at least before the modern 01·ganization of the legal S)7Ste1 11, l1ad to apply customa1·y law. It is also interesti11g to note ,vl1at Lincoln De Castro bas to say i11 his Compenclio clelle Leggi dei Re.38 He is of tl1e opÏ11ion that the Feth.ci Negast }1acl ideecl a very practical application. Demo11stration is made of an appellant who having exha11sted ail his 1·e1 11e11dies eve1 1 b.efore tl1e Cfzilot39 (tl1e (King's or Em pero1·'s Cotirt) cotild still have the right to say: «I appeal to tl1 e Fetha 1Vegast», wl1eret 1 po11 this vvas consulted and tl1e final juclginent 1·enderecl in confornl.ity witl1 the text of tl1e FetJia Negast. 1�his is anotl1er example that even tl1e higl1est executive and jt1clicial autl101·ity 11sed to feel compel led to abide by the pri11ciples of the Fetha Negast and a constant reminder that tl1e Fetha N egast \.vas being appliecl in tl1e courts. Dr. Margery Pe1·I1am, too, poi11ts out that notwithstanding tl1e fact of tl1e original intention of its con1pilers 11ot to treat it as a cocle l1aving the natt1re of either a11 ecclesiastical 01· secular Ia,v, it \vas often «treatecl as such in the higl1er co11 1·ts of Etl1 iopia».40 That it sl101ùd be so is also nat11ral, if 011e conside1·s tl1e clifficulty of communications i 11 tl1e co11ntry at that ti1ne a11cl tl1e rate of illite1·acy, especially conce111ing tl1e Ge'ez lang uage. Even P1�of. David acknowledg.es a IJarallel bet\veen tl1e Fetl1a Negast a11d the icleal Iaw (Roma11 and natttral law) of the nineteentl1 centu 1 ·y as applied in tl1e legal ecl11 cation of E11ropean Uni,,ersities of tl1at pe1·iocl. I11

CHAP1.Elt 1 Il

work.s of the nin eteenth n atio ific cod ean op Eur tlie . as way san1e · the ougl1 tf1ese ha d bee n bet(th v lav l ura nat _ Iaw n ma . centw-y drew from Ro s a bas1 as for e serv tl1e Codifica. to l1ad st Nega a Feth ie ter collected) , tl . • 11 of Ethiopia, to such an extent tha t Prof. David had . . tion Comm1ss10 civzl et · e noii-veaiL code l'ancie,i l ntre e p0rt 7 ra « Le 1 say • o · t d been obli. .ge 41 The Emperor has on at Ieast ». ... e aitr orni rec a' e acil f · est t s a N g Fetha e gast in works relat Ne cha Fe the to nce ere 1·ef s res exp de nia . s· t\>JO occas1·on 42 . n o ti a ing to codific ional law of Etbiopia, dit the t1·a on l gas Ne ha Fet tl1e of act imp Tlie l. ia nt ta bs su ite qu , .vn o\ sh eo be s lia it was, B. CUSTOMARY LAW: (i) CLASSICAL DEFINITION:

It is not tl1e intention of thls writer to e11te1· into tl1e controversy as to whetl1e1· or not custon1ary rules are «law» in the tecrulÎcal sense. Since tl1e contention is tl1at tl1ere ,�as a body of rules whicl1 served as a basis for the Civil Code, however, a brief co111ment is called for. In almost all ancient societies life sta.rted evolving first around a fa.mily or g r. oup of famiJies, ,vhich gradually developed into a cla11 or t1·ibe. Wl1e11ever inte1·ests clash, a need is fe]t for tbeir soltttion. The clan or tribe would there fore spontaneously prescribe its o,vn rules of conduct, dictate a11d appl)' these rt1les, ,vit11 tl1e fir1n conviction that they were conducive to orderlJ' living within the community. At tl1e beginning, s11cl1 ru]es are n.ot written but passed by \vord of mouth from generation to generation and became part of what Prof. Sumner defines as «popt1.Iar t1sages ancl t1·adition, s», ,vhicb «include a judgmeot tl1at tl1ey are co ndt1cive to social welfa1·e, a1.1d... exert a coercion on tl1e individual to conform to then1, altl1ot1g.h they are not coordinated by any autl1ority 43 . Autl1ority l1ere, of cow·se, m us t be taken to mean in tl1e strict (Aus t· · ) 1n 1a .n sense of political sovereign. The classifical definition of customary lavv in English la\,V is comprehensi,1e of the f011owin . • g qt1a l1t1e s: antiqt1ity, certainty, reasonable11ess, . cont1nuance' peac · eabl ' e Obligato1·iness ancl co11sist ea.cy.4� A Flemisl1 juriSl (Philippe Wielant) has d ef in ed custom to be: «An tmwritten la ,v, as expr . essed by 11sages a11d repeated acts on the part . of the . . no . niem be rs of tl1e com1numty ope nly, and ,v1tb . . . contrad1ct1on by . the maJ. or1t y of t11e peo ple ' du.ring tl1e time neces. sary for 1t to acqt1•1re authority» .�s

lN'fRODUC'fION · 1'HE ETHIOPlAN CIVIL CODE OF 1960

-------·---

Commenting 011 eacl1 of tl1ese qt1alities, Prof. Gilissen summarises them in.ta six g1·ot1ps: 1) That is shot1lcl be i,n· ,,vritteri: l1ence tl1e need to pass it by word of moutl1. 2) Thal it is exp1·essed tl1rougl1 uscLges a11d continually repeated acts. Every ct1stom is tl1e IJrocluct of t1sage - \Vhile tl1e reverse is not t1·ue - a11d wl1at diffe1·entiates tl1e two concepts is the obligatory cl1,1racter of tl1e ct1sto1n. 3) Tl1at tl1e1·e shot1ld be an 011err. or overt act. Tl1is does not mean tl1at it should be discovered 01· known by all bt1t that it should not be done t1nderhand 01· in a concealecl ma11ner. 4) That it mt1st be ad111itted by the 111.ajority - by 1najority is n1eant an affirmative majority (almost tmanimous) acceptance. 5) Tl1at tl1e1·e sl1ot1ld be a ce11:ai11 clitratio11. Tl1is is t1sually a question of fact a11d may depend on tl1e circt1mstances, but definitely it n1t1st be long enot1gl1 to be knovvn foi· certai11. 6) And finally, that it should be reasor1.able, tJ1at is to conform to natu1·al law and is not contrary to the g.ene1·al welfare of the con1mt1nity. As in all things tl1ere are aclvantages and clisadvantages. Its qt1alities l1ave been classified above. Its defects ru·e, inter alia, that it is unstable and tincertain.46 Many, according to Dr. Allott,47 do not consider African customary law as a legal n1le and even if there are legal rules, tl1ey are mingled wi th and dominated by beliefs in magic and superstition. Otl1ers go to the extreme so as to say that it surpasses Westen1 systems, since justice is cheaper, easier, ancl close1· to tl1e people. These tv.10 views can fairly reflect the positions of the positivist and sociological schools of tl1ought, not to mention the Frencl1 and tl1e Ge1·n1an ones.48 Dr. Allot prefers a rational and cautious approach and Prof. David, too, is against extremes a.nd rigid attitudes and would prefer the jurist to look at it with a critical ( detached) eye and ask himself whether it is 1·easonable. 49 In the lands where Englisl1 lavv has been left to co-ex.ist with custom ary la'\v, tl1e Britisl1 have usually created a provisio11 wl1ereby c11stomary law v,1as requirecl to conform to natural justice and was 11ot to be re• pugnant to morality. T1·aces of sucl1 legislation ca.n still be found even today in some or most of tl1ose lands. 50 EleJ<.o v. Acl,ninistering Goverrz-

CllAPTER l 10

n io a cis is cle 3, of tl1e Pnv ,, 67 2, 66 C. A. ) 31 19 ( ria ge Ni , , J ,1 e111 ,nerit of sou,,z . l1 ric . .t1s . Bn . 1n . e cour.ts . tl1 by d we llo fo Af l)r nt a.. ta ns co en be as . h 1 1 . ,vl11c · . Coun cil . ,• . _ r al r on ma it1 sto cu ee n tracl y Ja,v aiJ tv. be 1ct nfl d co · · . a � is ..... fe tlJP ere 1 1 "'' . . It l1eld tl1at «1f 1t bas ,.von tl1e ge11e ral ter lat tl1e ply p a. uld slio . 1 one, cotirts a 01od1.f1ec ».s1 it to t c e j b u s y it tm m m o c . . . assent of tl1e native t1la for· def1.111tI011 ptirp oses rm fo n r1 ifo tm a ng di fin of Tlie djfiictilty l1t be 011.e tl 1in g to a lawyer ig m ,,y Ia y ar m to 1s ct or V \• la at tli lies iil the fact er s ok rm lo fo 1e for Iîlles of Tl t. is og ol ·op tiu an an to er th io ai and quite n v ee lav t\.V and society. It be on cti era int for ter lat tl1e ; him to 11 ow n k. law at o id th sa ivh r t11ere c<is no ite wr e tb. th ,vi ree ag to ct rre co , is, therefore ists, social antlu·o Jt1r 1·s, e y. Iaw by eed agr ,y Ia, y 1ar ton cus of n itio i n def sin.gle 52 The lea1·11ed at1thor, it». h wit ed pologists and others wl10 may be con cem tlierefore, suggests tl1at a distinction be 1nacle between si1n1Jle opi11io11s 53 But, Si1� Carlton Allen ts. cour by ble rcea and rules establisl1ed as enfo says tl1at since cL1sto1n grows by co11dt1 ct it is a ((mistake to meastrre its validity solely by the elen1ent of express sanction accordecl by courts of la,v or by any other determined authority».54 It seems to this \-VIiter tl1at both positions may be tenable. On the one h.and, lega.l 11.ùes l1ave to be clearly recognized so that one's conduct may conform to them; 011 tl1e otl1e1·, legal rules can exist witl1in a com munity, ,vitl1011t an express recognition of the111 011 tl1e part of the cot1rts or some other authority. Ctistomary law is the expression of a pru·ticular comn1unity senti1nent. As sL1cl1, it is at tl1e saine tin1e dynamic and static. The same community makes ,vhat 1·eadjustments are necessary to cape up with the necessities of life. At tl1e sa111e time, it is not sa easy - one mjght even say undesirable if not inadvisa ble - ta clo radically a,,yay with a . long e5tablisl1ed pattern of condt1ct. With clL1e regard to son1e basic qualifications, wbat is i1n1)orta11t is, tl1erefore tl1a \.\rl1atev , t er forro the comn1unity cl1oses ru l . . . . 1ts sent1n1e11ts , · es Of conduct so chosen sl1ould sat1s.fy of justice·55 In th'at sense, it • t · . m1gh be correct ta ctefine ct1stom «as tl1e set of social attitudes • vvh.icb, in . . · a g1ven of tb.e soc1ety, part as are co11sicle1 ·ecl Ia,v and. thtrs are e11forc ed as such».s6 Witl1 this Iugoacr 0 0 e in min · d, l et us now pass ta Etl1iopian ct1stoma1-y Iaw. (ii) ETHIOPIAN CUSTOMARY LAW: Owing to the pecu 1·iar .. . roposition of Er1t p otl1e r rea the com as to par ed vinces of Et1110 . . P.1 a, this · • l. section · wi· 1l be cl1v1dec dea 1 ,.v1ll · One parts. 1nto t,vo with Etli1op1 • . an custo .. . . n1ary l a\\' , .In general, a11cl tl1e othe1· vv1th E1·1tl "'ea, 111 part icula G f.

-----------

l NTROOUCTION • 'fUE E1.BJOl'I 1\N CIVIL CODE OF 1960

Etl'tiopia (in ge11e1··al):

Professor Davicl l1as said tl1at Etlùo1Jia at the tu11e of the preparation of tl1e ,vorks of the Codification Commission, clid 11ot have «ct1sto1na1·y ]aw>>, co11stitL1ti11g «jtu·iclical (legal) norms, as clisti11ct fro.m simJJle l"lùes».57 One of the autl1ors ,vho lias made a study of Etl1io_pia afte1· tl1e Resto1·atio11, D1·. Marger-y Perl1am,58 had tl1is to say: «Cocles ancl legislatio11 playecl little lJart i11 com1Josi11g tl1e civil la,.vs of Etl1iopia vvhicl1 arase 1nostly fron1 ancient and local ct1sto1ns». Bt1t, she addecl, «Research l1as yet tl1row11 little t1pon the obsct1re and va.riegatecl pattern of Ethiopian customary lavv». The Ieamed Etlùopist, Conti C. Rossini,59 gi,,es a vivid description with particL1la1· refe1·ence to tl1e 1101·tl1er11 regio11 of Se1nien, as to l1ow cL1stoms \,vere 1·evisecl f1·0111 time to tin1e by tl1e s1Jontaneot1s action of tJ1e people tl1emselves. I-Ie then goes on: «For tl1e mor·e intimate subjects t]1is ,,vas do11e vvitl1in their clans, a.11cl for questions raisi11g lar·ger relationslùps, by representatives of clans. Tl1e old ct1stoms and proceecli11gs vvere explai11ed by the elclers and f"L1lly discussecl, afte1· \-Vhicl1 tl1ey \Vere reaffi1-med 01· 1-evisecl i11. tl1e for1n of IJacts».60 And Dr. Pe1·I1aps comn1ents: «Pacts of tl1is l<:i11d, co,1e1·i11g a number of subjects s11cl1 as land laws, Ioans, a11d eve11 penalties for· crin1e, n1igl1t be drawn up bet ween neigl1bou1i11g tribes, a:ncl depositecl iri a cl1iLrcl1., so t/ia:t tJ,zey

tool<- on the charcLcter of regio11al codes».

Even af ter the occ11pation of tl1e country, custom.ary Ia,.v of both M11slin1s and CJu·istim1s, was recognized in civil 111atters a11cl «at tl1e lower Ievel the 11ative civil cotrrts, tl1ose of the Kadis, tl1e clartyas, ancl wo1nbars, ,vere still allowecl to fL1nction u11cler control, their procedw·e being ac celerated». 62 Dr. Vancle1·Iinden, who l1as made a rece11t st11dy of tl1e sot1rces of Etlùopian law, l1as expressed tl1e vie,v tl1at, before ,vhat l1e calls «the con tem.pora1-y period», ( i.e. since 1941), Etlùopian ctistom vvas «11ot well kno,,v11».6J T]1e point vvas well take11 by Dr. Domenico cla Maarcla wl1en he explainecl tl1at in Etl1iopia tJ1ere is no du.alis111 bet,,veen «la\v and custom» b11t tl1at tl1e 011ly Iaw was custom, w h . icl1 vvas not opposed to law b11t

INTRODUCTION . THE ETBIOPIAN C!VJL CODE OF 1960

ratl1er «supplementecl the cleficiency or lack of the saine». I-Ie tl1erefore opined that i11 Etl1iopia custom beca1ne a work vvhicJ1 cleserved the respect due to a statute la\.v proper, «e,,en tho11gl1 it still r.e111ained unwritten».64 From tl1e peru.sal of tl1ese and other a11tl1ors, it seems safe to draw the following inferences: First, ancient Etl1iopia did 11a,,e customary la,v in tl1e sense of «jur idical norms» tbat is, a bocly of rules of conclL1ct prescribed and accepted by a gi,,en co1nmunity \Vith tl1e firn1 co11,,ictio11 that tl1ey l1ad obligatory force in its n1ilie 1t. Secondly, it is acc11rate tl1at there ,vere no SLtch customary la,,vs sucl1 as l1ad a w1iform ap1)lication tbro11gl1out tl1e countl)' and i11 that sense one ma)' agree ,.vitl1 Prof. Da,,icl tl1at ccl'Etliiopie 11.'av ait pas de droit co. utit1nier1>. 65 One can also agree tbat Etl1iopian customs dicl not have the • same «sac]·ed cl1aracter» as tl1at reserved to tl1e «Fetlia Negast»,66 but this, it is suggested, does not necessarily mean that they lacked «legal» charact er. Customary Iaw and the prece1Jts of tl1e «Fetlia Negast» ,.vere l1arm on.ized as fa.r as practice allowed. As Plo,vde11 fo11nd out in the 1nicldle of the nineteen.th century, tl1e IJractice ,.vas for tl1e l1olders of the Fetha Negast to open and cons11lt it in order to seek ,vhetl1er tl1ere we1·e some guiding principles fro1n wl1ich deductio11 could be made to a1Tive at a just sol11tion i11 a certai11 litigatio11 wl1icl1 ,,vas before the l1igl1e1· courts; ,vbile, ,.ve are to]d, the lo,ver co11rts made 11se of custo1nary Ia,.v.6 ; Thirdly, there was a variety of customary laws i11 tl1e country, but it \vould seem doubtful that, eacl1 taken in tl1e context of a community custom for whose benefit tl1ey were intended to apply, clid not constitute a legal and not merely a moral 1-ule. In fact, even in 1noclern times, some European countries bave known different customs co-existing side by side in one sole cot1ntry, and in tl1e 17 Provinces of what \Vas once kno,vn as «Pays-Bas)) alone, there ,vere no Jess than 600 customs.68 Fourtbly, in s01ue parts of Ethiopia tl1ere \vas a certain lJOrtion of Gal la communities, w110 periodically 1·evised their custon1s.69 Again sucl1 a revision per se does not deprive tl1em of tl1eir Iegal valiclity. Sucl1 a pro cedure may create unce1-tainty but ttncertainty is, as ,.ve l1ave alreacly seen, in the nature of customary law. This, no clot1bt, will ra.ise f11rthe1· the question of «du1·ation» of a given custon1. Bt1t tl1at, again, is a question of fact.;0 As in the example given by Prof. Gilissen,71 there may be saine facts which do rarely l1appen frequently, sucb, say, as tb.e rLùes conce 1·ning suc cession to the throne, but there may be others ,.vlticl1 need be considered every now and then. But even so, it l1as been recently pointecl out - and

CHAPTER I

rigl1tly so - tl1at tl1e E11glisl1 1·eqt1ireme11t for c11stom to exist from time in1me111ori<:1l «l1as certainly no applicatio11 to n1oder11 African customa.ry law».72 Fiftlll)', it is a fact that son1e n1les wer.e fo11ncl to l1ave l1ad a stability of fifty )'ears, though 110 effo1·t l1acl been macle ccz1our les fi.'ter»/3 Etlùopia lackecl botl1 tl1e work of publicists (doctrine) and a collection of l1oldings of the co11rts ( 1·eci1eils de jurispruclerzce) on tl1e civil law, altl1ough in 1954, 7296 summa1·ies of decrees of clecisions had been systematically classified bt1t l1ad not bee11 p11blished.74 Since Prof. David wrote tl1-e above, ho,,vever, no less tban five volumes l1ave been publisl1ed, co11taining altogetl1er more tl1a11 seve11 tl1ousand decisions ranging ove1· t1nkno\.v·n periods of time but goi11g up to 1935.75 TI1is work bas been baptizecl by Dr. Vand.erlinden as the «Digest of Etliiopia11 Case-Law». It also 110\.v seems certain tl1at there is anotl1er 01·igi11al collection vvlùch is even large1·, but not yet of p11blic dom aln, i11 tl1e Arcl1ives of tl1e Ministry of tl1e Pen.7à Tl1at s11cl1 collections l1ave a function in tl1e forrr1ation of c11stomary n1Ies bas also been re cognized.77 Sixtl1ly, an info1·mative statement ,vas given by Lorcl Denning, vvho presided at the Conference on the Futilre of La·\·V i,i Africci, l1eld in London in 1959-60, wl1en l1e desc1·ibed the work of tl1e Confere11ce. It is, l1e said: « . • . t11e

01·clina1'")' laws wl1icl1 tl1e co11fere11ce considered. By or dinary laws, I mean sucl1 Iaws as the criminal vvl1icl1 says that a n1an n1ust not kill, mt1st not steal, and so on; the law of lancU1olding wl1ich says wl10 is entitled to sell it or dispose of it; tl1e Iaw of mar riage wl1icl1 says ho,v- many \Vives a man may I1ave and prescri bes the conditions of marriage; the law of succession whicl1 says \,vl1at I1appens to a man's prope1·ty ,vhen be dies: a11d so forth».iB Tl1at tl1ere w.ere st1ch «ordinary la\.vs» in Etl1iopia, then, seems beyond dOLlbt. b)

Eritrea ( in pa1·tici1.lar):

TI1e nortl1em province of Etl1iopia l1as been an Italian colony tmcler the name of Eritrea,79 for a period of abo11t sixty years. After World War II, Great Britc1in acln1i11istered it for a period of 10 years, pending final decisio11 by tl1e UNO. 111 1947, Italy re nouncecl to lier claims to her fo1·1n,e1· colonies.5° In 1952, Eritrea became a «federal entity» \.Vitl1in Etl1iopia. Since 1962, it has be coine part and parce! of Ethiopia, to all purposes and extent. The

CODE O F 1960 IL IV C N A Pl JO 'H E1 E 1'H fNTRODUCTION .

ed ct ly fe ab af u r ber vo fa y el , it in ef d as l1 r, ,e e, v ,, bo pei·iod of colonizatioi1, ed. position as far as Ja\.V is co11cer.n . e11 by the ak rt de ld W1 f1e 1 ga le l na io it ad tr e th While tI1e stLidies ii1 a proper 1~esulted pi 1io tl E of n tio pa cu oc of od ri pe f ie br Italians dtu·ing the bee11 tl1e case of t no s l1a is th s, rk wo ry ta en m ag fr g in uc 0111y in prod i di pi tci rir «P rk wo d lle ua eq tm i's in ss Ro i 11t Co a, ali Eritrea, \vbere, iriter 81 emerges i11 the forefront.82 Wh at Di1�itto Consuetuclirzario clell'Er,itrecl» 1 biopia, however, 11as been said as to the character of W1v-. ritte11 Ia,.v in Et 83 ·s ea1 rk wo a1Jp ose wh ini, Ost a. tre Eri to clis tan 11iu is .tat 11i1J also applies fo1·ty yeai·s after Co11ti Rossini's, states that tl1e .legal matte1· (1nate1•ia giuridica) \vl1icl1 constitutes customa1-y la,.v in Eritrea «has generally been ascertained and brougbt u1J•to-date in meetings held ancl agreements made b:y clans ( stir1Ji) wluch led to the fo1·mation of local «statuti». It is wo1·tl1 while to JJoi11t out i111mecliately tbat tbese 1neeti11gs have presc1·ibed (fis sato) tl1e pri11ciples of law always orally and tl1at tl1e \Vritten lavvs ( statitti) only go back to c<J1istoricall�, ve1-y rece11t pe, riods».&1 In fact, it is o.nly during tl1e first t\,venty years of tbis ce11tt1ry Ll1at docwnentation 1·elating to custom ar51 Iaw apJJears.85 Tl1is flow of legal mate1·ial ,.vas interrL1pted for ap proximately tl1irty years goil1g throLigh tl1e Second World vVar, at the end of ,vl1ich tbere reappeared a mood for fui·ther studies.86 Such works, as we sl1all see, refer mainly to tl1e tl1ree Cllristia.n Highlancl clistricts of Akkele Guzai, Hamasien, and Se1·aie, ,,vb.ile the popt1lation of Eritrea on the whole is far from being a ho.mogeno11s group.87 But even some of tl1e custo1na1-y la\vs of the \,Vester11 Division of E1·itrea k110\-v11 as Fetlia Mahari, Fetha Mogare/1 and Fet7'ia lbrahi111, follo,.ved by a substantial majority of Muslims, a.re strongly infl11enced by Christian c11stoms.88 Out of tl1e tbree 011ly .the Fetha lvf.ahari l1as been reduced into ,.vriting by Roden.89 The numbe1· of vvritten c11stomary cocles (called Defter), tl1ough witl1 some minor va1iations in their contents, is quite l1igl1. B11t before e1111merat ing tl1e1n, it 111igbt not be out of place to see what 1neani11g vvas attachecl to customa1-y law. Tl1e code known as ccLoggo CltiL1a»90 defines customa1-y la\v as follows: <cCttstomary Ia,,v means tl1at law wl1icl1 l1as bee11 11na11 i111011sly JJre scribed ( enactecl), concurred to ancl establisl1ed at tl1e baità (place of gatbering) cl1osen for tl1at PLIIpo · s •· se, b y all tl1e represe11tat1ve of the various t1ibes of Loggo Ch'1ua. Tl 1e laws JJLtrIJortiog to bave . been createcl by. a si·ng · le v1·uage, bY a sin gle family 01· tribe ' cannot be con·sidered laws 'n . a d as sucl1 are devo1d of any legal value>>.91

CHAPTEll 1

In i s obviot1s t.I1at tl1e «d1·aft·e1·s» of· tI11s · p1·ov1sio11 \Ve r. e \,vor1·iecl \Vitl1 tl1e good nan1e of Loggo ChiL1a ai1d \Vere t1·),i 11g to a\roicl confusio11 a11cl speculation an1011g tl1eir O\,V11 1ne111bers; a11cl in tllélt case tl1e prollibition woulcl not affect otl1e1· t1·ibes 01· fa111ilies fT01n baving tI1eir O\\'ll customary laws, p1·0\riclecl, of cot1rse, tl1at tl1ey did not belong to tl1e Loggo Cluua group or tl1at, if tl1e)1 clicl, l1ad decicled to divorce then1selves completely from the latter. A si1nila1· p1·0,1isio11 can be found in f\1·ticles 314bis ancl 315bis of the Adg1'ze11c1. 1'eg11.elebà Code. Thus, lv1r. Justice Ostini's defini tion is necessa1·ily 11101·e con1p1·ehe11sive. He is not concernecl vvitl1 cLtstom as <(sect1ndu1n lege1n», l1e saicl. Tl1e object of lus work concern.s the study of tl1e «coniplesso tradizioriale» constituting the legal nonn vvllicl1 re gulates tl1e ,vl1ol life of a J)eople a11cl wl1ich is largely e11trt1stecl to tl1e oral tradition that the people tl1emselves l1ave i n respect to st1cl1 a norn1.92 }le finds tl1is «no1·m», apart from a11cl in addition to tl1e written ( ct1sto1na11· laws), in tl1e p1·overbs \Vl1ich l1e considers a pa1·ticula1· sect1re source; in repo1·ts p1·epared by aclmi11istration officiais st1cl1 as Alberto Pollera; in judicial decisions of s0111 e well l..:110\ivn Italia11 jtidges like Avolio, Chiti, ancl Lanzo, who delivered some in1portant judgements in custon1ar}, lavv cases; and in tl1e relations bet\.vee11 t11e parties in the varied fielcls of law.93 «Ct1stomary law therefo1·e», he co11tinues, «is lîke a perennial source i11 the conscience and i11 tl1e memory of a people a11cl tradition - tl1ot1gl1 it l1as the sole defect of being 1rtterly static - fixes the legal institutions \,vitl1 sucb a marvellot1s precisio11».94 Apart from tbei1· extrinsic Vé1lue, the 01·igins of CL1sto111ary law, 1nost of the time, date back to time in1memorial. For tl1is reason, it 1nigl1t seem irrelevant to try to asce1·tain as to tl1e clate of t]1e first \.vritte11 clefter. 95 A11d yet, the temptation re1nains g1·eat, since tl1e abject is to find out what legal background existed i11 Etl1iopia before co dificatio11 took place. Ostini thinks96 tl1at the oldest are tl1ose of At che1ne' Melga, 91 tl1e Eclict of Hclbsell.Lts98 and the la\V of 1\IJ.el1.e1n Atfaliaza,99 ,.vbich date back to tl1e fifteentl1 centt1ry and corne dow11 Llp to tl1e eigl1teenth. The Tig1:inya100 originals of some of tl1e otl1er codes, l1oweve1·, seem to show different, often contradicto1-y ancl co11fusi11g clates. It is not also certain wl1etber tl1ey I1ad all been reclt1ced i11to wri.ting at tl1ese early clates, for t1·adition and 1·eality l1ave been ft1sed. A t1seful confrontation can be fot1nd i 11 tl1e Notes of Ostini's \vork,101 from w-l1icl1 mt1cl1 of \vl1at apJJears i11 the prese11t Notes 102 of tl1is Cl1apte1◄ bas been take11. In addition to ct1sto1na1-y law, tl1ere v\1as s01ne legislatiou IJassed both by the Italian ancl Britisl1 aclministrations but tl1ese deal, ge11erally, \Vith ci·in1inal a11cl co1nmercial matte1·s ai1d tl1e ad111inistration of justice. In pec1.1lia1·ly «civil» n1atters ct1ston1ary la\v \,vas still r·etained. 103

•

DE OF 1960 O C IL IV C N lA P IO H T E INTllODUCTION . THE

ION. T A IC IF D O C R O F D E E N E H 3. T

in tl1e East 83 18 in y la u ca a 11 1·d o L The speecli made by cip n 1i ur p . «O ce an ic if gn si t en n ti er p Jndian Company debate is o f 1ere )'OU can l w y it m or if 11 u is t1 1 le», J1e had said, ccis simply s l se ai ca in t bu it e av 1 l t us m liave it _ diversity where you London Conference 104 Tl1at, indeed was th e tone set at th e cei·tainty>>. ld undoub ou w w la of y it m or if m «1 at t1 1 e er w s of 1959-60 whose conclusion d an \.v e 1. la tl of 11 io at tr is in 1 ln ac e 1 tl to on tedly make a valuable contributi 1e to ne in 103 tl en be ad 1 l o, to , at Tb . e» pl ci in is therefore d.esirable in pr l1ad corne for e tim e th at tl1 d de ci de ty es aj M ! ria pe Im Etlriopia \.vl1en I-Iis tl 1e m od er n st ag e it s11 to as so 1, en st sy al leg e ol Etl1iopi.a to revise its wh of development reached by His country. 6 pressed the ex , vid Da of. Pr ,1° ion iss mm Co n tio ica dif Co e tl1 of e A me1nb r. need for codification in tl1ese te1ms: ccEtl1iopia cannot wait 500 years to constr11ct in an empirical fashion a system of Iaw \.vl1icl1 is unique i11 itsclf, as \Vas clo11e in two dif ferent histo1ical eras by the Romans a11cl the E11glisl1. Tl1e develop ment and modernization of Etl1iopia necessitate tl1e adoption of a «ready n1ad.e» system... in st1cl1 a 1nanner as to asstrre as quickly as possible a mirrimal security in legal relations.101 In the process of interpretation, judges s.earcl1 for th.e applicable pri11ciple and on.ce found they expo11nd it i11 orcle1� to sol\re tl1 e p1·oblem at han.d. In doing so they l1el1) to develo1) tl1e la\v, But courts 1uust not be al]owed to create law in orcler to s11it every ki11d of sit11ation <cclemanding justice».103 In countries where there is 11 0 codified la\v, sttc11 as England and the USA, the doctrine of stare decisis and tl1e IJr·ii1ciple of lJrecedent in its broader meaning find eXJ)ression. And tl1 ot1gh tl1 ere n1ay exist some co��roversy109 as to how much uniformity, stability, certainty a11d JJredict abilit�, ay be obtainable in those countr·ies, tl1ere is a goocl a11 d efficie11t � orga.n1zat1on of Court Reports. . In Ethiopia, on the other hand , tl1ere \.vere nertl1e1· JJroper codes nor Court Reports of this nature. Lawyers and otl1er lJeo ple close to the higher .. courts may have had an inkling . tl1e . pos1t1o ' as to n of tl1 e law 011 a given .. matte1,. but that can hardly be calle d t/1.e pos1t1 on of tlie law, for Iaw is . . . the Jur1st, tl1e made for scholar, as well as foi� tl1e ordinary layman. La\V sh.ould be clear, certa.111 and of pt bl' 1 ic kn · O\.vledge; it sl1oulcl be a\,ailable and accessible . 10 a11 concerned · An · d un til and 11nless ways a11 cl 111eans

CllAPTER J

l1a,,e been devicecl to achieve this goal, it would be claring for a country to boast to l1a,,e a legal systen1, wortl1y of that 11ame. Tl1is, admittedly, is not, indeed, an eas)' task, especially so in a cot1J1try of diversity but diversit)' does 11ot 11ecessa1·ily prevent ce1·tainty. A country stiiving to ob tain foreig11 il1vestment 1nust l1ave laws that can attract businessmen at large. And it bas been already affirmecl that «law is the chief instrument in tl1e evolution of social life».110 Diversit)7 , tl1en, ,.vl1e1·e one 'must' have it, but above all certainty. But tl1ere ,vas no reason, too, why uniformity should not be tried. An in timately Muslim society was pusbed to a great leap forward ,vhen Turkey - and it might be added, under the vigorotts impt1lse of Mustapha Kama! Atatürk - decided to adapt the S\viss Code of Obligations and the S,viss Civil Code Ï11 1925.111 In Etl1iopia, the ground was, as it were, already pre pared by the «Fetl1a Negast». 112 Moreove1·, tl1ere existed a common feeling for the revision of the la\vs in general and a «strong support from Ethiop ian public and professional opinion», 113 with regard to codification. Thus, there was need for codification and the decision to initiate it was timely made, in 1954.

NOTES CHAPTER I

Lipsky, G.A., Ethiopia, its People, its Society, its Culture, New Haven { 1963), �t 8; equally D. Paulme, Les Civilizations Africaines, Q. S. J., series n. 606, Presses Universitaires cle France, Paris

{1965), at 32-34; D. Levine, Wax and Gold,

Chicago {1965); Jones, A.H .M. and Monroe, E., A History of Ethiopia, Oxford U.P. London { 1965). 2.

Notice Howard W. E. H., Public Administration in Ethiopia, Wolters-Gronlngen, Nether Iands { 1956), at 7: «Ethiopia is composed of a large number of tribes or groups at different stages of clevelopment and with cHfferent customs.»; see aise Ullen dorff, E., The Ethiopians, Oxford U.P. { 1961 ), Chapter 111.

Ibid., Chapter I; Margery Perham, The Government of Ethiopia, {N.Y., O.U.P., 1948), Chapter 1.

Howarcl, Ibid., at 8.

Ibid., at 76-78.

Nathan Marein: The Judicial System and the Laws of Ethiopia, Rotterdam, {1951), pp. 101 ff.

James Paul, C.N., First Annual Report from the �ean, 1 JEL, 335, ( 1964); ,ee aise Vanderlinclen, J., An Introduction to the Sources of Ethiopian Law, HSIU, Addis Abeba, 3 JEL 37 {1965), {paper specially preparecl for the Exhibition «Law ln Ethiopia, Yesterclay ancl Today», held in Adclis Abeba, Jan. 10-24 { 1966).

Margery Perham, supra note 3, at 139.

Domenico da Maarda, «Valore Giuridico clelle Consuetudini Etiopiche», ln Quaderno n. 48 of Atti del CG>nvegno lnternazionnle di Studi Etiopiai { Roma 1960), p. 211.

NOTES . C.BAP'fEfl 1

1O.

Much in what follows nov,1 - also in respect of customary law - 1 have clrawn heavily from n,y unpublished paper at Yale Law School, «The Influence of Civil Ethiopia of 1960», ( 1964). of de Co il Civ the on ts en em El Law an d Common Law

Vanderlinden, supra note 7, at 59.

12.

8 ( 1964). 26 7, L 26 1 JE ia, iop Eth of e pir Em the of de Co al Graven, J., The Pen

13.

Perham, supra note 3, at 138-39.

14.

Canevari, R. R., Feth a Negast ( Il libro dei Re) Codice delle Leggi Abissine, ( Milan 1936), p. 7, n. 4.

15.

Graven, supra note 12, at 269, n. 6.

16.

Canevari, supra note 14, at 8.

17.

Graven, supra note 12, at 269.

18.

Ostini, F., Trattato di Diritto Consuetudinario dell'Eritrea, Asmara, ( 1956) p. 7; David R., ules Sources du Code Civil Ethiopien», 14 R.I.D.C. 499 ( 1962).

19.

Graven, supra note 12, at 269, note 6; Vanclerlînden supra note 7 at 59. l t îs, however, a fact that, after this writîng an official Amharic translation prepared by the Haile Sellassie

University, with a Preface by H.I.M. has corne out and is

presently on sale ( see «Fetha Negast Nebabina

Terguamie»

Berhanena

Sel am

Printing Press, Addis Ababa ( 1966). 20.

Ignazio Guidi, Il Fetha Negast o Legislazione dei Re Codice Ecclesiastico e Civile di Abissinia, 2 vols. ( Rome 1895-1899).

21. Canevari, supra note 14. As ta other previous publications See Arnould, Libri Ethiopici Fetha Negast ( 1841) and Bachmann, Corpus Juris Abessinorum, ( 1 869).

22.

Vanderlinden, supra note 7, at 60; See also the English translation of the heaclings

of the 51 chapters by Howard, op. cit. supra notes 2 and 3, at 74-5. 23.

Graven, supra note 12, at 269.

124.

Akkabie Saat Kabtie, Haleka Lamek, Haleka Rafael, :;aleka Kidane-Mariam. Canevari, supra note 14, at 8-9. Gr;av.en, supra note 12, at 268. ln �act the feth a Negast, expr essly ma ke s reference to Constantine and the Three Hundred Sages ( Selest-Mee ti) - the 318 Fathers of the Church - who by Et hioplan tradition are repute d to be its authors: see aise tlïie same article in the Introduction of tl,e French version of the Penal Code ( Le Renal Code de l'Empire d'Eth·1op·1e» ( paris, 1959) ;:,. 6. �r:a:izen, supra, note 12, at 269.

�,.,

�Q"n�varei, o9. clt. supi:a, note 14, at 11. See al so the English translat ion in 1-loward

•

Nt)TES • CHAP'I'ER I

•

op. c1t. supra notes 2 ancl 3, at 74-5. 29.

Ibid., at 13.

30.

See generally: Ostini, David, Marein, Dornenico da Maarda, Lipsky, supra though Prof. David in his Précis de Droit Comparé, 2nd. ed., (Dalloz-Paris 1966), 506, seems of the opinion that «law>> for the Ethiopians was to be founcl in the Fetha Negast.

31.

Von i\�ehren, The Civil Law System, (Toronto, Eaglewood, N.J., (1957) at 5. For the influence of Roman Lav-, on French Law, see Imbert, J., Histoire du Droit Privé, «Q.S.J. » n. 408, (Paris 1961) p. 19.

32.

Gilissen,

J., Introduction 1-fistoriquc au Droit Civil (1ère partie) J-listoire de.s Sources

du Droit 2nd ed. Rétirage U.L.B. ( Bruxelles, 1965) p. 93. 33.

The heacling of one of the Codes of Customary Law in Eritrea which will be dealt v,ith at the next chapter.

34.

Ostini, op. cit. supra, note 18, at 6.

35.

Graven, supra note 12, at 269; see also Ullenclorff, op. cit. supra, note 2, at 135.

36.

Ta!IJot, D.A., Contemporary Ethiopia, N.Y. ( 1952) p. 67.

37.

Ibid., at 154.

38.

Livorno, 1912, ed. Belforte, pp. 4-7, as quoted by Canevari, op. cit., supra note 14, at 14-15.

39.

As to the Chilot's historical and present iniportance in Ethiopia, see: Sedler, R.A., The Ch ilot Jurisdiction of the Emperor of Ethiopia: A Legal Analysis in Historical and Comparative Perspective, JAL 8, n. 2, 59-76 (1964).

...

40.

Margery Perhan,, op. cit. supra note 3, at 139.

41.

David, supra, note 18, at 497.

42.

The first time in His preface of the Penal Code of 1930: «The reasons why we have caused a revision to be made of the la,v concerning damages for abuse and serious injury ancl concerning the punishment to takers of life and all other criminals is because we have noted on the eighth page of the preface of the Fetha Negast the principle underlying the orders of the three hundred which they gave in the Fetha Negast in the words, «act according to your observations of the conditions of times and seasons», quoted by Talbot op. cit. supra note 36, at 155. ln the Preface to the

present Ethiopian Civil

Code - Procl. n. 165/60, HIM

says:

« .. . ln preparing this civil code, the Codification Commission . . . has been in spired in its laboures by the genius of Ethioplan legal traditions and institutions

------------

NOTES • CHAP1'ER I

43. 44.

Negast». a th Fe e bl ra ne ve d an t as revealed by the ancien )' Preface. 06 19 ( n to os B s, ay w lk Fo , J. Sumner, L. P, London pp. 127-35; see also OU ), 46 19 . ed th {4 g, in ak M Allen, K.C., Law in the same author's 6th ed. ( 1961), pp. 76 et seq.

45.

As cited by Gilissen, op. Cl·t . supra note 32, at 63. The English text is this writer's adaptation. The text, as translatecl into French by Prof. Gilissen from Dutch (Netherlandais), is the following: «La coutume est un droit non écrit, introduit par les usages et les actes con tinuellement répétés des membres de la communauté et dont on s'est servi pub liquement, sans contradiction de la majorité du people, le temps necessaire pour le prescrire».

46.

Ibid., st 63-67.

47. Allott, A., Essays in Afrlcan Law, London, Butterworth's African series (1960 p. 55. 48.

See David, op. cit. supra note 30, at 93-94; as to the view of the African himself, see, generally, Elias, T. O.

The Nature of Customary Law, { French Translation)

La Nature de Droit Coutumier in Presénce Africaine { Paris, 1961 ). 49.

Consider for instance the following position which refers to custon1: <tElle est la force vitale des institutions juridiques. Elle a donc une sphere d'applica tion indéfinie. Ce n'est pas une source de droit parmi les autres: il serait à peine ex.agéré de dire que c'est la seule source de droit» (Levy-Bruhl H., Sociologie du Droit, Q.S.J. n. 951, Paris: P.U.F. (2nd. ed. 1964), at 41.

50. See Customary Law in Contemporary Africa, (Special Nun1ber) 9 (2) JAL 82 ( 1965): l.

Ghana - 1 nterpretation Act, 1960, S. 18 ( 1 ), ( 2): «Custon1ary Law ... consists of rules of law which by custon1 are applicable to particular communities ... ».

Buchuanaland - Native Courts, Proc1 ., 1942 , «Native Law and Custom» ... mean

s. t .

( 2) :

relation to a particular tribe or

relation to any native community ... the general law or custon, tribe or community · • •

«if

of such

not incompatibile with or repugnant to «niorality,

humanity, or natural 1·ustice or 1n1 · ·u r1o · us to t 1 1e welfare of the natives». lianganyika (apart from Zanzibar ) - Tanganyika lnterpretatio and General n Glauses Ordlnance ' s · 2 ( 1 ) , (as amencled by Magistrates' Co urts Ac t, 1963, 6th S�hedule): �©l!.lstomar:y Law» means an y rule or body of rules whereby rights and du ti es

NOTES • CHAPTER l

are acquirecl or in1posed, i111posed by usage .. . and accepted by . . . in general as having the force of law ... 4.

))

Uganda - Magistrate's Courts Act, 1964: «Civil Custornary Law)> are the rules of conduct which govern legal relation ship as establishecl by custorn and usage ... ».

51.

Allott, (See Note 78 for Title) at p. 4.

52.

White, C./v\.N., African Custo,nary Law: The Problem of Concept and Definition, 9 ( 2) JAL 86 (1965).

53.

Ibid., at 88. This new \.vord seems to reflect that of the so-called American realists that purport to clerive their philosophy frorn Justice Holme's famous phrase «the prophesis of what the courts will do, in fact, and nothing more pretentlous, are v1hat I n1ean by law». Holmes, O.W., The Path of the La\v, 10 1-larv. L. Rev., 457, 460-61

( 1897). See also this

writer's unpublished

paper at Yale

La\V

School «How Much Power to the Courts?», Spring (1965)». 54.

Allen, op. cit. supra note 44, at 63 ( 6th ed� 1963).

55. See Carnelutti, Del Francesco, ccDiritto Consuetudinario e Diritto Legale» in Il Con vegno: l'«Africa e la Civiltà Contemporanea» helcl at the Centra di Cultura e Civiltà della Fondazione Giorgio Cini of «Isola San Giorgio Maggiore» (Venice, Oct. 3-6, 1963) on the tapie Dai Diritto Tradizionale Africano al Diritto Maderno, v,here the learned author ren1arks: «li diritto consuetudinario nasce dalle viscere della comunità». «li valore del diritto è la sua giustizia; e questo è il punto di vista, dal quale il problema deve essere trattato». (Private Communication (C)). 56.

Vanclerlinclen, J., supra note 7, at 50.

57.

David, supra note 18, at 497.

58.

M. Perham, op. cit. supra note 3, at 138-42.

59. Conti Rossini, C., Principii di Diritto Consuetudinario Eritreo, ( Rome 1916). 60. Ibid., et 60 ff. as cited by Perham. 61.

Perham, op. cit. supra note 3 at 142 (Author's ltalics).

62.

Ibid., at 152-3.

63.

Vanclerlinden, J., supra note 7, at 51.

64.

Domenico da Maarda, supra note 9, at 229-30.

65.

David, supra note 18, at 498.

0r, under 66. David, op. cit. supra note 30, at 506; see also the article of the same auth

•

NO'l'ES • CBAPTER I . Code Civil du t e f R on e L a , a o, g 1n the head

dans les Etats Africaines», Annales

ris 5.7 ( 1963). Pa : ne do Pé . cd ) 62 19 ( r Africaines, Daka

3, at 139•

67.

PerlÎam, op. cit. supra note

68.

Gilissen, op. cit. supra note

69.

David, supra note

70.

Gilissen, op. cit. supra note

71.

Id.

72.

Coutran, E. uThe Place and Future of Customary Lawn, in East Afrlcan Law Today,

32, at 127.

30, at 7. 32, at 65.

BI ICL, London 72, 74 ( 1966).

18, at 497.

73.

David, supra note

74.

David, A Civil Code for Ethiopia: Consideration5 on the Codification of the Civil Law

on Africa11 Countries, 37 Tul, L. Rev. 187 ( 1963).

75.

Vanderlinden, supra note 7, at 56-7.

76.

Id. - This article is of the utmost importance for those interested in the sources of Ethiopian lav.r. lt contains 1nany other references to works, presumably not at the disposai of Prof. David, ten years aga.

1953, a t 265 ff.

77.

Dekkers, R., Le Droit Privé des Peuples, Bruxelles,

78.

Cited by Allott, The Future of Law in Africa, edited by Al lott, London ( ter,vorth's ( Revised Proceedings of London Conference 28 Dec.,

79.

For the ethimological n1eaning of the word «Eritrea», see Oliver

1960), But

1959-8 Jan. 1960). R. and Pape F.O.,

A Short History of Africa, Penguin African Library ( 1965), p . 31.

80.

For the Pace Treaty Terms with ltaly regarding her for,,,er colonies, se.e Appendix «G:.t in Perham's book, op. cit. supra note 3, at

453.

81. Carlo Conti Rossini, op. cit. supra note 59. 82.

Vanderlinden, supra note 7, at 52, note 76.

83.

Ostini, op. cit. supra, note 18.

84.

Ibid., at

5 (Translation fron1 ltalian by writer).

85. Var.derlinden, supra note 7, at 52, note 75. 86.

Ibid., note 76.

87. ©stini, op. cit. supra, note 18, at 3.

88.

lbirJ., at

8:9. 1s1a,

115.

at 113.

90. ©rae ofi the main «Defters» (Codes) in force in Eri trea be fore the co m ing of th e i Etltiopian Civil C0de. ©lïiëlpte-r. IUfVinl, p . 5 6 (W riter's translation from I tallan text).

NO'l'ES - CIIAPTEll 1

92.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note 18, at 3 (ïhe writer apologises for such unsatisfactory translation. If the worcls «co1nplesso tradizionale» ( whole body of traditional law ? ) were translated into English, n1ore confusion would have occurrecl).

93.

Ibid., at 5-8. (As to legal n,axims see: Saln1ond, Jurisprudence, (9th ecl., by Parker) 695 ( 1937; as to the importance of proverbs, see also Vanderlinden, supra note 7, at 52-3).

94.

Ibid., at 3-4 (,vriter's translation).

95.

Ibid., at 7.

96.

Id.

97.

See belov, note 102.

98.

See below note 102.

99.

See belov, note 102.

100.

One of the local - as opposed to official - languages spoken •1n Eritrea.

101.

Ostini, op. cit. supra, note 18, 187-88.

102.

The list that follows i s in alphabetical orcler. To avoid confusion I have used the same spelling of Ostini: 1.

The Law of Atcheme Melgà: <tlt came into bing, according to tradition, at the time of Atzie Beda Mariam (1467-1477), v1as modified in 1873 during the reign of Emperor Yohannes. 1 ts final amendment being n,ade in 1940, it v,1as published and transloted under the auspices of the «Rassegna �I Studi

Etiopici» of Conti Rossini in 1944 as to Part I and in 1953 as to Part Il. The Tigrigna version was published in con,plete forn, in 1944». 2.

The Law of Loggo Ciuà: ln its present Tigrigna form, the date of publica tion Î$ 1945, which does

not correspond with the date mentioned in its

Preface. ln fact, it emerges from it that encouragment was received from the British Administration for its publication. Mention is also made, at the end of the code, that the representatives which appear enumerated in the «Defter» had «collected and recorded their laws » at the time of Negus Eskender in 1434 Ethiopian Calenclar (1491 ) under the present tith?; they «confirmed» them du ring the reign of Negus Fasil ( 1750-1757 ? ) ; revised them in 1892, during the ltalian Administration ( 1899) and finally publishecl them in 1935 ( 1943' during the present British Government». 3.

The Law ( Sera'at) of Adghena Teghelebà: According to traclition, this law came into existence uncler the nan,e of «Mehem Mahaza» at the time that the

---------------:--

NOTES • CHAPTER 1

the

Tigray

Province

was

under

Ras

Wolde

Sellassie

( 1750-1770);

-.vas amended in 1873 and again in 1904 and finally published in its present form in 1946 (Tigrigna Text). This code now combines, in the main, the various previous codes known as Mai Adghi, Zeban Serao, Ennadeco, Enda fegrai, in addition to the lav, of Mehem Mahaza, which was the most important. 4.

The (Law) Edict of Habsellus and Ghebre-Cristos: This law is named after the two powerful Dejazmatchs Habsellus and Ghebre-Cristos of Zazzega. lt i, one of the oldest written customary laws in Eritrea, though th exact date is still uncertain. Sorne, like Conti Rossini, say that it was «enacted» and given effect under the authority of the two Dejazmatchs, after elaboration by the representatives of Decatescim ( or Atescim); others maintain

that it

was

.,.,ritten after their death. The fact remains that it is not substantially dif ferent from the other laws which derive their origin from oral tradition. Ostini explains that hed had never been able to obtain a copy of it, out of the original which is ( or was) kept under the custody of the Addis Conci vili age. 1 n 1918, Dr. Pettazzi had published an extract of it, as far as the penal section is concerned, along with extracts of other laws of the Hamasien region which all have their inspiration from it, i.e., the Laws of Carnescim, Saharti, Lamza, Uoche.rti and Scioatte Anseba. (Ostini, op. cit. note 18, at 6).

5. The Law of «Scioatte Anseba»: As seen above, this is one of the codes in Hamasien which received inspiration from the Edict of Habsellus and Ghe bre-Cristos. lt v,as reduced into written form in 1900 ( 1907)? Conti Rossini, in his comments regarding this law, refers aise to the law of «Loggo Sarda». We have it from Ostini that it is an old one. The Tigrigna version could be found reproduced in two pages of a Bible in the custody of the Church at the village of Sarda. lt has now become obsolete in view of the Sarda adopt

œoa.

ing the Adghenà Teghelebà code. Note the contents of Art. 21 of Procl. N.0 13 3 of 1952 where the words « reason » �nd «.good conscience·» appear. �ooteâ by �llott, op. cit. supra note 78, at 4.

�-

l&ic:lt, at 11. Sêê aelow, note liQv'. �t gc,oted Il� ��eczulilawi�,, lihe Et hiopian Civil Code: lts Usefulness, Relation to ltO'stgm ,mJ A:�pllcabllifYt, '7( 3) JAL 172, 173 ( 1963).

N01'ES • CHA PTER I

108.

Stone, J., The Province and Function of Law, Sidney ( 1946), p. 192.

109.

See Allen, op. cit. supra note 44, at 281, n. 1; Holmes, O.W., The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. Rev. 457, 460-61 ( 1897); Note, 71 Yale L.J. 907, 920-21 ( 1962). A.s to the raie of Courts in general, see rny unpublished paper at Yale Law School: «How Much Power to the Courts?», note 53 supra (Spring 1965).

• 11 O. 111.

Wise and Winfield, Outlines of Jurisprudence, 6th ed. by Dias, Oxford, ( 1948), p. 99 Krzeczunowicz, supra note 107, at 173. As to the situation in Turkey up to then, see generally «Atatürk» ed. by U.N.E.S.C.0. ( French version), published by th� University of Ankara ( 1963).

112.

Id.

113.

Id.

CH.APTER

THE "fRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES A. Con1positio111. of Coclification Com1nission: Unfortunately, tl1e t1·avaitx pl'éparatoires are not of pt1blic domain, but enougl1 is known as to tl1e members of tl1e Co111mission which l1ad been called to advise, disct1ss and prepare tl1e Cod.es. Along with Etl1iopians (111ainly judges ancl high exect1tive officials) tl1ere \Vere a nu111ber of fo1·eigners residing in Ethi::ipia. Due to the pre valent use of the Amha1ic language, tl1e Commission was later reduced to Etltiopians only. Tltis group was Ied by tl1ree distinguished jurists, experts in their related fields. Tl1ese were: a) Prof. René David (Paris) concerning the Civil Code and the Code of Obligations wlticl1 became part of it; b) Prof. Jean Gra,,en (Geneva) for the Penal Code, the Judiciary Code and tl1e Cocles of Civil ancl Criminal Procedure; c) Prof. Jean Escar1·a (Pa1is) for tl1e Commercial and Maritime Codes wl10, after l1is untimely deatl1, vvas succecled by Profes so1· Alfred Jauffret (Aix Marseille). To tl1e rumoL1rs tl1at son1e lawyers f1·on1 tl1e comn1on la,v countries had also participated in tl1e works of tl1e Codification Commission, we have Prof. David's word tl1at the only one wl10 bad anything to do witb the Codes was Sir C11arles Matl1ew and that only in an indi1·ect 1nanne1·. He revised, in part, the English translation of the Civil Code. He neither played any role in tl1e elabo1·ation of the Civil Code nor took pa1-t of the Comnùssion, concer1Jing tl1e Ehlopian Civil Code.'

i11

any clecisions

CHAf'TEil Il

rlc: o l,V f o y c li o P zg ir ly r e d n B. U t y 1a ic tl ol IJ al ere er w 11 ge 1e tl s le 1J ci 11 ri JJ g in What \vere tlle gL 1 id . . ? . on s1 C 1s 111 om e th to e c n re f refe o s 11 n te f o d in k a s a e rv se to Tllere ,vere t,vo overridi11g objectives: one was tl1at of setting forth the inimediate positive Ja,v; the otl1er of prepa1·ing the law of tomorrow and in so doing a) to devise feasible conditio11s for tl1e creation of economi c clevelopment; and b) revising «at the social level tl1e very foundations of

a society wl1icl1 has been frozen for too long a time».2 Since Iaw is n1ade for tl1e benefit of society at large, it necessarily re. flects the co1nmttnity expectations. If, on tl1e one hancl, such expectations are satisfied, on tl1e otl1er, s11ch expectations must be sucl1 as to keep pace ,vith ti1ne. Tl1e delicate mission of tl1e Co1nmissio11 was tl1en to harmonize these, seemi11gly, conflicting objectives. Ho,.v was tl1is to be acl1ieved? If there was a strong feeling for codification, tl1ere a.re good 1·easons for believing tJ1at its satisfactory implen1entatio11 neecls certain sttrroundings a.nd circumstances. In cl1oosing tl1e «ready-macle» system, was it preferable for Ethlopia to «receive» a body of pre-establisl1ed law as ,vas done with the former territories 11nder tl1e B1·itisl1 E111pire or ,vas it p1·eferable to have the technica.l fon11ula of codification? TJ1e Englisl1 method of rece1Jtion of lavv in African countries \vas discard.ed. Ne\;ertheless, a body of la\1/ - from ,vl1atever s0Lt1·ce - could still be received and adapted to the needs of the Etbiopia11 society, in the same way as \1/as done in Western Europe before the codes. Professo1· David, ,vho feels that the tecl1nicality of a code creates cliffictùties in a count1·), where tl1ere is dearth of jt1rists trai11ed io wester11 legal 111etl1od, mal(es the follo\vi11g comme11t: «A presentation of the law in book form, not only fo1·mtùati ng ru.les but giving ai1 explanation of tl1em by exa1nples, ,vould ha\1e perliaps been preferable to a code strictly conceivecl 011 tl1e French moclel». . . . . . r1g <cEthiopia has cl1ose0 t0 h ave. a code. I bel1ev ht e that tl11s 1s In th·e absence of previous 1uo11uments, it would tmcloL1btedly have . . been more different to IJr• esent Et·h'1op.1a a c1v1I law in t1·eatise form . tl1an it wa·s to present 1• t 111 tl1e fonn of a cocle. We fear in any . case that the code may be too sel1emat1cal an d abstract, especially . . . m certain sections' an ' d we tI111 1.k: that it ougl1t to be qt1ickly con1. plet ed bY a doct.r1n al woi·k».3

-----------THE 1'RAVAUX PRÎ::PARATOIRES

Tl1e moclel cl1os,en ,.vas, tl1en, clearly tl1e continental systen1. In Con tinental E111·ope codes a1-e considered as a kincl of novatio� btlt ais') as a point of depart11re for a 11e\.v development of legal ri.iles. T11e codes in the cornmon lavv co11nt 1·ies, SL1cl1, fo1· instance, as tl1ose in the U.S.A., clo not abolish tl1e prior la,.v b11t classify the pre-existing principles, whjch still rernaj11 in fo.rce. Wl1ile Ia,:v and cocle in Continental Europe might be, to so1ne exte11t, sy11on)1 mo11s, in con11non law countries a code is 0111)' a means of deve1opn1e11t of tl1e existing law, '\Vhich ex.ists indipendently fïon1 it. I-Iowe,,er, tl1is poi11t of differe11ce '\Vas not then considerecl. Wl1at ,vas p1-essing was to l1a,,e a co111pilatio11 tl1at was «sufficiently detai.led» and recognizecl in its «imperative cl1a1-acter»; on the otl1e1· l1and, sL1ch a dif ference sJ1ould 11ot be exa.ggeratecl as the theoretical question still 11 11re solved after tl1irty 1,ears - of ,vhetl1er T11rkey received tl1e Svwiss civil cocle or the S,viss civil [a1,v, shows. Still, there is al\vays tlre question as to after \.Vl1icl1 «co11cepts» of la\.v l1as our civil cocle been inspirecl. A.fter opining tl1at there is 1nucl1 n1ore expe1·ience at J1ancl covering conti 11ental Ia,v concepts, tl1e learned jurist, co11tinues: «Tl1is qt1estio11 ,vas fo1·eseen and resolved only in an ind.ir.ect way by tl1e Etl1iopian a11tl1orities. These autl1orities indi1·ectly took tl1e side fa,,ouring tl1e continental system when tl1ey callecl French and S,viss jt1rists to work out the prepa1·atory plans of codes. One co11lcl well expect of tl1ese jurists, in fact, tl1at tbey be aware of tl1e concepts of English reasoning; bL1t it was clear that their corn posi tio11 and tl1 e care of perfecting a teclmical work would leacl tl1em ine,,itably to p1·opose codes establishecl on a continental model».4 To tl1e qt1estion as to why tl1e Etl1iopian autl1orities sl1 011ld l1ave preferrecl tl1e Continental i11stead of tb.e English model, Prof. David g_!_ ves the response himself - the Etl1iopian sit11ation, accordi11g to l1in1, is com parable to tl1at of Latin Ainerican countries vvhich take pains to n1aintain their cultural ties \Vith E11rope, to counter-balance tl1e U.S.A. pressure on the econon1 ic Jevel. I-Ie s11ggested tl1at as the Anglo-An1erican in . fl11e11ce \Vas «becoming excessive» in Ethiopia, it might l1ave be�11 tl1011gl1t neces sary to co11nter-baia11ce it by «appeal to otl1e1· sources»,5 a political ratl1 er than a p11rely Iegal consideration, which is also 1·eaclily admitted by tl1e Jear11ecl jt1rist. But, tl1e over1icli.ng consideration \Vas defi11itely giv.en to Ethiop.ian tradition. TI1 e Fetf1 a Negast bacl been considerecl to be the icleal moclel set fo1· people to co11form to. Tl1e A1·abic con1pilatio11 l1ad been i11spi1·ed by tl1e

CllAl'TER Il

Ro n1 an la w, as ap pe ari11g in the e nc he d an . v lav of n o i· t Bizantine tradl ers e, i11f o1· ref tl1at when I-lis the id, v Da of. Pr ' aw ' • J n ina Ro 0 r books of S:y . • . . . , . . . n 1o at to f1c the sys tem of h1op1a s cod1 Et Iin.k · to ed cid de y st e J · a M Imperi•a 1 . . . esty «was gmded in part by an in. aJ M ! ria pe Im is H w, Ia ic an ni er Ronla.no-G · t· dest're to· remain fath.ful to a venerated tradition... ».6 st1nc 1,,e

Stages a11.d Process of Elaboration:

TI1e fact tl1at, as it ,-vere, tl1is was one man's job Prof. David could v-1ork by I1im self for some time, did sho1·ten a lot tl1e time necessary for tl1e work. In fact, tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code was drafted into three stages. A ge11 eral outline (avant-projet) \Vas fu·st draw11 up by Prof. David fron1 tl1e date of l1is appoint1nent (Ja11uary 1954 to October 1954). This ,vas followed by t1·anslations and discussions witl1 tl1e Commissio11. He tl1en pro ceeded to th.e }Jreparation of t. l1e fir1al draft (projet ctefinitif), a wo1·k whicl1 startecl in October 1954 and was completed in April 1958. Whereupon titis ,vas debatecl a11d modified by Parliament, eventually becoming tl1e Etbiop ian C ivil Code of 1960. Work began by Prof. David tackling tl1e more technical parts, no'\v in Books IV ru.id V, (Obligations and Sp ecial Contracts, respectively) which needed J ess stucly of customs. These '\Vere followed by Title IV of Book II (Fan1 ily and Success ions), the three Titles o.f Book I (Persans), the different Titles of Book III (Goods) and the Title on Succession (part of Book II). Finally, two Titles on the Application of tl1e Laws, containing R.ules r elating to Confli ct of Laws and to In1plementation (e11forcement) and Application of tl1e Civil Cocle, ,.vith tl1e section on Transi tory Provis ions. OnJy a11 aJJpr oxin1ate descri1)tio11 can, of cot1rse, be made. In the course of his \vork, Prof. Davicl fottncl it n ece ssary, at tin1.es, to either cl1ang e some of or add sometbing to the first outli11e . Tl1us tl1e Cl1apters on Do11atio11, on Contracts for Real Estate on Public Don1ain and Expropriation and the Title on Administrative Cont1·acts were draf tecl after Books I ancl III of the. EtltioJJia Ci,,il Code. Tog etlier \.vitl1 the drafts, the Commis s ion \Vas als o pre se11ted vvitl1 an exposé des motifs or commentar y on eacl1 1,itle.7 At first, st1cl1 com en °.1 t�ries were detailecl b11 t had to be concle11secl owing to tra11slation dif fictùties. The inlportance of these com mentaries is , obviously , of tl1e ut. 010st importance. Det ailed and accu rate infonnatio 11 r egarcling tl1e so111·ces ancl r eas o11s '\.Vould l1ave bee 11 found tl1ere. Th e criticisms made, decisions arrivecl at, by th e Coclificatio11. Commi s . sion '\Vere of consi· derable' value, for two main 1·easons. The first was the . . preparatron in Aml1aric of the definitions wlucl1 ha d been translated from I

TEIE 'fflAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES

li 3

Frencl1 technical legal tern1s. Tl1e clifficulty is manifest. Arnharic language did not ha\,e sucl1 accUI·ate terms \vhicl1 could convey the Fr·ench idea completely. A11d si11ce the members borro\,ved from the Ge'ez of tlle Fetha Negast, one can \Vell i111agi11e tl1e difficulty encotmtered in the adaptation of Ge'ez t o n1ode1·11 (a11d legal) AU1l1aric. The expert had, ideed, tried to n1ake this Iess ct1n1berso1ne. The division of the articles into numbered para graphs, and, in tur11, reduction of these i11to one single sentence was bound to facilitate ai1d simplif-y the task of tl1e Co1nmission. Nevertl1eless, dif ficulties remai11ed. Aml1aric, especially classic, bas a tendency to contain many elements of an argument into one long sentence.5 To see ,vhetl1er a faithful rep1·oduction l1ad been made, Prof. Davicl indulgecl into a per sona.! experime11t. He l1ad, for instance, matters contained in Articles 1763 to 1804 of Tit.le XII (Contracts in Ge11eral) translated from Am.11aric into F1·ench by an Ethiopian. Tl1e result satisfied l1im tl1at, on the whole, the sense did 11ot substantially diffe1·. It \vas, clefi11itely, not identical to the original draft. Since we a1·e speaki11g of translation, it might be appro p1·iate to 1nention l1e1·e, en passa1it, the sa111e difficulty conce1·ning the English translation. It will be seen at a later stage that there a1·e some great differences bet\veen tl1e F1·ench and English versions of some articles due to bad translation.9 In fact, Prof. David is of the opinJon that, except f0r tl1e pa14ts translated by Sir Charles Mathew ( either by him or uncler lus direction) the Etl1iopian Civil Code version of the English text is bad.10 Tl1e second main contribution of the Commission was also markedly positive. By subjecting tl1e work to a severe scrutiny, the Commission gave it a national content, which reflected the Ethiopian !)Oint of view. Many important modifications ,vere made on the final draft, as a result. But even so, the Commission I1ad no time to study Title XXI of tl1e final draft ( De l'Application des Lois) wl1icl1 had also included rules on conflict of laws, p1 epared with the aid (collaboration) of a jurist, not otherwise identifiecl than by referring to l1in1, as «M. Francescakis»,11 but 1nost pro bably tl1e Francescakis, author of «La Theorie du Renvoi».12 Consequently, except fo1· the provisions which 1·efer to non-retroactivity of laws, the title vvas omittecl from tl1e final draft. 13 4

Tl1e fi.11al stage took place before Parliament. Except for advice to the Minister of Justice fro1n time to ti1ne, tl1e expert took no part tl1ereafter. Here tao, on tl1e vvhole, Prof. Davicl seen1s satisfied. Tl1ere are, 110\ve,,er, some Îlnportant modifica· tions 1nacle by Pa1·lia111ent vvl1icl1 call for specific mention. The Boole on Goocls, irzter alia, l1as st1fferecl 1nucl1. Matters of p1·0of of owne1·sl1iiJ and usucaption l1ave been «recast». Extre111e se\1e1ity was envisaged in clealii1g with perso11s wl10 eitl1er constrL1cted buildings or

CRAl'TEll li

ns concerned the tio ica dif n1o r he Ot s r 1e· otl of ·ty I e sowed seeds 011 the IJrop r se les extent, the Iaw to a d, a11 . betw rs . me far d · an rs . 11e ,v o n e e relat1011sl11p . . law of the to nal t1o na relating 1ty r pte cl1a A . · .v la\ Y i ·1 am f d n . a s n of persa . . . . t1o 1ca n wh1ch Th e otl1er modif cl. de clu ex nt ide acc ) b, h ug 1o l t ,.vas also . . . . 14 ry 1to e ans on Tr t1tl s , t po las D1s the 1. the e.xper t greatl} deplor:es concerns tions. He says: The Jast title of the 'projet' wlùcl1 bore on putting the Civil Code into force and which contained in particular numerous and important transitory dispositions was profoundly recast by Parlia me11t and practically emptied of its content. Only ten articles were retai:ned out of tl1e eigl1ty four... It is to be feared that this amputa.

« . . .

tion may be the source of great difficulties in tl1e application of tlle Civil Code».'5 The le,a1-ned jurist would l1ave liked to l1ave Parliament vote «erz bloc» - instead of discussion of article by article and immediate promulgation as it was done - on tl1e adoption of tl1e draft in prin.ciple first. The Cocle so adopted would bave been publish.ed on tl1e Negctrit Gazeta but not l1aving tl1e force of law, until a period of t\\ro or three or five years had elapsed. Dw·in.g tlùs period, Pa.rlirune11t would have l1ad more time to study and n1ake wl1at 1nodifications it thought fit. Wl1ereupon the ex pert \1/0t1ld also l1ave had the opportunity ta prepare a ne\1/ edition, ac cordingly, a.ad it ,vould l1ave been tl1is edition that would hav.e been even tt1ally aclopted and JJromttlgated as la\v. Unfortunately, tbis proceclure was belatedly st1ggested and, it seems, Prof. Davicl felt it necessary to spell it 01rt only for the benefit of othe1· African cot1ntries whic11 mjght be con templating codification.16 As it is, tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code was passed into law on May 5, 1960, effective September 11, 1960. There are official versio11s of it i11 A1nl1aric and English, and an excellent Frencl1 editio11,11 \1/Ïtl1 a11cl introductory 11ote by Professor David. By tl1is ti1ne the Penal Cocle l1ad already been pro mulgated, also in the same languages.1a

CHAPTER II

Private Communication «A» of 27.1.1966.

David, supra Chapter 1, note 74, at 204; see also the French version of the same article: Le Code Civil Ethiopien de 1960, 26

RBbelsZ 668, 681

( 1961) «Les

données même d'une civilization qui c'est trop longten,ps figée». 3.

ln this Chapter, 1 have dra\vn heavily from the article on the Tulane Law Review

(supra Chapter 1, note 74) and unless otherwise stated, quotations are frorn it. 4.

Ibid., passim. See aise what Prof. David v,rote to the present writer on this question: «Ma formation française a certainment eu une influence; je ne pense pas que dans un autre sens on puisse parler cl'influence française sur le code. Ceci pour une raison bien sirr.ple; celle que, si j'avais à refaire le code civil français, je le modifierais considérablement, - et le code que je ferais serait sans cloute, dans sa présentation, assez

voisin du code

éthiopien. Parlerait-on

alors

d'influence

éthiopienne? (Private Con11nunication "A" dated 27.1.66). 5.

Passim. Notice, aise, where Prof. David suggests the introduction of the French lan guage - along with the English - as the teaching language in the La,H School, David, L'ensignement du droit en Ethiopie, 6 ( 2) JAL 96 ( 1962).

David, La Refonte du Code Civil dans les Etats Africaines, Paris (1963), at 12.

c< ••• qui n'ont malheuresement pas été publiés», David Id.

As to the intrinsic complication of the Amharic language and culture, see D.N. Levine, Wax & Gold U.C.P. ( 1965), Chapter 1.

9. 1 O.

Krzeczunowicz, note 107 Chapter 1. «li a révisé en partie la traduction anglaise; celle-ci n'est bonne que dans les parties

------------

NOTES CHAPTER 11

qu'il

. • Communication "A" of 27.1.1966. ainsi rev1 se, es», David Private

11.

lbid., atlO.

12.

Conflict of Laws, in Sedler, R.A., ll'he Conflict of Laws See Bibliography of the in Ethiopia, HSIU, Addis Abeba ( 1965)' p. 180.

13.

Prof. David expressed the lqope that this omission will be remedied, perhaps in a new edition of the Code. He also adds: «C'est là une lacune ... je le conslderé coma

regrettable». ( Ibid., at 11). 14.

Id., to such an extent that he felt compelled to say publicy that he declines comple te responsibility both for this title and for title XXI.

15.

See also quotation by Krzeczunowicz, supra Chapter I note 107, at 175.

16.

David supra Chapter I note 66, at 13.

17.

Code Civil de l'Empire d'Ethiopie de 1960. Librairili générale de droit et d e jurispru. dence, Paris ( 1960).

18.

A French edition with a lengthy and most useful Introduction by Prof. Graven, the Swlss jurist, has been published: Le Code Pénal de l'Empire d'Ethiopie, ( du 23 Juillet 1957) by the Centre Français de droit comparé, Paris ( 1959). The Com mercial Code was pron1ulgated

the sanie day and so was the Maritime Code.

A recent French version of the Comn1ercial Code with an introductory note by Prof. A. Jeuffret has also been published: Code de Commerce de l'Empire d'Ethio

pie de 1960. Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris ( 1965). The Criminal Procedure Code came into effect on November 11, 1961 and the Civil Procedure Code on October 8, 1965. At the time of this writing, there is available Information regarding the proposed Judiciary Code.

110

Clit\PTER III

TI-IE RESULT

That the Code is defi11itely of the continental tY1Je I1as already been said, but it is well to k110\V that there are some inside differe11ces also in tl1e family of codes. This is especially t11.1e if on.e compares tl1e Frencl1 Cocle Ci-vil and tl1e German BiLrgerliches Gesetzbuch.' It remains 110\v to see (a) sucl1 iclentification marks as a1·e con1monly known in Continental Europe, (b) the extent (if any) of in fluence f1·on1 other syste1ns and (c) a general sketcl1 of tlie contents of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code itself.

A. Tl1.e General Frame1,vork of t!1.e Ethiopian Civil Code: Tl1e codes' divisions an . d concepts are of 1·omanistic scie11 ce; tl1e 111anner L."1 wl1ich 111ost of tl1e articles l1ave been formulated - t11ougl1 11ot nurn bered2 - is simila1· to that of the Ron1ano -Ge1·manic system.3 Tl1 e Code is divided into five books: Pe1·sons (Natural and Juridical); Family and Successio11; Prope1·ty; Obligéttions; S1Jecial Con.tracts. Agai11, tl1is 01-ganization is familia1· to tl1e usual orcler of classification of Civil Codes wl1icb generally follo\.v tl1e li11es of tl1e Institutes of Jt1stiniai1 and tl1e Code Napoleon. 4 The organization of tl1e new Italian Civil Cocle of 1942 is strilcingly simila1·. Because tl1e latter· co1nbines bath tl1e Civil and Com1ne1�cial Codes, it l1 as six Books, tl1e Iast two dec:1ling witl1 comme1·cial matters a11d the «Protectio11 of Rigl1ts», a11cl bas 2969 Articles,5 as co1111Jared to tl1e 2281 Articles of the F1·e11cl1 Civil Code6 and tl1e 997 A1-ticles of the Swiss Civil Cocle.7 The Ethiopia11 Civil Cocle, 011 tl1e otl1er l1a11cl, I1as no less tl1an 3367

CllAfl'EH Ill

l ot]1e1- to1Jics bein.g al , rs te at m » il iv «c ly re u p r Articles and 22 Titles, fo in1e Code, ,vitb it ar e M th d an e od C al ci er rn . om C 1 distributed beet\veen tl e ere. Tl1e for1n and th is 11 er tt pa 1e tl l il St d. ne er nc co ,.vbich we are -not here 8 r. ila m t:ype are si ese or ek gu re tu G Po , ch t1t D n, 1a m Ge o «n , at th e re TI1us one u1ay ag 9 . n» tio ta re rp te \vill find a.ny diffic.ulty in its in B. Othe·r Sources: Being tl1e com1Jaratist la\vyer par excellel'zce that be is, Prof. Da,,id consulted almost all the known systen1s of la,v. To name but a few of these - the Civil Codes of Egypt, Fra11ce, Greece, Italy and S\vitzerland and this is especially true in tl1e lavv of Obligations where all five Cod.es \Vere compared, witb their early and later l1istor)'·'0 The plm1. gé11éral of t'he Ethiopian Civil Code ,vas, 110,,vever, JJatterned after the S,viss Civil Code.11 Anotl1er inspiration f1-om the Swiss Civil Code ca11 be found in the last Book of tl1e Etltiopian Civil Code, co11cerning Special Contracts. 12 lt is, however, to be noted that whlle at tl1e begin11ing Prof. David started \vitl1 the Swiss Civil Code for tl1e pai -t concerning Obligations, his outline was later substantially n1odified.u Fre11cl1 Jaw as ex1Jou11ded by Rodière, 14 for the subject of Res11on5·abi lité Civile, by Waline,15 for droit aclniiriistratif (011 expropriaton) anc.l de Laubadére,16 for administrative contracts, res1Jectively, \vas pertine11t.11 Less, was taken from th other Codes, for the follo,.\ring 1·easo11s: 18 ( i)

Italian Civil Code

(ii) Hellenic » (ijj) Egyptian >)

(iv) Geru1an

» )>

B.G.B.

- was conside1-ed to be too doamatic a11d . 0

subtle a.nd hence of less utility; - too casuistic; - too concise; - was not utilizecl at all, e,,en if admittedly scientific.19

F� r the category of provisions wltich Prof. David calls «originales» meamng that they derive neither from Eth1o · an la w ' p1 11or ,vere th ey adopt. . · ed m entl!r · ety from westem continental codes - tl1e · f 011 O\Vlllg were rel'é�a,iut:

a) 11:-, �,:1\

The ancient Turkish Civil Cod e ( l'l'Zcldjelle) a11d tl1e Ci,,il Cod.e of I1·an concerning rigb ts over the regulation of waters·, and ltn.e laws of Portugal an . . h re ·d I sraeJ, w1t garcl to success1. on.20

'fHE l1ESUL1' :

P1·ovisions ,vl1ich also belo11g to this grot1p, tl1ougl1 to a higl1er degree familiar to ,veste111 countries, are t.l1e institt1tio11s of 1�egist1y of civil status, tutorslup and '\V.ills.2' Last bttt not least, tl1e co1nn1on law cot111t1-ies, too, had their sha1·e of contribt1tion to 1nt1ke. A topic fan1 ilia1· ancl one n1igl1t even say popular in those cot1ntries is tl1at of T1·ust. For some strange reason, it appears that it is not so fé1n1iliar instead in Weste1·11 Continental law and even not so intelligeable to s01ne of tl1eir jurists.21 Dr. Russell23 sees a striking corn parison between tl1e way trust was i11co1-poratecl i11 Lot1isiana (the only Ame1·ica11 civil law State) in 1938 and \Vl1at Sectio11 3 (Arts. 516 to 544) of Book I of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Cocle envisages. Tl1e l1eading of Section 3 is, in fact, «Trusts». The title in tl1e Frencl1 version is Des fidéicom,nis • · and it seems debatable wl1ethe1· tl1e t\vo notions are 011e a11d the same. There is, however, a sin1 ila1·ity between the testa111entary Trust of tl1e 24 Commo11 Law and tl1 e fideco111.111.issu 111. Ro111an La\V. At a11y 1·ate, it of , is a fact tl1 at P1·of. David does not like to call rf1·t1sts t.l1e matter regttlatecl by Section 3; ,vl1ile it is equally ce1·tain tl1at in clrafting it l1e took into consid.eratio11 the Englisl1 rules of Trust.as Similarly, anotl1er Commo11 La,v concept i11corporated in the Etl1iopia11 Civil Cocle is that of bail ment;26 and so are the provisions relating to <lainages arisi11g out of non performance of contract (Art. 1790); tl1ose concerrnng the period of limita tio11 of actions (for i11stance, A1·t. 1848); and, as it \Vill be seen at later stage in detail, tl1e «règle·metitatio-n spécial-ment fait cl'e clivers cas cle re sponsabilité clelictitelle», 21 which «brings the subject closer to tl1e clas sification of the common law)> actions. 28 In preparing this classificatio11, Prof. David availed himself of Jenks' Digest of Englisfi La,,v. 29 C. J11corJJoratior1. of Custon1ary Law iri the Code.

How much of customary la\.V l1as been fused and consolidated witl1 and incorporated into the Ethiopian Civil Code, togetl1er '\Vitl1 the otber foreign concepts? His Imperia! Majesty, in His P1·eface to tl1e EthioJJian Civil Code, l1as pointed out that no Iaw can be «effective if it fails to 1·eacl1 tl1e l1eart of those to whom it is intended to apply and does not responcl to tl1eir needs and customs».30 This is now t]1e trend in. Africa, indeed, as it should be.31 It \.Vas tl1e trencl in F1·a11ce, too, whe11, clt11·ing tl1e elaboration of the French Cocle Civil, the coittu111es and tl1e droit-ecrit were ft1sed toge tl1er, for the codifiers' idea was grouncl.ecl 011 the fact tl1at «it .is \VOl'tl1

ettA 1>1J.· �tt 1r1

4ll

,Mhile no :kee_w wb.anevci;- neecit not be destroyed; laws should humour habits 50 long as tliiey �1·e oot vi.oes».12 i

But tbere ends trine aJ1alogy, 'J11.e Ethiopian Civil Code was not to be a consoJldat.ion of ELL1iopian Customary Laws. In the first place these were umcertain, and, seco11cl.Iy, witl1out any refilection on their integrity, the mem. bers o.f tliJe CocliEicaiion Commiss ion were not so enthusiastic and were even to some exte;n t 1·el11ctant to inco.rporate the m.33 Moreover, excep; ft©r tb.e custon1s of som e parts of the Empire, they wei·e not, it . ears, . app s0 coJ.1ve1·sant with th e custom . s obtainable in th e other Provinces. As a re�1ult, a whole cbapter on the"village communities of the North (e iida) was _ reJected as be1ng useless.J.4 Tfu.e aim was to make of the code an mstruine:nt whlch, along with economic developrnent, cou]d shake the static s0eie�y and br in g it t0 the surface of the m ode.r.1 era. To further this aim if need be, some new concepts ha d to be imported. Still, tlùs doe s not n1ean th.at no custom.ary law ( or custom) was taken into account; it was necessai-y to do so, in order to avoid 111aking of tlie code an abst1�act, theoretical work, devoid of ties with reality. If it is true tlil.at the «life of the law has not been logic» but «experience»,35 the ad.age that «•custom is the index of the law of the peop1e»36 is equally per.

suas1ve.

In fact, tl1e Members did th.eir utmost to safeguard the general senti ments of justice of tl1e Etluopian people; they saw to it that anything in conflict was disca.rded and what corresponded to reason was retained. 11 Ultimately, then, an interrnediate position ,vas taken: the custon1s retained in tl1e Code vvere only thos e necessary to tl1e extent that (a) they cor resp ond ed to the profound sentiments of justice, (b) were generally fol 38 Purst1ant to these principles, for . ted roo ply dee low ed or (c) we re too an in d itte adm and e cas one in d ive wa n bee s l1a ity bil lia ict str ce, instan in the ed, end int s wa . It ert exp the of ns tio en i.J1t l na i g· ori tl1e st , ain 1er ag otl it if en (ev icle veh a of ner ow tl1e nt ide acc of e Dr aft , to hold liable in cas l1ad bee11 stolen), on the unde1·stru1ding tl1at l1e would l1ave insw·ed liis vehicle agai11st tl1eft. The idea of irnposing liability without fattlt in such a case was considered to l1ave bee11 against tl1e EtbioJJian «sentiments of justice» tl1at it was cl1·01Jpecl. The cont1·ary was «instead adnutted - a situation i11.existe11t in ar1y weste1·n cocles 'bttt co11sonant to Etlùopian con cepts a11cl ct1stoms - tJ1at wl1osoe,,er caL1ses eitl1e1· perso11al injL1ries to or deatl1 of anotl1e.r l)e1·son, is 1·es1)onsibJe to tl1e victim or to l1is fa111ily, ,vitl1ottt a11y fault 011. lus 1Ja1�t,,.39 !11. otl1er ,vorcls, ,.vJ1ile liability \Vftl1ou t

'fHE llEStJL'l' :

fault in tl1e case of tl1e O\.vner of a stole11 car was regardecl as being too harsh by custom and relaxatio11 was called foi· accordingly, tl1e rule is thought to be jt1st a.nd a1Jp1·opriate i11 tl1e case of one wl10 causes either bodily injtuy to 01· deatl1 of a11otl1er, ir1·espective of any fault on I1is part. Other examples Îl1spired by ct1stom can be fou11d in tl1e provisions re lating to Family Arbitrators ancl, in general, to St1ccessio11 ancl Immovable Property ,.vl1icl1 are contined i11 the first 3 Books of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code.40 Tl1e I11dex of «Table Alp/zabétiqite des Matières» unde1· «coiJ.tumes lo cales» lists Arts. 573, 606, 624, 631 and 21.16, but tl1ese, apparently, are only the ones wbich expressly refer to the term «ct1stom». To tl1e suggestion41 1nade in 1963, tl1at the {<Repeals» provisons of the Etluopian Civil Code <<severely limits the fielcl of lega1 application of c11stoms», there is a recent optimistic submission - at least, as far as familj1 la'"' is concerned:12 Tl1e controversy arises out clue to tl1e differing opinions as to tl1e actual import of Title XXI of the Etl1iopian Civil Cocle, \Vhich is one of tl1e two Titles for wl1ich Prof. Davicl has al1·eady declined ail responsability.43 At any rate, it is the learnecl jtu·ist's considerecl view that «a code bas no sense if it cloesn't 1·epe·al all provisions which are contrary to the matters regttlated by it».44 In this sense, then, it is accurate to state tl1at tl1e basis of the Code are to be fotmd in tl1e sense of justice of tl1e Ethiopia11 people45 and con sequently tl1at the Ethiopian Civil Cocle is truly «Ethiopian», made for a society d.ifferent f1·om tl1at of western Europe. 46 In spite of the mru1y t1·i1nmi11gs, l1owever, it is still a long and cletailed code. Experience else\.vhere tea.cl1es tbat many a time n1atters not covered by the civil code have to be supplemented by additional legislation. At times, there being a rich amalgam of legislation, body of doctrine and case.Ja\v, this necessity is not so actrtely felt. In Eth.iopia the matter is dif ferent. Thus matters whicl1 elsewhere \vould be regarcled as «autonomous» - that is, belonging to anotl1er branch of la\v like tl1e Frencl1 clroit ad1ninistratif - l1ave been all b1·ougl1t under tl1e don1ain of «clroit com inun» 41 Sucl1 a1·e Registration of I1nmovables ancl what are callecl «acts . of civil stattis», Expropriation, and Aclministrative Contracts. So a1-e mat ters relating to co1Jyrig11ts (appeari11g in Title XI as Litera.r)' a11cl Al-tistic Ownership) ancl Special Contracts. A Iast word c011cerns tl1 e Table of Contents and tl1at onlj' for the sake of cla1·ity. The draft I1acl containecl a cletailed Index of «1'able AlJJliabétiqi,e

CHAPTER Ifl

des Matières» and one «Table Analytique cle !vlciiières», which were rneant to complete tlie work and render the l1ancllin.g oJ tl1e Code easier. While tlJey no\\' appear in tl1e French text, they l1ave been omitted fi·om the Amharic-English Texts. Enougl1 has already been said as to the p 1-acticaI clifficulty encountered due to this omission. 48 This, in synthesis, is the fran1ework of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code in' genei·al. It bas since been consulted and considered as an exan1ple of codification of personal laws in Africa,49 botl1 by the Commission on the Codification and Unification of La,,.,s in Africa (London) and by the Code Con1n1issio·n in Senegal. It now remains to see, in a more detailed manner, tbat part of the Code reJating to the sources of tl1e La,v of Civil \Vrongs, which is the main purpose of this book.

C H A P T E R III 1.

The B. G. B., follo\ving the idea of the German Pandectists, has \.vhat is kno'Nn as a a «general part», containing a theoretical part of the Code.

David, supra Chapter I note 66, at 11: «011 notera aussi que les alinéas portent, à la

mode anglaise, une numératation».

David, supra Chapter Il note 2, at 672.

Russell F.F., The New Ethiopian Civil Code, 29 Brooklyn, L. Rev. 237 ( 1963).

Torrente e Pescatore, Codice Civile Annotato, con la Giurisprudenza della Cassazione, Giuffré, Milan ( 1963); as for I talian law on the La\.v of Torts, see: ( i) Montel, A.,

Casi pratici in Materia di Responsabilità e Danno, Padova

( 1955); ( ii) d'Orsi,

Responsabilità Civile e Circolazione Stradale, Milan ( 1960); Fatti llleciti, in vol. IV, Commenta rio

del Codice

( iii) A. De Cupis,

Civile ( Delle

Obbligazioni),

Rome ( 1964), p. 285-379.

Dalloz, Code Civil Annoté d'Aprés la Doctrine et la Jurisprudence, Paris ( 1959).

Rossel!, V., Code Civil Swiss et Code Federal des Obligations, Lausanne (1957) .

Sorne subjects ( such as contracts) can be found in both the Ethiopian Civil Code and the Cocle of Commerce. But both Prof. David and Escarra have taken special pains to avoid any conf! ict between the contents of the two codes by working out a con certed plan. The distribution between the two codes did not follow a precise plan. While, for instance, contracts of sale, hiring and bailments are in the Civil Code, partnership and companies, contracts of conveyances and that of insurance are to be found in the Con1n1ercial Code. Perhaps to avoid this, the persona( prefe rence of both jurists was in favour of one sole code (David, supra Chapter 11, note 6, at 10).

Ill NOTES • CBAPTER

1o.

672. at , 2 te o n 11 r . te h ap David, supra C at 505. , 18 e ot n I r te ap h C a David, supr

2, at 670. te no 11 er pt ha C a pr su David,

12.

Id.

13.

dated 27.1.66: " "A n io at ic un m m Co e at iv Pr David,

pour les obligations, au depart, - mais «Je suis parti du code civil Swiss , ' ifié. 11 suffit de voir quels sont mod trés e suit la r pa ete a e cod du ce plan les differents titte du code civil éthiopien pour s'en rendre compte».

14.

Rodiére, R., La Responsabilité Civile, Rousseau et C ie, Paris ( 1952}.

15.

Vv'aline, M., Droit Administratif,, Sirey, 9th ed., Paris ( 1962).

16.

De Laubadére, A., Le Traité Theorique et Pratique des contracts Administratives», Paris ( 1960?}.

17.

David, supra Chapter 1, note 18, at 505.

18.

Id.

19.

But see note 158 ( Chapter V) belovv regarding culpa in contrahendo and the theory of apparence.

20.

David, supra Chapter I note 18, at 506. The draft presented to the Codification Com mission had included provisions dealing with agrarian matters inspired after the Soviet «Kolkhoz», but this was later dropped. Another idea which v-,as con.sidered and likewise dropped was a certain traditional Swede institution called «Domare reglerna».

21.

Ibid., at 504.

22.

Russell, supra note 4, at 238, quoting Maitland ( Third

Lecture in Equity,

1909):

«lt seems to us almost essential to civilization, and yet there is nothing quite like it in foreign law. 1 can't understand your trust', said Gierke to n1e». For an exception, see the recent detailed study made by Dr. De Wulf, The Tru.st and Corresponding Institutions in the

c·1v1·.,

Law,

centre

Inter-Universitaire du Droit

Gomparé, Bruxells { 1965). l.l>id., at 1'3�. Le�r�, sv9r:a at 13 ·5 ,· nofice a Iso the saine term being translated as «trust» by l!.:eage, R. W., Rom.an Porivale Law, 3rd ed. by Prlcharcl, Mc Millan's London ( 1961 ), at w?. ®Mlal, iler.lv� <llommun lcation «A» dated 27.1.196 6, to the specific question as to

wJ:i� tlilis t,"tpieal Arng.le,,Arnerican insUtuti0n wa. s incorporated in the Ethiopian

NOTES · CHAPTEil III

Civil Code?, the learned j urist replies: «Je pense que vous fait es allusion au chapitre Des patrimoines d'affactation. Le mot tru,t ne figure pas à l'index alphabétique cle l'édition française du code. Il est cependant exact que, pour régler les fideocomis, j'ai ten u compte de diverses régies du tr ust anglais».

26.

David, Private Communication «A»

27.1.66: «Le titre XVII ainsi a é té inspiré par

la notion anglaise de bailment».

27.

David, supra Chapter I note 18, at 504.

28.

David, supra Chapter 11 note 2, at 672-3 «une série de cas particuliers qui le rap prochent à ce s u ject de l a systernatique de l a common lav1». Private Communica tion «A» of 27. l .1966.

29.

Jenks, E., Digest of English Law, Vol. l, 4th ed. London, ( 1947); - Private Com mu nication «A»

30.

27.1.1966.

HIM, The Emperor, «Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia - Proclamation No. 165 of 1960 Addis Ababa, Preface, p.v. (<<No law which is designed to define the rights and duties of the people ... can ever be effective if it fails to reach the heart of those to v,hom it is intendecl te apply and does net respond to their needs and customs and to natural j ustice»).

31.( 11 ) Dr. Nkrumah in an address at the

opening

of the Ghana Law School ( 1962) ancl re-

printed in 6 JAL l 03-8, at l 05: «The law m u st fight its way forwarcl in the general reconstruction of African action and thought and keep to remou le! the generally distorted Afr,can p,c t u re in ail other fields of life so as to give the African a legal standard

u pon

which African legal history in its various compartme nts could be hopefully built

... Law does not operate in a vacuum».

(b) Dr. Nierere's emphasis

considerations

local ne eds, at pp. 150-1 of same Journal:

«ou r aim is nov, to reach the villages and not the moon». ( ') Dr. Gabriel d'Arbou ssier, Senegalese Minister

Justice, in «The Significance of the

Lagos Conference» (vol. no. 1 JICJ Geneva, 1961) as q uoted by Colin Legun, in c<Pan-Africanism - a short political gu_ide» - Praeger, N.Y. Revised ecl. (1965), at 127: . « ...S,m,·1 ar1 y, principles

lav./ applied in Africa mu st achieve a synthesis

between more recent and cus ton1ary law».

32.

Fault, Recueil Complet des Travaux Préparatories ( 1827-8), l at 481, q uoted by Amos

Ill NOTES . CBAPTER

2n d ed. by Lawson et al. Oxford, at , w La ch en Fr to n oductio and V✓alton, Intr n1ments of Portalis in 1 Fault, co e th so al e ot N . 32 Press (1963), at Clareclon

de Civil ( 1836), at xciii, quoted Co du s ire ato ar ép Pr x au av Tr Recue.il CompI et des a Chapter I note 31 at 839, pr su t. ci op , em st Sy w vil La by von �Aehren, The Ci n. 71:

«What a spectacle opened before our eyes! Facing us was only a confused shapeless mass of foreign and French laws, of general and particular customs, of abrogated and non-abrogated ordinances, of contradictory regulatlons and conflicting decisions; one encountered nothing but a mysterious labyrinth, and, at every moment, the guiding thread escaped us. W e V✓ere always on the point of getting lest in an immense chaos».

33.

David, supra Chapter I note 66, at 6.

34.

David, Private Communication �A»:

(

«Les n1embres de la cornrnission ne connaissaient

que

les coutun1es

des

Amharas, plus specialmente dans le Choa et le Bege1nder, aussi occasion nellement dans le Godjan1. Les couturnes des autres régions ont pu me servir, dans la misure où j'ai pu les connaitre par des lectures. ,'v\ais j'ai eu ur, certain niai à les faire admettre par les n,embres de la commission. lis ont a1ns1 suprin1é cornme inutile toute une chapitre où j'avais voulu regler la con1n1unauté de village (enda)

pratiquée au Tigre et en

Erythrée. Pour

l'adoption on a tenu compte de coutun,e galla». 35.

Ho!mes O.\h/, «The Common Lav✓ », Paperback ed. by De Wolf How, Oxford ( 1963), at 1 .

36.

37. 38.

Wise & Winfiecl, op. cit. supra, Chapter 1, note 110, at 103. David, supra Chapter I note 66, at 8. See aise Krzeczunornicz, supra Chapter I note 107 , at 174, \.-vho surnmarizes then1 as being: (a) sufficiently certain and articu late; (b) largely followed in the high-

39.

land.s; and ( c) no t repugnant t0 « basrc · f·ollovving, natural justice or econonliC progress». lt is aise gratifying to know tl 1at t 11e Coc1ification Con,mission used a comparable principle of se lection as the Comn1entators of Gondar did with re· spect to the Fetha Neghast, see supra Chapter I notes 25 and 27. David, supra Chapter I not e 18, at 501-2: « ... est declaré responsable par le code, à l'égard de la victime ou de sa famille, en dehors toute faute de sa part».

1 •

NOTES • CHAPTEil III

40.

David, supra Chapter I note 18, at 502; see also Vanderlinden, supra Chapter t note 7, at 53. As to Family Arbitrators, see David, Private Communication «A».

41.

Krzeczunowicz G., New legislative approach to custo1nary law: The t<Repeals» Provision of the ECC of 1960», in Journal of Ethiopian Studies, vol. 1 No. 157 ( 1963}, at 65.

42.

Vanderlinclen, supra Chapter I note 7, at 53.

43.

See n. 14 Chapter

Il. As ta the technical

111eaning of the terms «legal situation»

and ccconsequence» appearing in Art. 3348 ECC, see this writer's unpublished paper, at Yale Law School (N.H.) supra Chapter I note 10. As ta general problems of statutory interpretation in Ethiopia and special reference to custom when law is si lent, see Krzeczunowicz G., «Statutory lnterpretation in Ethiopia» 1 JEL 315, 321

( 1964); as ta inter-differences between «Executive» enactments, see Krzecz::u nowicz G., «Hierarchy of Laws in Ethiopia» in 1 JEL 11 ( 1964). 44.

David, Private Comn,unication «A».

45.

David, supra Chapter note 18, at 501: «La base du code si trouve dans le sentiment de justice clu people éthiopien».

46.

David, Ibid., at 499: «li suffit de lire ces diverses parties du code pour coinvacre qu'il sagit d'un code civil éthiopien, fait pour une societé qui, a bien des regarcls, est dif ferente des societes dell'occident éuropéen».

47.

David, supra Chapter I note 66, at 11-12.

48.

Krzeczunowicz, supra Chapter I note 107, at 139, where the French term «créance» has been given six different translations.

49.

Anozie and Read, Colloquium on African Law, London, June 1963, on Codification and Unification of Laws in Africa, 2 JAL 72-83 ( 1963) Vol. 2 no. 2. ( 1963}, at 82.

â&#x20AC;¢

PART

ANALYSIS 1, H E E X T R A - C O N T R A C TU A L r

LlABILi fIES PROVISIONS

â&#x20AC;¢

CHAPTER IV A

GENE R1\.L SURVEY

The comJ11on law te1·m of «to1·t», originally deriving from tl1e French, is undertood to mean «\vrong», «injt1ry» or «l1arm». When a wrong is ca used to a person, he may die or suffer bodily or 1nental har111. Wl1ere the unla,vful conduct of another concerns the person's property in the broad sense of the word, l1e may sttffer pecuniary loss. This wrongft1l conclttct may be eitl1e.r intentional or uni11tentional. The same w1·ongful harm may be of criminal or of a civil nature, depending as to whether it is seen from tl1e point of view of society gene rall:;r or merely as affecting individt1al persons, respectively. But reclress is made in botl1 cases, so that orclerly living becomes possible. lt takes tl1e forn1 of a sanction vis.à-vis criminal offe11ces and. tl1at of compensation in civil wro11gs. It is witl1 the latter that 1vve are he1·e concerned. 1. C O N T E N T S O F T I 1' LE X I I I

It bas already been mentioned tl1at the Ethiopian Civil Code contains 5 Books, one of whicl1 - the fourth - dealing wifh Obligations. Book IV is divided into the following three main l1eads: 1. Title XII - Contracts in General. » XIII - Extra-cont1·actual Liability and Unjust 2. Enrichment. 3. » XIV - Agency. In this sense, it rnay be said tl1at the arrangment of the Continental Law to have a Book specifically for obligations bas also been followed in Ethiopia. In this regard, it may also be 1·emembered that the separate department of «Obligations» is not recog11ized by the Comn1on Law. 1 Obligationes in Roman Iaw was described by Gait1s as consisting in contract and delict. Justinian added qt1asi-cont1·act and qt1asi-delict.2 Since then, tl1e classical Roman la,v inclt1lged in cliving clepartrnents of la,v into

CHAPTEil IV

.. clid a1 so do so in respect witl1 Oblîgations.1 These Roman four Parts and it . . . . law e11ch Fi the of on obl1gat1ons. . ience itlflt g tron s a d a h e v a b . conceptions 1al changes were tant Subs ted. gera exag be . not t s u m e But this influenc ' . . d ue t0 the writings of Dun. 1ou1m, d Argent. ré, Domat and Po. made ' maily . in the skeleton of Title Iaw Roman of traces see y a m e n o 1 e 1 thier.4 So, wl1 XIII, cat. 1tion is called for. . . 1e Frencl1 Code Czvzl had devo ted to the tl on reas ' ''Il \ "' o lm llll e m so r Fo . • s only 5 short articles (Arts. ong Wr il Civ of Law · tl1e ·th \.vI g lin d ea n io ct se . • • . s 1cl 1er es art Otl 1 ntn 228 cou w1:11 � 1382_1386), in a code which contained . similar codes made some improvement by mc1·eas1ng the numbe� of art�c les, but bis was far from satisfactory to the nee�s of �be present 1ndustnaliz.ed era.s A qtu"ck. look at some of tl1ese cou.ntr1es vv1ll help: (i)

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

14 articles and Uragt1ai Soviet Russia • » 15 Brazil 17 ltaly 18 Egypt Switzerland 21 Greece 25 Geimru1y 31 The record ,.vas held by Irak ,.vl1ich, in its rece·nt code, l1as 48 articles.6 )) ))

Title XIII of tl1e Etl1iopia.n Civil Code, on the otl1er band, bas a very impressi,,e list - it co.ntains no less tban 152 (Arts. 2027-2178), 135 of which deal with civil wrongs alone. The length of tl1e nun1ber of articles and the arrangement of tbis Title, make of the Etl1iopian Civil Code almost unique. having its «1Jarticularity1>, if not ingent1ot1s «orginality».7 This vvas done with a twofold objective in mind - it is up to the legislature and not to the courts to legislate; juclges should be given clear and certain rules upon which a «coherent system of rules» cot1ld b.e elaborated.8 It bas t,.vo Cl1ap ters, the first one dealing v.ritl1 Extra-cont1·actt1al Liability, st1bdivided as follows: Section »

» l> l>

I: II: III: IV:

Liability arising ou t of an offence (Arts. 2028-2065) Liability in tl1e absence of a1 1 offe11ce (Art 2066-2089) s. Macles and Extent of Con1pe11satio11 (A rts. 2090-2123) Liability foi· tl1e actions of ot l1ers (Arts. 2124-2136) Action for damages (Arts. 2 137-2161).

Ghapter 2 dea1s with UnJ·u · ·st Em··1ch 1nent wh1cl1 . " 1s not, of cou1·se, pa.rt of IDe,1'.ists but m ·ay fit ' more . 1ess, the Restate1nent or • '9 description of Rest1tuU0n. It has 3 Sections:

ANALY!IS • THE EX1'RA CON1'RAC1'UAL LIADlLITI ES PROVISIONS

Section » )>

I: General P1·ovisions II: Und11e Paymets III: Expenses

( A1·ts. 2162-2163) ( » 2164-2167) ( » 2168-2178).

Tl1e fi1·st 1.1 a1·ticles of Title XIII are general in natw·e, not unlike the otl1er Codes. As one pen1ses tl1e rest of the articles, I1owev.er, icleas coming from Ron1ai1 Iaw, Moclem Civil law, Common Iaw, 10 and it is submitted Ethiopian Custon1ary law, are to be found in abw1clance. Before plunging in.ta tl1e analysis of tl1ese different sources, it might be usefttl to see, briefly, tl1e differe11ce of a.pp1·oacl1 obtainable i11 tl1ese systems.

CLASSIFICATION A. LAW FROM THE CONTINENT. (i)

Co11.stitittive Ele11ients:

Generally speaking, French law speaks of resporz.sabililé civile, to de note commonly civil wrongs, as co11trasted to responsabilité pènale, \Vl1ich refers to wrongs punishable under c1·iminal law. In view of tl1e fact, howe ver, that the forme1· term may also include contracts, the term respon sabilité d'élictuelle is preferable: while tl1e word «délit» is properly ap plied only to intentional harms - unintentional harm being desc1·ibed as quasi-délits, - the expression la responsabilité clélictuelle is 11sed wl1en re ferring to liability for civil wrongs of every kincl, othe1· than a breach of contract wl1ere la respo1isabilité contractiLelle is instead the correct ter minology.11 I-Ience, the choice of the term extra-corztracti,elle used in the Ethiopian Civil Code. This subject is equi\1 alent to tl1at wltich Anglo-Ameri can lawyers call Torts 12 and whicl1 will be tl1e subject of tl1e discussion in topic (B) w'hich wil1 follow. It is not always easy to distinguish between contractual and delictal liability. However, the main distinguishing factor seems to lie not so much on the facts constituting the element of civil vv1·ong - for botl1 may con tain all such elements - as in the «legal relationsl1ip of the parties».ll Tl1us, the to e cl11 ely sol is ity bil lia al ctu tra con 14 , ory ing the accord t o the classical non-performance or defective performance of the cont1·act willi11gly entered ul gf on \vr e tl1 e er I I. ity bil lia l ta lic de in so t No into by tl1e parties concemed. in st di of ce an rt po im e tl1 1d a1 s: tie du d an har1n per se creates Iegal rights e tl1 to as ce an lev 1·e t ea gr a ve l1a ill w s ie guish ing between th e t\vo Iiabilit presentation of evidence.15

CRA.PTER IV

rd to liability arising out ga re l1 it w w la l1 nc re F of Tlle cla.ssical theory on ry iti nd ssa co ce ne of civil a is l1 ùc \-Vl . . e) · litt c (f· t l fau 5 1· of a c1v11 vvrong or th e of tl1e ha.rrn, th au by d te it m m co t ul fa 1e tl h it \.v liability. Together al relation be(ween us ca a cl an e ag m da e ar 1ts e1 em el otller two essential y in Frencl1 lit of bi 16 ns lia tio da n u. fo e th t, or sh In e. ag m tlie fault and the da on here is very ti ca ar 1n de of e lin e tl1 1 gl ou tb ity al law are fa.ult, caLis tl1in - and damage. 1; (Ü) Don1r1'zages:

Once tl1ese tl1ree elements have been p1·oved to exist, the next step \.vould be to dstinguisl1 the ki11d of damage sufferecl. Unlike the corn.mon law, French law app·ears to l1ave had no difficulty i11 classifying damages into n.vo main bead.s called material damages (le doniniage niatériel) or moral dan1ages (le domniage moral). 18 The former is applicable to eve11' kind of Joss wl1icl1 can be n1easured in money and hence relates to the victin1's rigl1ts of property; tJ1e latte1· «affects 01ùy extra-pat1i111onial rights» wl1ich includ.e, an1011g other tl1ings, <lainages arising OL1t of insults, defa mation, sedL1ctio11 or even out of judicial e1Tors. 19 Unlike fa.ult, damage is a. necessary and constant element of liability. Sin.ce tl1e fu11ction of ci,,il responsibility is to indemnify, liability at times can be i11dependent of fau.lt proper but it inva1-iably prestipposes damage. Moreover, tl1e words «damageu ( clo1n1nage), «l1arm» or «injury» (pré juclice) are generally considered syno11ymous; as sucl1 are interchangeably used to denote tl1e injury, loss or damage suffered.20 B. TI-IE COMMON LAW: (i)

T1ieories:

It \.vas classical Ron1an la\.v that started a distinction betwee11 private \.vrongs ancl lJublic \1/ro11gs ancl eventual]y between two different actions · l·1 • Gradually, tl1e · penal an d tl1e CI\' · the · se ca1ne to belo11g to two different classes of \.vrongs, but no act tl1at did not co 1·responcl to the clefinition of a particular wrong - be it c1v1 · ·1 or penaJ - COL1Jd be so conside red. T1-uly, therefore, «Ron1an law, like Eng1·1s11 01· Am . er1.ca11 law , lc.no\.vs only of par. . 1ia.cular, nomulate wrongs» ai1d tl1at in tl1 is respect, it migl1t be «easier to compare th e com1non · law w·t 1 b Roman 1aw tl1 . an \.V1tl1 Fre11cl1 la,.v».21 How accurate is this ? For many . . . . . years amoog th e publ1c1sts of tl1e e0mmon la\.v world tl1ere existed a debate as to wl1ether tl1e co1um . on la w . h'a· s me.reJy a law of torts o r a ·Iaw . ,22 ai1d, acco • 0f toit rd111gly, tl1e1·e envolv ed

ANALYSIS

THE EX'fll.A · CONl'R;\.C'f UAL LlABILITIES PROVISIONS

two theories. 011e is that tl1ere is in tl1e conm1on Iaw a collection of a num ber of mo.re 01· less specific actions cleriving I1istorica1ly f i·om tlle ancient comn1on la\v vv1·its. In tl1e Midclle Ages, no clistinctio11 coulcl be l1acl as to wl1at today an1o. u11ts to «cri111es», « to1·ts>> ancl «b1·eacl1es of contract». A person stiffering harm l1ad to conside1· vvl1at fonn of re111edy I1e I1ad to cl1oose, for there \.Vas onl)7 a specifiecl 1·emedy foi· a specified wrong, obtainable only in the King's Courts. 23 Fr·om tl1e fourteentl1 ce11tu1-y to tl1e 11i11eteenth centtu-y, therefore, the pe.rson clesi1·ing to b1·ing an action in tl1e King's Cot11î:s bacl to have a vvrit - 11an1ely, a doct1111e11t com1nanding the wrongdoer to appear befo1·e the court to answer tl1e claim brot1ght against l1im - witl1in a 1·ecognized form of actio11, baving its O\VIl rules of pleacling a.nd proceclt1re; it was tl1e ,v1·it tl1at determined tl1e rigl1t. Hence, it l1as been correctly stated that «wl1ere tbere was a remecly tl1ere was a rigl1t, and not otl1erwise».2� If the persan sl1ould make a mistake in bis choise of form of action, tl1en he \vould !ose bis case. In tl1e seventeenth century tl1ere was a tendency to grot1p the various kinds of civil wi·ongs under a convenient writ, given for a vvrong called Trepass - a very wid.e a11d all-encompassing remedy .25 In the ninteenth centt1ry some of the forn1s of action \.Vere abolished; others an1ended by statute. And now empbasis is primarily given to tl1e stating of material facts a11d tl1e ultimate consideration facing tl1e Court will be not wl1ether tl1ey fit a correct fo1·111 bt1t wl1etl1er they disclose a good cause of action.26 In its pt11·est form, tl1en, this theory holcls that tl1ere is only a list of specific actions, giving remedies in specific cases and unles the suit is brought within tl1e specific confines of the action concerned, there cannot be any remecly. The seconcl theory clai1ns the cont1·ary. It envisages a general nùe which is applicable - 111utatis mutcL11cl-is - to ail situations \.vhere a tort is committed. rfhere are strong aclherents of both tl1eories among ct1rrent writers. 27 One of tl1e stat1ncl1est supporters of the latter theory is Sir Percy Winfield ancl tl1e title, following the footsteps of Sir F. Pollock, given to his reno\vned book on to1·ts is sig1illicant. 28 Nevertheless, the weigl1t seen1s to be heavie1· in respect of tl1e first; it is a fact that even no\.v, of the «major textbooks, only one l1as fewer than t\ve11ty clivisions»,29 of the con1mon law of torts. Still, there are 111any w1·0.11gs wl1icJ1 are innominate. This state of affai1·s obliges one to say witl1 Si1· Percy Winfielcl, that as a family grottp torts may be divicled into tl1ree: «tl1ose which received names

CRAPTER l:V

tism in their liÏl\ler 1i iti ba va ai be g to em se . h lic wl . soon afte1, btrth·, tl10se . ough to :make 1t dQl!lbtfuJ en n taz cer un is iify n · ter pa ose • 1 1 years and t.11ose \V . y a t. ail». 30 . 1l rn in tl1e fa ed d u cl in e b to t gh ou ey tl1 whethe1· (ii) Constitutive Elem.ents: he t · d n ily c fi. eas tin dis y 1na e on tion law l ura ced pro at ks loo e on. If tiate, speaking tan to bs ult su fic dif ry ve ms see it t bu t tor d an me cri een bet\.v of common Jaw, the assertion made regarding the French law , that «crime goes to punishme. nt, tort to comp· ensation», a s punitive damages are also aw-arded in to1·t suits.31 The usual definition of Tort in co1nmon law is that made by the late Sir Pe·rcy Winfield who described it as a <<b1·each of a duty primarily fixed hy the law: ... t0\1/ards persons generally» a11d the breach of which is «redressible by a11 action for unliquidated damages».32 Although Jenks in his detailed E11glish Civil Law33 adopts this defini tion, he also warns that it should not be regarded as «dogmatic».This is so, because the common la\v knows of no clar-cut definition of fault, causa tion and damages.I11deed, it has been suggested that the term «damages» as used by comn1.on lawyers is tl1e closest equivalent to the continental «civil liability».3◄ The matte,r is still more complicated when - one considers that the duty of care is J:>ectlliar to the la\v of negligence a11d that the latter terxn has a double meaning: in one sense it is the mental element which can be inferred in the commission of a certain tort as, for instance, in the negli ge.nt publication of a defamatory staten1ent as contrasted to intentional llai:m.In the second sense, it means a.n indipenclent tort called the «tort of negligence» and whicl1, as essential elements requires a Iegal duty, a breach of that cluty and consequential darnages 35 In tlus latter sense it . may be nearer to the description of a «delict» i11 French la\v. Again, when remoteness of damage is bein.g considered - that is whether or not da111ages are sufficiently proximate to the defendant's breach 0f duty - it is tanta.mount to looking fo r t11e cause of the injury. 36 h practice, however, the resuts reached m ay be similar to those of �he Cantinent. Fault may or may no t play a part but substantially the sa.me recquiremen 3 : ts will continue to coexist. 7 �inatly, it may be just mention.ed tl 1at also here tl1e same circumstan s-es ma� give rise to liability b at h in tort and contract ( as the negligence et a: meâï.ea!l cl.o.e . - t0r).• or, t 0 b0tb . · tort and crune (as 111 assault); or to ail • (lllùee �as 00 tvbe àallger, ous driving by a ta xi driver) ..lS Recently, a writer'9

r\NALYSIS • TEIE EXTRA· CONTll.ACTUA L LIABILITIES PROVISIONS

bas per5uasively triecl to pin clow11 respective zo11es of influence between contract and tort in Englancl. (iii) 1\/Jeasure of Dan1a . .ges: Catala and Wei1·, ,.vl10 in a series of articles, l1ave made a detailed study of tl1e Frencl1 délit ancl tl1e English tort, fincl it impossible to make a neat classification equivale11t or comparable to that of France regarding the kind of damages, and report tl1eir findings as follov.,s: «The effort required to ,coax the Englsh lavv of torts into the pleasingly neat categories of Frencl1 law is particularly obvious when tl1e category is «damage». Tl1e concept is absent from the digest and indices, ancl it bas never been a central tapie of discus sion. The common lawyer would 11eve,r ask l1imself the question <cwhat damage is redressible in an action of tort»? - the system concentrates on i11jilria, not dcL11111IUm - so it is not surprising tl1at it is difficult to answer. There are botl1 functional ancl historical reasons for this».40 Again, tl1e main distinctio11 - knovvn also to the Romans - between pbysical and pect1niary damages, dependi11g as to whether the damage is done by direct or indirect tQrt, is 11ot so clearly made:1 Th.e resttlt is that damages are given several and varied names such as substantial,· nominal; contemptuoiis; exe111.plary ( or vindictive or punitive),· \vl1ile the most corn mon type of damages is called co,11.pensato,ry.42 To this may be added un liquidated damages43 - stim left to the assessment by the trial court as opposed to liquidated; and special damages - damage specifically plead ed - as opposecl to general. 4'' Although there js no clear distinction between t11e category of material a.nd moral damages, tl1e latter do have a place in the system. But in sucl1 a case it may be diffictilt to distinguisl1 tl1e compensatory from the puni tive.45 Aggravated clamages a,.varcled i11 similar circumstances add confusion to chaos. In the United States a distinction, sirnilar to that of Ron1an law,46 at least in theory, seems to have been allowed in the main; 41 and definitely, punitive damages are avvarcled quite frequently.48 As for the variety of kinds of damages, the same 11t1mbe1· seen1s still to pre,,ail.49

CHAP'fEil IV 58

: c. CUSTOM.ARY LAW : ts 11 e 1n le E ,e i, Lt ti ti s i 1' o C (i) . l Nati-tre: (a) Cr'imina It is a tisual assertion tbat ancient societies did not distinguisl1 between ciimes and civil ,vrongs.50 Dr. Elias, bowever, l1as argued with force that thi.s is inaccurate, at least as far as Af1ica is concemed.51 It is, according to bim, dangerotis to malce sucl1 generalizations, foi· what n1ay constitute a criminal offence in one place may not be so in a.i1otl1e1· corner of the ,.vorld, or even in the same part tl1e1·eof. Tl1e differe11ce (if any) is one of d.egree a.nd n.ot of ter,n. To illustl:rate lus point, Dr. Elias draws the reader's attention to the case of Fair1iurst v. Sproson.52 Mr. Fairl1urst, aged 71, was livi11g with Mrs. Sproson (who ,vas his nience) and !1er husband, when one day Mrs. Sproson removed E. 436 out of E. 500 wl1ich were i n a box for buiscuts but inside ber uncle's stiitcase. \,Vhe11. tl1e uncle brot1gl1t a civil suit Judge Pearson l1eld tl1e facts provecl and o r. dered tl1e retum of the sum ,vitl1 costs. But tl1e learned judge had also found tl1e suitcase had only been loosly secured a.nd tl1at, by lus carelessness of leaving it in such a manne1·, Mr. Fairl1urst l1ad placed bis cousin in temptation. Therefore, suggests D;r. Elias, the same conside1·ations of domestic affairs which led the jt1.dge to awa1·d civil da111ages in E11gland, con11Jel African societies to consider as civil, ci11cwnsta11ces tl1at may be of crin1inal natt1re. As exam ples whlcl1 ,:vould generally be regarded as criminal i n Africa, the same auth.or e11umerates ce1·tai11 abominable offences wl1ich in Africa.n eyes are morally v..u:ong, such as murder, theft and homosexuality. As far as Etl1iopia is ,concerned, it is difficult to accept this classifica tion ,vitl1out qt1alificatio11. Certainly, 011e will reaclily agree that identical wrongful acts ma)' be considered as civil w1·00.gs in the \Vestern warld ,vhile tl1ey m.ay be said to co11stitt1te criminal offences in Africa or vice,. versa. But one cannot escape the conclusion that Ethiopia, t1ntil recently, except for a few cases ,vl1ich concerned the State or tl1e Church, bad the dualism of crime-civil wrong and conseqt1e11tly, no clear disti11ction was made there between the t wo not• ion · s.s1 D1·. Russell54 recot1nts J1is experence whiJe i n Ethiopia wl1ere l1e had to in.form a «be, .vildered former _ Washrngton lawyer» of tlle amount of bloocl-money to be pa id foi· the ac. ô1clenta1l death of a young E tl11o • p1. an boy killed by a vel1icle di.-iver by an . . !\mencan. soldie r. Again ·' tlie same auth . ng of tl1e .1mpo1rtance of . or , sp ea ki . G�t0� 1aw rn . . ed . Africa bu·t bY unp .. . t1on l1ca ref err po1nt 111g to Ethiopia ' ' , 0� 'Vhat American i;orces Or Other me . 1nbers of t1·aining 1nissions will find

ANAl,YSIS • 'fBE EX1'Ri\ · CUNTRACTUAL LlADILITIES Pl{OVISIONS

that in claims .for acciclental i11jt1ries 01· cleatl1 caused eitller by motorcars or htmting expeditio11s «1·t1les as to co11t1ributory or con11Jai·ative negligence, and tl1e diffe1·e11ce betv.1ee11 crin1e a11d tort are generally irrelevant».s, Tlle veneratecl FetJza Negast itsel.f is tl1e best exan1ple of tl1e mime-civil wrong dt1ality, as tl1ose conce1"11ecl witl1 tl1e JJre1Jaration of tl1e recent Penal Code of Ethiopia fotu1d ot1t.s6 (b)

Civil Nati1.re:

Tl1 at e\7e11 a11cie11t soçieties 111ay l1 ave co11sidered son1e vvrongful acts as ptu·ely civil in natt1re may \v. ell be talce11 for g1rantecl. In sucl1 a case, there will be no diffict1lt)' to distinguisl1 between crime and tort ancl to ag1·ee witl1 D1·. Elias tl1at 1-\.f1·ica, too, knows of tl1is disti11ction.57 Tbtts, t11ere wotùd b. e ci,1 il \VJrongs clearly wl1ere cattle destroy another JJe1·son's croJJS or l1is stacks of l1 ay, 01· \vl1e1·e a person ligl1ts fire on son1e dry leaves ancl tl1rough tl1e action of tl1e \,Vind sets fire to a neigl1bou1·ing l1t1t.58 Tl1ese are 1rnive1·sal problen1s and are eqt1ally applicable to Etl1iopia.

(c) Da,11.ages: For tl1e avvarcl of da111 ages as compensatio11 for tl1e w1·ongft1l be haviour, one would expect that tl1e respo11sible perso11 l1 as been identifiecl vvitl1 the damage con1plained of. Tl1ougl1 the proof n1ight be dot1btftù ancl at tin1es very difficult to assess the extent or tl1 e seriot1sness of the dam age, 01·dina1y civil wrongs are entitled to compensation. St1cl1 wot1ld be the case, to take tl1e saine examples, wl1ere the plaintiff hacl eitl1er bis but or c1·ops destro)1ed. No disti11 ction - in tl1e Firencl1 manner - between material a11d moral damages may be practicable in st1ch ancient com1nunities, but one may well expect that both wot1ld give 1·ise to compensation. In Ethiopia, as every where, people are susceptible concerning their l1 onotir a.nd rept1ta tion and tl1e n1atter n1ay gai11 acl decl fo\fce, depe11ding on tl1e importance of tl1e plaintiff, ancl tl1e respect given to hin1 \,vitl1in sucl1 co1nmtmity. Thus, anyone w .ho dared to offe11 d - in. a 111a1me1· contrai-y to tl1e orclinary mo res - eitl1er tl1e cl1ief or the spi1itt1al a11cl religious leader of the village or their wives, may be belcl Iiable to pay compe11sation in a more severe manner than l1e wotùd otl1erwise pay in tl1 e case of a sim_ple villager.59 Again, a civil wro11g may be coinrnittecl if one shot1lcl ve11ture to fail in paying l1is .re spects cl11rin. g a ftrneral, as 1\rt. 261 of tl1e Aclghe11à Teghelebà Codes n1akes it clec:tr.60

611

CilAl'TER JV

Apart from corporeal atonem.ent such as flogging - a sanction usuaIIy available for serious criminal offences - damages may talce pecuniary fonn 61 TI1e customary payment of con1pensation in . restitution simple . of that or the form of cattle, however, has long b.ecome obsolete and has expresselv â&#x20AC;˘ 6 been abolisl1ed by \.Vritten customary la\v. ďż˝

•

C H A P T E R IV

Catala, P., and Weir, J.A., Delict and Torts: A Study in Parallel, 37 Tul. L. Rev. 573, 578 (1963).

Buckland, W., and Mc Nair, A., Roman Law and Con,mon Law, 2nd ed. by Lawson, Cambridge ( 1965), p. 193.

Leage, R.W., Roman Private Law, (3rd ed. by Prichard) London, Mc Millan and Co., Ltcl. (1961) at 313.

Gi I issen, J., Introduction historique a u Droit Civil (2e partie): Elements d'histoire du Droit Privé, U.L.B., Bruxelles (2nd ecl.) (1966), 73; on influence of Roman Law

on French Law generally, see Imbert, J., Histoire du Droit Privé, «Q.S..J.» Series n. 408, P.U.F., Paris (1961). 5.

Though some special laws may well have been enacted to supplement the insuHiciency.

David, R., Un Project de Code sur la Responsabilité Civile, reprinted from vol. 1, «Dos Estudos Jurldicos Em Honra de Soriano Neto, University of Refice, Pernam

buco, Brazil (1962), at 233. 7.

Ibid., at 247; David, R., La Refonte du Code Civil dans les Etats Africaines, in An• nales Africaines 1962 (Dakar) Paris ( 1965), at 11.

Paton, G.W., A Text Book o f Jurisprudence, (3rd ed. by Perhan1) Oxford (1964), at 417.

David, supra note 6, at 237.

1O.

Russell, F.F., The Ethiopian Civil Code, 29 Brooklyn, L. Rev. 236-239 (1963) ·

11.

Amos and Walton, Introduction to French Law, (2nd ed. by Lawson et al.) Oxford (1963).

12.

Catala and Weir, supra note 1, at 577.

NOTES • CHA PTEll IV

------------

l 3. 14.

15. 16.

t 201. a , 11 te no a pr su t. ci . Op Amos and Walton, . Cie, Paris 1952, §. 1667 et seq. and au sse Rou ile, C.iv e , it , R. Rodiére, La Responsab.1 Beadant's Cours de Droit Civil Français, Ch. of bis IX e om T ( Reproduced from Pigeonniére). s ur bo re Le d an R. nt da au Be 2nd ed. by

Ibid., § 1668. Walton o, op. cit. supra note 11, and An,os , 593• , at te 1 no a pr su , Catala and Weir at 203.

17.

ford, at the Claredon Press ( 1950), at 50. Lawson, F.W., Negligenge in the Civil Law, Ox

18.

, 671 ( 1964) where a third But see Catala and Weir, Part Ill, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 663 head is adcled, called corporeal damage comprising of bath mora l and rnaterial damages; see aise Carbonnier J. Theorie des Obligationes, Them is, P.U.F. Paris ( 1963) 339 ( § 172).

19.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 11, at 209.

20.

Cata!a and Weir, supra note 18, at 663.

21.

Catala and Weir, supra note 1, at 583.

22.

Winfield, Sir. P.H., A. Textbook of the Law of Tort (5th ed.) Sweet and fv\axwell, London (1950) pp. 12-18, Russell, Lecture.s, at 174.

23.

Han1ish R. Grey, The Law of Civil Injuries, H.U.L., London ( 1955), at 11-12.

24.

Id.

2 5.

Id.

26.

That is in theory at least, for as Maitland ren1arked (The Forms of Action at Com môn Law, London

(1936) p. 2), in practice the forms «still rule from their

graves», quoted by Hamish Grey, op. cit. supra note 23, at 14; in fact, «even at the present time» continues Sir John Salmond (Law of Torts, 13t ed. by Heuston , h London (1961) p.2.) after quoting

Maitland, «ail

satisfactory

definition

and

classification of clifferent species of such inj uries n1ust be based on the old pro <:edurre distinctions between forms of actions an d must conforn1 to those distinc tisns except in so far as they no lon ger have any relations to the substantive law af tlile pr�sent day »; see also W infield op. cit. (6th ed. Le wi s 1954) at 2-5 as as Gifed by Von Mehren, op. cit. su pra Chapter 1, note 31, at 348: «A ny action was { iad�d il! st<ill is) usually comm enced by a royal writ issuecl fron 1 the chancery . • · a �Yerimmerat depaiitment · • • kn own aise as officina breviurn w hich has been con �elilientl� ft.'1ranslated as the «writ-shop».

Stli i!fflt, �-, iFh"i �w (Pf Tort s, 3rd ed., London I (1963), p. 6; Cfr., also Presser, W.L.,

NOTES • CBAP1'ER IV

63 ----------------- -------------�

A t-lanclbook of the Law of Torts, 2nd ed. Handbook ( 1955) 1, 18; Buckland .:ind

f,.�c l'lair, op. cit. supra note 2, at 338.

28.

See supra note 22.

29.

Catala and Weir, supra note l, at 605.

30.

\'v'infield, op. cit. supra note 22, at 206-7 ( author's italics).

31.

Catala and Vveir, supra note l, at 596.

32.

Winfielcl, A Texlbook of the Lav-, of Tort, ( 6th ed.) London ( 1954) at 5.

33.

Jcnks, E., English Civil Law ( 4th ed. by Winfielcl et al) Vol. 1., London ( 1947) Sec 702; l:iut sec also follov,iing de-finition, appe2ring in the 5th ed. ( 1953), p. 319, citcd by Russell Lectures, at 177: «A tort is a civil v,rong, not being a breach of contract, for v1hich an action lies ëlt Con11non Law . .. ».

34.

Catala and Weir, supra note 1, at 578.

35.

Wienfield, op. cit. supra note 22, at 402.

36.

Hamish Grey, op. cit. supra note 23, at 152.

37.

Catala and V✓e:ir, supra note l, at 598; see also sarn� (pt1rt Ill) 33 Tul. L. Rev. 663 ( 1964) at 666, \vhere present doul:Îtful situation in England ·,s thus statecl: «it is irnpossible to say cither that da1nage is alvvays necessary in an action of tort or that, where cla1nage is requirecl, any forrn of factual harn1 \Atill satisfy that re quirement . .. Son,e forms of behaviour are actionable by a proper plaintiff al though no darnage has ensued; others are t1ctionable only if damage of an ap propriate kind has l:leen causecl; but, once behaviour is actionable for either re ason, any consequent loss not excluded by rules of remoteness or policy, may be remcclied».

38.

Fisher, J., The Law of Torts, Nutshell Series, London ( 1958), at 1.

39.

Jolowikz, J. A., in Ci'.lse and Comn1e11t, The Carnb. L. J. April 1965, at 27-30.

40. Cataiël and Vveir, supra note 18, at 665. 41.

La1,vson, F.H., The Duty of Care in Negligence, 22 Tul. L. Rev. 113-126 (1947-1948).

42.

Paton, op. cit. supra note 8, at 441-42; l-lù1nish Grey, op. cit. supra not0 23, at 154-55.

-13.

Ibid., at 11; also Vvienfield, op. cit. supra not::? 22, at 158-50.

44.

Fisher, op. cit. suprn note 38, at l 00.

45.

Catala and Weir, supra note 18, at 666, n. 9.

46.

See suprn note 42.

47.

L�l'rt�on, op. cit. supra note 41. at 113-126.

48.

Calala and \f-/elr, supra note 18, at 666, n. 9.

N<JTES • GHAP'FER FV

49.

To11ts, vol. IV The Restament of the Law of Anierican law, Cfri.

50_

( 1939) Sec. 90 l

et s� : Aise a.s t,,. 1 "

2 Harper and James, Law �f Torts, at 12ql9-13Jf) {19S6} .

See notably Maine, H.J.S., Ancient Law ( ed. by Sir F. Pollock) L01ë1dom, .!JelilA Murray

( 1906), 397, clted by Elias T.O. The Nature of African Law ( Frem<::h trar;Jslarion: La Nature du Droit Coufumier Africaine) in Présence Africaine, Paris ( 196 l), 129-30.

51.

Ibid., at Chapter VI 1.

S:2. lihe- Oajfy Tele9raph, London, 31 st October, 1952.

sa.

Os.tini, F., Trattato di Diritto Consuetudinario dell'Eritrea, Tip0grafia Silla, Asrnara,

( 19:56), Chqpter IV, passim. 54.

Russell, F ..F., Eritre�n Customary Law, 3 JAL 99, 101 ( 1959).

55.

Russell, F.F., in Book Review Comments, 17-28, Brooklyn L. Re.v. 366,369 ( 1960-1962).

56.

Graven, J., The Penal Code of the Empir,e of Ethiopia, 1 JEL 267-290 ( 1964).

57.

Elias, op. cit. supra note 50, at 180; as to the Lav, of Tort in Nigeria, sae Elias T.O.,

The Nigerian Legal System London ( 1963), Chapter XIV. 58.

Ibid., at 178.

59. Oslini, op. cit. supra not.e 53, at 4 1 -43. 60.

Ibid., at 77.

61. 6liaven, su;pra note 56, at 289. 62. See Art. 222 of The Adghena Teghelebà Code . •

CllAPTER

v·

1'fJE LAW FllOM 'l'I-IE CON1·1�E�T 1 I. GENERAL RUI�ES:

1. SOURCES OF EXTRA-CONTllACTUAL LIABILITY (Art. 2027):

Tl1is is the basis of Title XIII of tl1e Etl1iopia11 Ci,,il Code, . Uncler tl1e present a1·ticle tl1e sources of Jiability are: a) damage a persan cat1ses to a notl1er by an «offence», outside • of a11y co11t1·actt1al obligations; b)

,vl1e1-e tl1e law so provid es, da.mage cat1secl to anotl1er by the «activity» in ,vl1ich the pe1·son engages or by an «abject» tl1at I1e IJOSsesses; or

' c) liability arising otrt eitl1e1· «resulti11g fro1n tl1e la,.v or the concluct of a tl1i1·d pa1-ty», foi· wl101n th.e perso11 is <cansvverable i11 Ia,v».

Tl1is is a paraph1-asing of tl1e Englisl1 text of tl1e cocle bt1t a11 imrne diate inaccurancy is reveale cl if one compares it vvith tl1e French eclition: 2 «SOURCES DE LA RESPONSABILITE' EXTRA-CONTRACTUELLE» J)

« Une

1Je1·so1111e est 1·espo11sable, en clel1ors cle tottt engagement de sa part, Iorsqt1'elle a, JJa1· sa fat1te, cat1se un clomage à autr11i.

2) Une perso1me est d'at1tre pa1"t 1·espo11sable, clans les cas prevus

JJa1· la loi, Io1-sqt1'.elle exerce trne activité

OLL

IJossede t1ne chose

qt1i cat1sent t111 dom111age à autr11i. 3) U 11e perso11ne est respo11salJ1e, enfin, clt1 fait cl'at1t1·t1i, lo1·squ'u. ne resposabilité, fo11dee st11� la faitte ou clerivant de la loi, est en cot1n1e pa1· t1ne IJerso1111e de qL1i la loi la decla1·è 1·es1Jo11sable)).

----------------- ------

CI1Al'TgH V

se to ot l u n e fu th rc ca Eli} ry r. ve te e er w e cl ti ar e 1 lJ of The fraiuers n t a ee ic el tw «d be » and a n io t1s rif co e . th cl oi av t· . Cl 1o , ly ab • • «cle 1.ct», pi e-st1ru 4 g es to 1n 1m rr cr , fe 1·e on tl\e as t» lic le ,<c d , an 11 d a 1 1 e · 1 01 e L1l on » 3 t 1c «qua1• -c 1 e1e iit s fa ancl fczit. 'fhe rm te e th e us to g i11 i11 v.r r, ve , ve 1o , J e, er vv other. 1�he)' enc�·-, IJt1rpo·�·ts to be ff «o it bt r tte la e tI1 ce lt1 oc iJr re t no Etlglish text cloes _ , s tru 1s obv1ous. ]!1 e of ce an 1�t po irn e Th e. ut fa of n tio la ns tra l a i. tlle offic 6 e} itl ,vlucl1, as alreacl.9 (fa t ttl fa of at tl1 is le tic ar e tl1 of y lic po Llnderlying gs in Fr an .ce. ·on il ,v1 civ of t ou 1g si1 ari ity bil lia or is . s e ba 1 tl is me11tionecl, articles together with The FrencJ1 text of A1·t. 1382 ancl tl1e other pertaining 7 ry cto isfa rly sat fai a t Englisl1 Bt1 . tes l\Jo the in d 1n. fot be -#il s, ent 1 1 cln et am translat ion8 of the samc article migl1t be, all tl1e same, of assistance l1ere: «Any act by \,vhicl1 a JJerso11 caL1ses damage to anotl1er 111akes tl1e JJCrsoo b_y ,vl1ose fat1lt tl1e cla111age occurrecl liab le to mal<e tl1e reparation for sucl1 dan1age». lt \vill be r1oiiced tl1at t]1e tern1 «fact>) (fait) of Article 1382 of the F1·encl1 Ci\ril Code is also fottt1d i11 Article 2043 of tl:1e Italia11 Ci\;il Code of 1 942,9 witl1out rnentioni:ng tl1e Belgian10 and tl1e Quebec11 Civil Cocles vvl1icl1, on Lhis matter, appea1· to be a mere repreduction of tl1e Fre11cl1 Civil Code. Tt migl1t be that ll1e acct1rate 1·endition of tJ1e word in Englisl1 is «act», as botl1 Vou Mel1renn a11d Lawsonu see1n to prefer it to «fact». l_f that is tl1e case, tl1en, «act» and 11ot <(offence» is th.e eqt1ivalent of the Frencl1 tenu <(fait» appearing in Art. 2027 (3) of tl1e Ethio1Jian Civil Cocle. Bt1t the n1at ter does t1ot rest tl1ere. Tl1e tern1 acte l1as also bee11. L1tilized in tl1e Fre11ch text, for i11stance irl Art. 2029 of the Etbiopian Civil Cocle wbicl1 explains tbe ir11po1~t of a «faute». Again, it 011e looks at a11otl1er ci,,il la,.v cot1nt1-y, Switzerla11cl, l1e vviJl fincl tb.at botl1 ter1ns l1ave been t1sed. 1� Anet 5•et, in classical Co11tinenta.l law, there is a sig11ificant clliference bet,veen Clcle jitricliqtte and fait jitriclique. Th e idea cam e fro111 tl1.e ge11ern lizecd German institL1tio n of Rechts-ges!iaf t (loosely translat ed as acte ju rid'iqi,e) Wb,ich does not exist in Co.mmon La vv. WindscJ1eicl l1as defined it tro mean «a m.ani:festatiot1 of tl1e l1t1111a11 will i11t encied to create, transfer, or d1istinguisl1 • • • · a rigl1 ·t 1·ecog1112e · d b Y Iaw» .1s ln 1ts • pt1rest form 1t 1s fou ocl �n.Iw in the B.G.B· and 1·n coi11·1t·r··.1·es w · · · 11 I1a,,e 1ts l11c h as cler1vat101 · 1s, st1c. l'.fu.aiiltaincd. ' Japan· a.a' d Ch·ina., 1· t· d oes not a1Jpear i n tl1e Italian Civil Cocle.16 : :P@llh:lol< ancl Jenks call 1·t «.Acts 1n · the Law» ancl «I-egal Acts», res1Jectively, � lLaing's translaition of tlre B.G.B. clefines it as <(JL1ristic Acts».1; We J1ave al1s0 G@l](€ 1lo lean1 fl·om Pato n that a «jtuistic act» is that wlu.ch creates dglil11t5 waQJ.er, a c0nït:rac11. 18

'l'HE LAW FilO�J 1'f:IE CON1ïNEN1'

The n1 ain differe11ce betvveen an <<acte j11riclic1 11 e» and a «fait jtlricliqtie» 19 Gene1·ally, as a n1a11ifestatio 11 or ex1Jression of tl1 e ·bonnie1·. Ca 1 by 11 give is will that is not co11t1·ary to law, the «acte j11riclique» necessarily prodttces legal effects, s11cl1 as t]1e creatio11 of co11t1·acts o.r tl1e malcing of wills. A «fait j11ridique», i1 1 stead, i s a p11 1·e 1naterial event, i11clipe11 clent of the will vvhich neecls 110 i11 tention to p1 ·od 11ce legal effects, s11cl1 as deatl1 or Iiability to 111 ake goocl tl1e da111ages ca11 sed to othe1·s.20 Apa1·t f 1·0 1n contract (vvl1icl1 is tl1e 11sual exa1nple give11) «acte j1u·icliq11 e» incl11cles a 1011 g Iist of situa tions \,vl1icl1 co11ce1·11e «acts in tl1 e Iavv in ge11eral».21 TJ1e sanie can be saicl also ,v, itl1 regarcl to «fait j11ridiq11e» ,-vhicl1 , i11ter alia, incl11des q11asi-co11t1·acts ancl at times la loi, JJer se, s11 ch. as r11Ies of good 11 eigl1bo111·I1oocl.22 Situations exist, too, vvhe.re obligatio 1 1s are createcl by a combinatio11 of botl1 concepts, sucl1 as the cleatl1 of pare11ts of a n1inor a11cl deliberations of tl1e family co1111cil rega1·ding a tutor.23 B11t tl1e clistinc tion betv\reen tl1 e two concepts 1·en1 é:1i1 1 s alvvays 1·elevant, as tl1e 17.1[.es re lati.ng to tl1 e acll11issio11 of evidence in a civil st1it shovv.2a 1 «Acte juj1·idiq11e» is also clisting11 isl1 ecl from a si111 ple «act» \Nhich, along \Vith omissions an.cl events, l1 as a «p 111·ely n1aterial cl1 aracter».23 It is in thls latte1· sense tl1en tl1 at tl1 e wo 1 ·cl «act» vvas intended to 1 11ean ancl l1as been usecl i.11 Art. 2029 (3) of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code: =6 «Les 111ots fait jitricliqite et acte jitricliqite ont tu"l sense précis». «Les mots fait 011 acte en1ployés sa11s l'epitl1 éte jitricliqite, sont beacouiJ 1noi11 s prècis; je les ai e1111Jloyès aux 1\rts 2027 et 2029 sans le111· clonn.e1· 1111 sens tecl1 nique partict1lie1·, dans le sens qt1'ils ont da11s le la11 gage courant en f1·ançais». It seen1 s, ho,ve,,er, clo11btf11 l wl1 etl1er a tech11 ical se11se \<Vas not i11 tended i11 tl1e 11se of the worcl «fait».27 On the otl1er l1ancl, it is a fact tl1at neitl1er \vord appears, in is tecl1 nical meaning, in the Tctble Alphabètique cles Matières of tl1 e Frencl1 edition. He11ceforth, i11 01-de1· to avoicl confusion, tl1e worcl «off.ence» for <</ctitte», as in tl1 e Engüsl1 text of tl1e Cocle, vvill be L1secl. B 11 t Lo oo bacl< to tl1e conte11ts of Arts. 2027. A carefL1l a11alysis of the article sl10,>1s tl1at it is of a con1prel1ensi,1e n,1t11re. In it are all tl1e elen1 ents that n1ay be fo11ncl in cliffe1·ent articles i11 otl1 e1· codes, s 11cl1 as tl1 e five sl1 01·t articles of tl1e F1·encl1 Civi l Cocle (1382-1386). e ar ) (I h ap gr t·él pa i11 g» �in al rt cle t11 Tl1e \-\.ro1·ds «i1·res·pective of a 1 1y 1 rcl \vo e tll by ecl 1 1 tio cli 1 1 co ·e a1 1t b1 intend ecl to excl 11cle co11tractual liability l)' on es ·is ai cl an t ac tr 1 1 co of 1t 1 le «offence». Tl1aL is, tl1e liability is incli1Jenc ot1t of an offence. Sectio11 I of Title XIII elaborates 011 tl1is. y it l bi ia or y lit bi lia ct ! ri st of s _ Pa1 ::tgr,1pl1 2 e11visages expressly case . 1 at1on tL s1 . . ch 11 . r·e F · s ti lo a ·' · m ano 1e 1 ,v1tho ut faL1lt, tl1 e1·eby p 11tt1 ng an enc1 to t

___ __ __ _ a.:_n ,

__ _ __ __ __ CHAPTEH

V __ ______________

r Art. 1384,2$ e é, d. it il un b . sa on sp 1-e e cl is 1 o ti . , , ,ip presor r o s e e _. . . m u s e r z1 ce u a of f 1e act1v1ty of th e pers an tl se au ec B r. te la il ta . ,ve s1 1all see 1· 11 m de ·ore wl11ch 1s 1-e -ot tu a e1 n. , sucl1 alS ng da a. l1 1.c st of be ' a'm » es os J concerned or hls « Ch a�e to be created to h s rd 1a gi fe sa t n ie ic ff su s, motorvehicles o r explosive nc � 1s n ot to be left at fe of 1e tl of r 1o tl au 1e tl r, ve protect society. Ho\ve 1gl1t b e b1-ot1ght agai:nst m t 1a tl , es ag 1n da r fo m ai cl of the mercy of every kind r1nined by law. It te es s de . ca in 11.y 01 y lit bi si on sp re · him. He w ill j11cui 1an ts b v. n it de rr bt t im l1a w y to rl ea cl y 1 s:: to e ur at sl gi Ie e th wi11 be for . ns io at tu si 1 cl su s ie if ec sp II n io ct Se . ar be bility 01· liability for lia s iou a1· ,,ic s e1-n nc co 27 20 t. Ar of 3 Jll ra,i Parag ns e tio th for ac ble of otl1ers Iia ld be l1e y ma n rso pe A s. 1er otl of the actions bili ty tl1roug!1 its in two situations: eitl1er wl1en the tl1ircl party incu1·s lia r ,.ve for the action ll ans sba e h en wh s i11e erm det Ia,v the en wh or lt fau ov.rn 1ee11 principal 1s \.\ tio1 bet rela g ni11 cer con ns atio situ se are The ty. a par h of sua 1 g d, .1::1rdian and in cl1il or min and 11t pare and agent, master and serva.nt, sane, or family-group and a me1nber thereof. Furthe1-more, in son1e cases, · held it explains lilO\V the victim ca11 recover from people who l1ave been liable under Section I and II above.:s Details are fot111d in Section IV. Section III ((fixes the consequences of liability a11d determines what obligations are imposed trpon» the JJerson ,.vl10 l1as comrnitted the offence.30 In other words, it deals \Vith damages a11d n1east1re thereof, for circum stances coming ,.vitllin the n1eaning of Art. 2027. Finall)7 , Section V of Title XIII co11tai11s different 1-t1les as to the e:xe, rcise of a11 action foi- dan1ages. It is intendecl to ans\ver qt1.estions such as \Vho the pa.rties to an action n1ust be; ,vbetl1er a certain clefenda.nt, f0r instance the State, can be sued in tort and if so i n what ci1·cumstances. 2. CONTINUATION (Arts. 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034):

!i\-rit. 2028 seems to be a further confirn1ation of Art. 2027 ( I) - tl1at is, , . os0�e.ver causes wh damage 'to ano the1- b y h'1s offence, sl1all mak e 1t good. !BuJ what e*actly is an «o•ff·ence» · aitte)? An offe11ce .m a), consist of an (f . . il!Iilf".!{nÏ�all act, a mere 11eg1ige . . .t · nce of an act. 11er se 01- of an 01n1ss (Ar 101 1 . . , �. 2Dz-9l'i),, <i>P, agam . . . nce whe n · . an o.ffe m , ,. a persan · ·'ay conm11t be acts, or ref1·a1ns • I, M.... a . � . . �m €œ . . en.d111g , _,g, m. a maooe.r or conct·1t1· on s off mo1·al1 ty o 1• })t1bl1c order 1 u:� @Jlt les, b01mes 1nore i\� 1!111!l?.'}.'1/� l �"'" s)' the tes . t bemg the bel1avio1ir of a reason. · ff � ""'l·a- n,. 11 a:1ird 'ibh� ofillence is iàit, . . det.erm · me . · d to u1l Ja\ V les s of pro a v1s 1on . Wlîe ��mu -·ai �:v.i'' ��S"·ts - \.VI'thout re gai•d · 11er to tl1e a.ge 01· to the men, eit . �a1} �a(�e 0,œ • , . �e•Fs0ns ooncemed (Ar t. 2030) . . .f'rê.E ai lél!teE mâ'eFstami. . . àiing o f the cor1oepts co (t\�O) 11t t11 a1 es 0.e e d u1 � � · .mli,0:1a.,.. �e l! "�' �· , ; ��èrf"'b. ,"' � �-. U/ " c, lseht] te lie.fer , ' t o othe1· continental codes. Art. 204 3

'l'HE LA \V FROJ\f THE CONT1NEN 1'

of tl1e Italia11 Civil Cocles SJJealcs of a fatto illecito , w111·c11 can be e1t · 11er cloloso o.r co lpaso, v\rl1ich l1a,1e bee11 trans• ]a . tec l by La••'s · ·ous» vv onJ2 cas «ma11c1 ancl «neglige11tl> acts, respectively.Tl1is is similar to Article 41 of tl,e S.C.O. \Vl1ere a persan is liable if l1e acts i11tentio11ally, by 11egligence or im Pruden· ' · ·te. 111 a b1·oacle1· in11Jort, reference is aJso m ce, cl,i111.e rrzarLt.ere 'l.·1cicL ade to publîc mo1·ality i11 Sectio11 826 of tl1e B.G.B. vvl1ich speal< of malicious clan1ages, tl1ot1gl1 tl1ey n1a)1 not be necessarily against the la\v ( Sec. 823 B.G.B.) are cat1sed in a 111an11er co11tra bonos 11io1'es. In drafting tl1e section in sucl1 a way the legislators of tl1e B.G.B., prest1111ably, wanted to sicle-track «tl1e defe11ce that tl1e clamage \vas done in tl1e exercise of a right».33 Frencl1 Iavv contai11s no defiiution of the conce1Jt of «faute»34 and it bas Iargel)1 been left to the Cot1rt to develop i t. Tl1t1s, recent decisions J1elcl tl1at tl1e fatùt referrecl to i11 A1·ts.1382 and 1383 of the Frencl1 Civil Code 35 n1ay consist of an abstention as ,vell as a positi,,e act. For Italian law, there seems to be no diffict11ty.It \\7Îll be enot1gl1 to demonstrate tl1at there ,vas a wilful, wrongful, act, where tl1,e at1tl1or fo1·esees ancl desires the ef fects to be p1·oduced, i.e. scientia et ct11imus no·cendi, to l1ave an alto cloloso.36 The difficulty a1·ises witl1 negligence or abstention.The alto colposo, too, is fairly definecl. It is a fat1Ity act, but witl1out 1nalignité to tise Potl1ier's worcl.Tl1e autl1or may l1ave been ca1·eless or im_pntdent or may have lacked ski11 and as a rest1lt failecl to foresee tl1e J1arn1ful effect. I-Ie woulcl not l1ave done so, had l1e displayed tl1e clegree of prude11ce fotmcl in the bonus 37 [Jale1ja1nilïcts. (i)

Reasonable Man:

A lot l1as been ,vritte11 about tl1e latter and before p1·oceecling ft1rtl1er, it might be con,,enient to say a few worcls. Who exactly is tl1e «1·easonable man» referrecl to by A1-t. 2029 (3) Etluopian Civil Code? Besides, the po pular Ro111a11 bonits JJctter-fctmilicts l1as been given different nan1es - sucl1 as the «norn1ally ca1·eft1l, attentive, ancl deligent man, ...in sl1ort ...a prt1clent man»; 38 the «normal person» or tl1e «blameless individual»; 39 the «man of fo1·esigl1t ancl cliscretion».40 !11 tl1e commo11 law wo1·Icl lie bas been described as an «ideal, a standard, tl1e embocliment of ail tl1ose qt1ali ties wl1jch we den1ancl o.f tl1e goocl citize11»; 41 by Jtrstice Holn1es, as «the averag e 1nan, the man of orclinary intellige11ce and p1-udence»;;12 a11d by Si1· Percy Winfield, as the <(ma11 011 tl1e 'Clapl1a111 om11ibt1s' vvl10 l1as not the courage of Acllilles, tl1e wisdom of Ulyssis ancl the stre11gtl1 of I-Ie1·ct1• les»; 43 01· by Harnisl1 Gre)', as a man wl10 exe1·cises «1·easonable skill, re aso11able foresight , a11cl reasonable prtidence».44 I-Ie is, tl1en, a l1ypotl1eticai man; he cloes not exist. He is neitl1er a supe1·111a11 1101· a11 jcliot; 11ot a Jazy,

CHAP'l'ER V

s d 1t an gl ri s bi duties. He 18 of s ou ci 11s co is ho ,.v e on t bu 10 . diff e1.ent mao, • nce, wl1ose co nd uc t is to se 1"Ve a iae ell int · ,s e ag ei· ' av 0 ' of all m t n e d 1 n p a • • • • s t1. tb r c1 rm.usta11 ce.,s, 1la n1 111 s1 1 e1 n1 1~y na di or r fo e in el id gu d an· ideal standarcl ail

(ij) Professio11:al Faiilt: Tllis briogs us to tl1e ft1rtl1er question of the standards teqtlired of a man \vhose intelligence and social position is not tl1at of an ordinary man _ sucll as a medical d.octor. Tl1e issue is 1·egulatecl by Art. 2031 (profes. sioiial fault). Under this articles a medical practitioner or whoever exer cises a specific activity is liable, if be commits a11 i mprt1de11ce, or if be is guilty of 11egligence co11stituting definite ( certcLirrz.) ignorance of l1is du ties - all tl1is having 1·ega1·d to lie Ztccepted rules of concluct governing that kiud of p.ractice or activity and to «scientific f,lcls». It is here inte1·esti11g to note t11at tl1e \vord «i111prude1 1ce» \vllich had not been mentioned so far, aJJpears il1 t 11is article. It will be recalled that it occw-s il1 Art.. 131:)J of the f•'rench Civil Code; it will also be re111e1ubered tl1ac tne, r·re11cn cotirts hold t11at fault exists \vl1en a pe1·son's conduct is not tnat or a «norma!Jy careful, attentive, a11cl cWigent man, Îll s11ort, tl1at ot a pruue11t man»:,$ 1·111s crite1·io11 see111s to be ot' w11versal application t11ere; a11d in addition to includi11g statutory obligations - foi· a prudent man wotUcl not ignore tl1e111 - anc.i specifying tl1e ap1Jroxin1ate degree of care reqt1ired in clangerous sittiations, it «indicates tl1e sta11darcl of care 1·eqllll·ea of 1Jersons exercising a profession».�0 A prt1deut medical 1nan is careful to see tl1at l1e possesses tl1e degree of skill and l{IlO\Vledge which members of his profession are expected to l1ave, ru1d si1ould at least con form to the c<nonnal st,tnclards of care expected of persans i11 tl1at profes sion». 4' The same considerations - 11'liLtatis n1.it.taridis - ,.voLtld apply in the case of so.meo11e exercising a give11, specific, activity, even tha t of a court (gudicial) expert. The conduct expected of these 1ne11 ,.vill no longer be t!ha�, of an 01·cl:inary, average prudent man, but tl1at of a 1 11an wl10 ·posses ses speoi,al si<lll and knowledge. � cas, e in point is tl1at of tl1e Court of Appeal at Nimes (France) which al}1)P.)i)Îa,ted an. e:xpert to i1lvestigate s001e food poison.in.g caused by bread 0f �d � · m1J1a . li1iy. Wh.en , du·e to th e expert· s' aff" · 1 1 :-rnat1ve 1·e1Jort, tl1e ba ke r w·as . ·. ��eti:tl<ro llil 1Dhe 0r1minal courrt, b e a Ilegecl tl1at th e ex1Je1·t l1acl com111itted . � eN ©r an:hl sb.olll:rél h>· e ciVt· 11Y lia · · b le. T1tle cotu·t, in 1·ejecti 11 g tl1is plea, l1eld ��t fie e�Jl)ert m:l!l·st be heId .l".1abLe ·for all fat1 lts l1owever sligl1t' tl1at �0JJ!ffl ff'<lft be e@m mÎlt ifkecl bY a prudent ex . , . pe rt , . . tf ' 1-e a lat1or1 of cause and e��- � e�. 1.i. s./6eà �tw.:een. tb.e œa ult con 1 mitted and t11e ensuing dan1age». '-8

T}IE LA ,v FROl\-1 THE CONTINEl\1'

(iii) lnfc111ts a11cl lr1sc1rle Perso1zs: Bt1t Art. 2030 (3) en,,isages also tl1at, vvl1.ere t.I1e lavv so JJrovicles, tl1esc ideal stancla1·ds ca11 be vvai,,ecl i11 tl1e case of a n1ino 1- o.r tJ1at of soineone \1/110 l1as a 111ental deficie11cy. In otl1er worcls, i11 tl1e detern1i 11 ation of the existence or non-existe11ce of a fat1lty conclt1ct, tl1e jt1clge co11si c.lers eitl1er tl1e mino1· or tl1e insat1e pe1·so11, as tl1e case n1ay be, as thot1gl1 tl1ey ,vere norn1,�l pe1·so11s ,1ncl applies also to t.l1e111 the sta11clarcls of tl1e reasonable 1nan - tl1t1s co11side1·s tl1e 111atte1· objectively.49 Tl1ere 111ay be, I1ovvever, : situatio11s , v, l1e1·e .l1e may 11ot clo so because a specific provision of la,.v so p1·ovides. That cl1ilclre11 ancl u1sa11e persons are 11ot r101·n1,1l a<lL1lt persans, goe�· vvithout sayi11g. The former is of tender ye,u-s a11cl tl1e latter l1as a .111ental disease. I t would, the1·efore, be 111.orally vvrong to b1ame tl1en1 for someting tl1ey l1ave done. In tl1is, tl1ere is a general agree111ent. ,.fl1e controversy rages in tl1,e legal field of 1·esponsibility. I t is élrgtted tl1at si11ce fattl t t1ncler _A1·ts. 1382 and 1383 of the Frenc11 Ci,,il Code presu1Jposes a nor1nétl sa11e perso11, ,.v]1ose mental povvers a1·e irrep1·oacl1able, tl1e co11trary pos.itio11 is tmten ,tble. In general, tl1e F1·e11ch higl1er cot11·ts l1ave acloptecl this IJOsition anc.l tl1e lower cotu-ts followed sujt.50 A good illustration is given of an action of damages being b1·ot1gl1t by the cl1ildren of a man wl10 l1acl been shot deacl by a lt1rr,ttic. Tl1e Cot1rt of Cassation rejectecl the action 011 tl1e grottncl that: «Linder article 1382 tl1e obligation to 111a.lce tl1e cla1nage by a11otl1er prest1pposes fl1at fault l1as been con1mittecl; by tl1e tise of the vvorcl fault the Ia,AJ clearly invisages an act vvluch is the 1·esult of co11sciot1s will; an iI1sa11e perso11, wl10 Jacks tl1is qt1ali ty of vvil1, can11ot be I1elcl Iiable, e·t1e11 c-ivilly, for bis acts, committecl vvl1ile tl1e balance of l1is mind ,vas disltt.rbecl».51 Tl1e Iearnecl at1tl1ors st1ggest tl1at tl1e same ca11 apply to clulclre11. Bttt tl1e sittration of a child is diffe1·ent fro1n tl1at of an i11sa11e. In the fiI·st case 52 the la\.v provides that parents sl1ot1ld be vica1·iot1sly liable and ù1 a11y case, cl1ildren a1·e not usually in a fii1a11cial positio11 to 1nal<.e good tl1e damages. Tl1e insane, hovveve1·, is an adult and n1ay l1ave inl1eritecl él substantial \vealtl1. Sbotrld tl1e poor ma11, fathe1· of a nu111erot1s fa1n:ily, go vvitl1ottt re clress, simply because tl1e wea1tl1y defendan.t is i11sane? Nloreover, the law cloes not always provicle - as it cloes vvitl1 tl1e 1ni1101· - vicariotis li,:1bility in tl1e case of ltmatics.53 Tl1e Courts we1·e in a 1Aeal clile . m111a. A11d so tl1ey t1·ied to devise 111an)' · · · 1 t t11ey tencled to cleter111i11e Wa)1 s o f solv1ng the s1tt1at1on. At a r·11·st 1nome1·

___________

-' :::_

CHAP1'ER

y ·tl1at tl1e in sa ne man bac) . sa d an t en ev l · 1fu r11 ha .· the f o . tlle 1natet1aJ t1111e." s .vay t al\ 11o sat1sfactor y• s \.vas tl1i As . al>.> erv int id luc a « t 11 . . . . at that n1oroe d 1ts 011g111.s 1n voluntary ad. ha t en lm ai e · th at th e · 1in r11 te de • c 1 to tbey tr1e e of ch·ugs. As su.c11 the result us e tl1 to or r uo Jiq g i11 at xic to in cli.ctiotl to tl1e ere \vh ns illness mi...,llht tio t1a sit , ver \.ve ho are ere Th ' • ult a f· c 1 ., -vl 0\ S hi \V8S ition. In tl1e latter al nd gic co olo t11 pa a to e du be y ma or ted eri inb bave beetl \.Vl1en tl1e n1an conce1-ned suc elf its est nif ma )' n1a ity an ii1s t en lat tlle e, cas s excessive cl ard ten tow y ma and n tio i 1.cl co1 his by ed lict aff e atis bec bs cum \1io1ence. In such a situation be is not liable because what took place is «the pre-existing congenital condition». Tl1a t is wha t a court of first i11. struice in Metz held wb.e11 a drunken man set fire to a l1ot1se, on tl1e ground tliat «his dri11kiug bad merely aggravatecl a pre-existing co11clition of con genital insanity>>.54 111 the face of such a confused state of affaiI·s son1e vvriters, 11otably Professors H. a11d L. Mazeaud, «wl1ose 1·eputation a s specialists in the la,.v of civil responsibilit:y sta11cls ve1-y lùgJ1» 55 - l1ave rebelled to the approac.b take11 by tl1e courts a.nd su.ggested an alternati,,.e. Tl1eu· considered view . at too often the concept of fault is identified ,.v.ith moral p1·inciples, is th instead of being distinguisl1ed. In crimina.l la\,V the 111ental state of tl1e cri1uina.l is relevant for bis conviction. Not so in civil Inatte1·s - tl1e object here is not tliat of ptmishment but of compensation.56 Hence, tl1e n1e11tal attitt1ded (fa.ult) sJ1ot1ld not be seen fro1n a moral point of \riew. It should be viewed as a resu1t of abnorn1al character \,Vl1ich needs 110 moral con siderat. ions - that is «an objective concept, completely unrelatecl to t11e defendant's unconsciotts \VÏll».57 WI1atever merits it may l1ave,tl1.is stigges tion has 11ot met with genera] acceptance and no cotrrt see1ns to have applied it as yet. The eqt1itable nature of rendering social justice is inl1erent i11 it but continental courts do not have such \vide po\.vers as their commo11 Ia,v C©l!lnterparts to n1ake j t1dge-made 1a\.v an.d so i t is tlp to the Iegislature tro :intervene. Many c.ontine.ntal countries have, in fact, b1·ot 1gl1t some refo1�ms b)' le giS'lati,re aot:ion. Among them are Ge1·man y (Art. 829 B.G.B.), Switzerland (� . 54 S...C.O.), ltaly (Art. 2047), B elgit1m - who l1ad tl1e ide11tical five Fre1il.'.ch ' �17tioles - adopted a new article (A rt. 13B611is). Art. 54 of tl1e S.C.O. �atlls: . . qw· res, tl. 1e Jt (<fi j;usti.ee ( equité) so re 1dge n1c.1y cleclaJ.·e liable e·ven a ®éFsen wJ:i.0 is incapable of• . d.1scerrune,nt, to make good wl1oll)' or . m m aivt '\f, lile ùam:age ne bas c at1sed».si ..

'.fllE I.A W FltOi\-1 THE CON1'JNEN'f

There are 111ru1y lavv)1 ers i11 France wl10 ,-vould lilce a sinii1ar i·efor111 also in their cot111try . NeecUess to say tl1at tl1is so-called i?OLtvoi r cl' eqitité·,s, vvi11 gi\1e tl1e j11clge a1nple cliscretion a11d tl1at in the long rtin 111ay \-Vell satisfy social 11eecls. Be tl1at as it 111ay, tl1ere is 110 cloubt that tl1is l1as been tl1e ap1Jroacl1 adopted ·by tl1e Coclificatio11 Co 1n1nissio11 ir.1 tl1e p1·eparatio11 of Art. 203050 of t11e Etl1iopian Civil Cocle .. I11 :fact, to sl1ow tl1e stro11g reception of these icleas and tl1e legal te1mi11ology t1sed, for il1sta11ce, it1 Art. 54 of tl1e S.C.O., it is enougl1 to compa1·e tl1e conte11ts of Art. 2099 of the Etl1iopia11 Civil Code, whicl1 reacls: «A1·t. 2099 - Po1,ve1-s of eqitity. - l. U11.vvare11ess of Offe11ce. (1)

Tl1e cot1rt n1ay, \,\There equity (l' eq 1..tilé} so requires, reclttce tl1e co111pensatio11 awarclecl ,vhere the offence giving rise to the liability was con1mittecl by a persan \-vl10 \vas not i11 a state to app1·eciate the wro11gft1l 11att1re of l1is conclt1ct.

(2) I11 tl1is 111atter, regard sl1all be l1ad to tl1e 1·espective financial positio11s of the pa1·ties ancl tl1e conseque11ces for tl1e at1tl1er of tl1e offence of bis liability to n1ake the clamage good)>. 61 Tl1e inse1·tio11 of tl1is a1·ticle seems to be an illustration of the sittLation envisaged in t.be \Vo1·ds «Ltnless otbervvise provided ·by la\v,> a1Jpearing at parag1·apl1 3 of Art. 2030 o.f t.l1 e Etl1iopia11 Civil Cocle . ( iv)

•

<cSi11i1,le» negligence:

Art. 2029 ( 1) does 11 ot speak of ciLlpa62 or negligence bt1t of sin'ipl e 11.egli gence or of a mere negligence as the Englisl1 text l1as it. In so doing, tl1e codifiers seem to I1ave wa.nted to a,,oid tl1e speculations tl1at \VOLLld have arisen if tl1ey I1acl si1nply saicl «negligence» \Vitl1out n1ore. Ali stt1cle11ts of Roman law k11ow of tl1e t1·ipartite clivision of culJJa lcLta (se1·iot1s) culpa levis (ordinary) citlpa levissi1na (sligl1t) - neglige11 ce. Unde1· tl1e Lex Aqilili ct, 63 «in l ege Aqitili a et l evissin1a citlpa 11 e11it» - extre111e care ,.va.s reqt1irecl - the slightest cttlz1a was s11fficie11t to create an obligation to make • • good the damage cat1sed to anotl1er, tl1ot1gh s01ne clo11bt see1ns to ex1st as to \,V}1etbe1· i1 1 actttal fact tl1e1·e vvas a 1·eal cliffe1·e11ce betwee11 tl1is kincl of culpcL and the ciilpa levis whicl1 was tl1e stanclarcl of tl1e bo11 i1s p at er fcln1.ilias.6•1 Fo1· tl1e benefit of those interestecl to trace tl1e o:rigins of the Le�t Aqi1ili a the fol]owing brief re1narl<s might be l1elpf1.1l. Its .exact date is still

Cll,\PTEH

- - .........---· ----- - ars that it ,.vas a plebiscite ,1Je ap it r·, . . \,e \ve ho . , n pia Ul ' .. . .r . . .. tinc.ertain. Ac core1111g to . he a11tl1011t1es place it ot 1 cl h1 ,.v 1s, l1t ui . Aq cl lle ca · 11 e IJroposed by "', t1 ·I·bLI . , . d e l1a lv tl1 ,t,e s 11 a11 m e Ro Tables e11 th re ' tl1e . . fo Be . • 65 • c B 1 28; r a e , y r, ouncl t11e 1 - <1\V ) 1·s ve 1·o of nt · co te at 111 a l cl il hi st ·e a1 i ts en nt co � t ac ex e 1 tl l cl l1i ,v _ of lU·abi '66 am f of Is , v La n1 a11 , 111 lo by Ba e tl1 n i s on isi ov pr can b e co11.1JJ,ai·ed to . 67 eu e at tl1 d 11t rn 11e Pe ai 11t 1». cl co S \V La It ,v re eb H e tli d an \ivs La ite itt H th e f"1.tl co11cluct, al. 11g 1·0 ,.v ecl lat gu re es bl Ta e th at t11 seems cerlain y l lit ra bi ne Iia ge a cl 1in se ve po co im ey .g th r he 1et ,vl l tfu tib do is it tliougll 1 both fro1n th e ev. dr a ,ili i . T,,ve]ve Aq �r. e L 1e Tl . 1er otl a.11 da111age caused to t n 11o clid it eve t, fac In .VS. 1·epeal la\ ing ist -ex pre 1er otl e 1 t] a11ct Tables 68 111. tl1e le sec Je1· s111 did it tl1em; 1�11 e Lex co11tamed tl1ree main cl1apters of \vl1ich, for OLLr pw�poses, tl1e llùrd \vas the n1ost in1portant. Under it (as unde1· tl1e fi1·st cl1apter) a cle f't!11da11t b.eca1ne liable if I1e acted itziuricL, viz \.Vitho11t right ( no11 ii,.re, hence l�o,iira. ji1s), vvl1icl1, at tl1e begiru1ing may ha,,e n1ean t «i11 tl1e absence of 6 ) '"'Il.ile for tl1e ge», darn,t 01· deat11 g causin son1e lawful excuse for tl1e act classU:ica] j11rists it ca111e to imply eitl1er clol1,ts or culpa - nan1ely, tl1at l1e had eill1er actecl wilfully or neglige11tly. Tl1e classifical ,v1iters cleter t11i11e.cl c1,il11a on facts a11cl, apparently, did 11ot clisti11guish betwee11 sub. jective a11d objective sta.ncla1·ds of co11duct/0 But it is clear tl1at some moral blatne\vorthiness became gradually to be attacl1ecl to it ancl later 011 i11l1eritecl by tl1e cottnt1-ies wl10 based thei1· legal S)1ste111s on Roman La\v .71 We lmo,v also tl1at, at times at least, tl1e Ro111a11s came to regarcl as orcLin2tr)1 neglige11ce tl1e citlJJCl levis ancl used it a s a sta11darcl for tl1e con.due. t of the bon.Lis pater familias.ï2 Tlùs, too, is tl1e 1nodern approacJ1 of tl1e Ilalian:.l a,od Fre11cJ174 text writers; but tl1e matte1A is still disputed. 111 fact, Belgit1n1 see1ns to l1ave taken a more severe ,,iew, if for «la faute la plit.S légère;> one is to u11clerstancl it as the eqt1ivalent of tl1e Fren.cl1 «tme fa.1.1te trés légèreJ>.75 In view of the s1Jecial degree of negligence req1tirecl for professional fault, the suggestio11 is n1ade tl1at tl1e wo rd «si1nple» is iJiltencled to be i11clusive and not exclusive of tl1e wo <co rd 1·clinary», so that � t ttJ:til'es n t a cul1:>a levissi1na bt rt a ciLlJJa le11is n1igl1t be 1·equired. This � unterpretatJon seems to be the more logica l if 011e recalls tl1at it is tl1e éon êluc: t of a reasonable man tl1at is requ ired by Art. 2030 (2). Jin Rthi0pia,, tl1en , tl1e sligIlt.est fau t l (culpa.) 1nay co11stitt1te negligence . . .amcl: JJfl Ïll<S the codifiers seem to · b e in • agreeinent witl1 tl1e Belgian and . JJ:li>'t Wïtla ei:ther the Italian or French pos1·r·1011s. __,..,.

î-1l1. e' second parag rapJ1 of . . Art. 2029 lais . � do w n th at ls a f::.1t11t can cons t � a�<ifliffli©'lil t© e:111:1-.e.r an . . . mtentional 'act or me1�e 11egl1ge11ce p14ovided for 1 �"'

'fHE LA\\: FftOl\i THE CON'flNENT

i11 tl1e first parag.raph the1·.eof - Ïll eitl1er a11 ,tct or i11 a11 absteillion. TJ1 us botl1 a positive a11d a 1 1egative bel1a,,iot1r n1 ay co11stitt1te a fa11It fo 1.- vvllicI1 da111ages i11 vvhat:ever forrn ca11 be awa1·clecl. (a) «1\bi1s cle Droit»: - (Abt1se of l�igl1ts): Positi,1e fat1lt l1as bee11 clefined as «a11 abnorn1c.1J and ,,vrongft1l act, ru1 cl so, co11trct1·y to law».76 Bttt can so111eo11 e still cat 1se da111age to otl1ers i11 tl1e exe1·cise of l1is legal rigl1t? It ap1Jears so. The cloctri11e of abLLs de clroit «is a w.eJI recog1ùzed p1·u1ci1Jle in tl1e Contine11tal a,v, bt1t tl1e ph1·ase «ab11se of 1·ights» - wl1 icl1 is tl1e t1sual English tra11slatio11n - cloes 11ot appear to be farniliar to the common la\vy e1·, so 1nt1cl1 so tl1at it dOJS not eve11 appear in any standard indices or digests».78 Tl1js is due, presun1ably, to tl1e position of Englisl1 Iavv vvhicl1 l10Ids tl1a.t i11 p1·i11ciple, vvl1at a 1na11 bas a rigl1t to clo, he may clo maliciously \vitl1011t ma.king l1in1self 1iable.i9 Not so i11 tl1e Contine11t,80 proviclecl tl1at sucl1 an exe1·cise of a r·igl1t is foL1nd to l1ave been clo11e in a11 ab11sive ma11ner. S0111e traces of this cloctrin.e go back: to tJ1e Corpi,s litris of Jt1stinia11 and tlu·ot1gl1 tl1 e canon lav.1, it u1fluencecl the olde1· Frencl1 jt11-ists, L1p to tl1e Re,,olution when foi· a l1alf a centtrry laissez.faire cloctri11es pre·vailed.81 Old icleas, l10,.veve1·, did 11 ot lie dorn1ant for long. Tl1e 11e,.v position emerged in 1855 ,vïtl1 the lancl111a1·k case of tl1 e Cot1rt of Appeal f1·om Coln1ar vvhicl1 beld a 1nan liable foi· b11ilcli11g a cl1imney on his roof «\•Vitl1 tl1e sole abject of spoiling l1is neigl1bo1rr's vie\v».82 For the first time in n1 oclem Fre11cl1 Ia,.v, therefore, Iimits ,vere placed to the 1·igl1t of pro1Jerty. No longer ,,vas t11is absolt 1te; no lo11ge1· ,.vas tl1 e Court of Cassatio11 disturbecl by Art. 544 of the Frencl1 Civil Code which clefined property «as tl1e rigl1t to e11joy and freely dispose of tl1 i11gs i11 011 e's possession». I·f tl1e owne1· o.r 11ossessor acted maliciot 1 sly; if I1e acted in order to dan1age anothe. r; ancl if he dicl not l1ave se1ious and legitimate i11terests a11 d tl1e action is not justified by any persona! acl,,antage, tl1e11 tl1e exercise of l1is 1·igl1t of property \\1as abt1si,,e.8:i Tl1 e 111ost typical develo1J1nent took place in the don1ain of tl1e la\v of property, the doctrine I1aving been extended to co,,er cases of smoke, stnell or noise - concepts ,vhicl1 i11 the comn1 on la,v count1·ies fall within the Ia,,v of n L· 1isa11ce,84 ancl vvl1icl1 tl1 e Frencl1 cot11·ts call «la 1nesurt ordirzc1.ire cle.'> troitbles des voisa1i(Lge» ( 01·clinary forbeara11ce .expectecl of neighbot1rs in tl1 eir 1·elatio11s witl1 eacl1 otl1e1·).85 This vvas not all. By an alogy it s1)reacl to a11d ,.vas aJJpliecl i 11 cases of ab11se of legal process, SLicl1 as \Vl1ere eitl1 e r. an actio11 01· an appeal ,vere i11stitutecl it1 cot11·t \.vitl1 the sole object ·of cattsing ex_p,enses to tl1e otl1er sicle; or \'Vl1 e1·e execut! on is macle 11.n11ecessa1·ily 01· ,,exatiot1sly; or, agajn . , ,vl1e1·e a reckless (,.vitllotit n1alice) co1nplaint ,vas filed \.vitl1 tl1e 1Jolice; or even ,.vl1ere a11 ei,gagei11e11 t

CH,\PTEil V

6 1 _ _ ___

---__,_ __ -_ --_ _ _ __ ________.

pt in tb ce r. 11e . a e last t,,vp Ex Hb 111 0 . e at er sid on 11c j . an ' . in f k of · 1 . e1 · . . . . to 1na1-ry is bI o e 011 tl1 th w1 conn.ect1 ngl1t to Slle in 11 tio ac e th for . sis 1 ba Jle t · , . cases, bo\.ve, er gl1ge11ce or carelessness ne re me a in t no s lie e) tic · iLs · en 1 . ,i. · ste . cl'e l roit ( le c. ng; m tl1e otber cases the ro v l , na , io nt te in i a11 11 e iic he cl an ith bLlt in bad fa 87 · . 1 as .i i 11. · a, e1 at s 1'iu bo p t standard ,vas tl1at of a t n y t11a tio a11 cia L1n e11 its malicious in it dro cle L,lS alJ of ii1e ctr Tlle do oratecl i11 botl1 the o1·p d inc an by ted cep ac en be as 1 J le ab ion act is e 111otiv Gerrna.11 a11d Swiss Ci, 1il Codes.as Since both n1alicious and negli.gent acts arise OLtt of abnorn1al condt1ct, the basis of Iiabilitjr v.rhicl1 springs fron1 tl1.is doct1·i11e gave risc to wider implications. Opposjte ,,ie,v, s as to the range and scope of the doctrine. ,v. ere expressed ancl it beca1n.e a matter of g1·eat controvers:,' among tl1e Prencl1 ,vriters.89 Amo11g tl1en1, the 1 nost far-1-eacl1ing ,.vas Josserand's9o t11eory of «social objective)>. It has Ieft its 11.1arlcs, especially in socialist countries. Accorcling to this view, law is 1nade for <<tl1e benefit of tl1.e commu. . a11d L1ot for the advai1tage of tl1e i11clividL1 al and tl1ere is an ab11se of . nily rigb . ts vvJ1ene,,er a rigl1t is exe1·cised in a manner contrary t o the social iuterests>,.9t 111 other ,.vords, it is the rigl1ts of tl1e individual tl1at mt1st be sacrificed fo1· tl1e benefit of tl1e collectivity. Tl1e exercise of tl1e right of the indjvid1.1.al must therefore co1ûorrn t o c:lnd be co11sona11t with tl1e spirit, tl1e social ptrrpose, of the law that is enacted t o attain. the social ends. In tbis, tJ1e indiviclual's 1ight of pro1:>ert)' ca1u1ot be absolute b11t must be 11ecess ari ly rel atj ,,e. This suited, pe1·fectly, the dictates of the comn11u1ist or socialist coun tries. In a soci.alist countr)' JJar excelle11.ce pri,,ate 1Jro1:>e1·ty has no place and anyone ,,vl10 ,,iolates tl1e «natio11al property» is, L111de1· Art. 131 (2) of rhe 1936 So,,iet Constitution, regarded as a11 .ene111y of the people.92 Agai11, ttnder Art. 430 of tl1e Soviet Civil Code of 1923, civil rigl1ts are protected by la,.v bLtt not \.v]1en tbey are exercisecl i 11 a. ma1111er co11trar)' t o thei r economic and social J)t1rpose.93 111 East Germany tl1e social legislatio n (1abotu- code) e11actecl in 1960 expressly lais do vv11 tl1at tl1e «function of Jabour legislatjon is to contribt1te to Ll1e realizatio11 of a socialist ©GOli10Iil1Y » .�

!·

:fl1.�ugi;i 0sserarid's tl1eory 111igl1t 110L have bee11 accepted witl1 ge11e1·al en�s1asm ln Fl:ance, a recent decisi on of the Coz1rt cle Cassatio,1. l1as helci thq,t the 1ight to strike is lawfui 1 'f 11 · . te . ncled to the «an1enclment or impro;v.:�lWl 1 of cou<litio·ns of work», :� while it beco1nes tmla\>vful if it s ain1 is t<iJll©11wîc::alli, 50cia!l unrest Or dan 1age to employe 1·».9, 1'11.e It,llian cour seern : ts Ire imfile:�w s•.l!U .i: L , ,,. l!I 'L. U t tm ' s · 1s not to say tl1at t11 1 · . 1s · a fai1· 1·eprese11tation of the 1s . . . , �zœcil 0.f presenit de.c1s10ns in either cou11try.�6

1'IlE L1-\\'\f FROlt:I 'IRE CONTl,'\ENT

(b)

Détm1rrie1·ne11t cle Pot,Lvoir:

'TI1is b1·ings LIS to tl1e otl1er 1·elatecl 11ew cloct.rine of clétoltr11.111erit de poitvoir, vvl1icl1 might be a11alogous to - tl10L1gl1 it is debatab le vvlietl1er it is tl1e saine as - to vvl1at i11 E11glancl a1·e regarclec l as «go·ve1·n n1ental cliscretio11s co111111 ittec l to JJLtblic at1tl1or.ities>>.97 It is a cloctri ne JJectiliai· to tl1e Fre11cl1 cirait Çlcl11'zi11.istratif a11cl conseque11tly «plays a great part i 1 1 tl1e j1iriSJJri1derzce of tl1e Co11seil d'Etat».98 1\.cco1·cli11g to Vveil/J it is a mea11s of qt1asl1ing clccisions talcen by the acl111 i11istration vvl1ene·ve1· tl1at aL1tl1 01it:'/ tises t11e po\ve1·s co11.f.erred to it bj' lav.,, foi· mea11s 01� purposes cliffere nt tl1a11 tl1 ose 01·iginallj' Î.11te11clecl - actions insJJÎrecl by favo11ratism, persona! a1u111osity 01· t11e safeguarcling of private i11te1·ests. In otl1er worcls, actions relati11g to abt1se of povvers. E,,en ,.vl1 ere tl1e act is made for the general i.nteresls, conti11 ues \,Veil, bL1t not acco1·di11 g to tbe exact abject ( biit) as signecl io it by Ia,v, it can still be a1111t1lled tl1rot1gl1 tlùs p1·ocecl11ral device. Ancl in tl1is, tJ1e concept callecl «moralite' aclministrative» seems to be cleterrni11 ing.1"; Tl 1e doctrine bas also spreacl to Italy, vvhere it is lmo,vn as «svia1ne11to di 1Jotere».101 \A.le will l1a,,e a cha11ce to rett1rr1 to tl1e clroit ctclmirListrctfif at a later stage. St1ffice it 110,,, to JJonde1· o,,er tl1e v.ricle fielcl covered by tl1e c1octri ne of abLLs de clroit a11d. of tl1e t1se macle of its off-sp1·ù1g - tl1e clétoitrnr11e11l cle z;ozi·,1oir - b)' tl1e Co11seil d'Etat i n its efforts to ct1rb tl1e ever-expancling needs of tl1e State. But even ,vl1ere tl1ere is st1cl1 a co11t1·0I, it see n1 s safe to suggest tl1at as tl1e social neecls of tl1e State gro,v, t11e rigl1ts to be exercised by tl1e j·nc l ividt1al vvi l l, in a para1lel rnanner, climinish. 102 \iVitl1 this JL1ggage in 1ni11cl, it is easie1· no,v to tL1rn to the Etl1iopiaJ1 Civil Cocle. A1·t. 2032 (I11tent to Injt11·e) renclers Iiable a persan ,.vho acts with tl1e sole purpose of injt1ring another, tl1ot1gh l1e l1as no persona1 gain from st1ch an act (pa1·agrapl1 1); acl even \vl1ere i11 t11e co1..rrse of seeking a 1Je1:sonal gain, l1e cot1lcl I1ave a,,oicled it, but nevertheless cat1ses sL1bstantial clarnage to anotl1er (JJaragraph 2). 103 Art. 2033 is entitlecl «AbL1se of Po\\1ers». Pa1·agrapl1 1 tl1 ereof is ap plicabe wl1en a person tur11s to bis aclvantage powe1·s co11ferrecl on l1in1 in tl1e interests of a11otl1e1- pe1·son; paragrapl1 2, insteacl, applies vvhere a public servant (fit1 1-ctio1111aire) tt1rns eitl1er to l1is advantage or to tl1e advantage of a.11otl1e1- (pa1·tict1lar) person, po,v.ers conferrecl t1po11 l1i n 1 in the pt1blic interest. Tl1e I1eacling of this article i11 the Frencl1 text is tlie farnous JJhrase of «Détot1n.1ment de Pouvoir», ,vl1icl1, as rne11tionecl b.efo.re, t · 10' a c t l'E 1 · 1 e 011s C tl1e is peculier to tl1e clroit acl111i11ist·rat-if as clevelopecl by Tl1is article, therefore, seems to l 1 a,,e I1armo11ized both tl1e i-Liles a1JJJlicable Lo the acl rn i nist1·atio1 1 wl1icl1, in France, bave disti11ct diffei�e11c�s. U.ncler

C�IAP1'E H V

11t A1·t:icle 2034 1�ecites: «S·tib. 1e qt se lb St e tl1 » 1ts gl Ri of · 1P0�se 1l1e t1. tl· e o f <,.·p tt.. anner in wl1ic}1 ca 111 e es tl1 cl t , Ar i g in ed ec tJr e th of · . . ject to tl. 1e JJro,ll·si·ons . . • · . l tl1a t 1t 1s contrai"',J to 11c 1 . 01 gr e tl1 1 01 l .ec t1g . lJSCd TT1av lle . 1a cJ be '., 110 t r1a 11 t JS o ti si 11 a 1e 11 opposit e po is tl e cr I-I )), 1t gl 1·i a of se po 1r JJ1 al ci Lll: economic or so io ùy p-t l1e or ce 'f s. ex ie tr 11s are ttn co t is al ci so or st 1 □i t m 1 n co e to tliat of tll erfttl n1acl1inery o.f the ,v po 1e tl 1d a1 33 20 d an 30 20 . ts Ar 11 j those coi1taiilcd r e ve th 11e l1e 11eed to ex V \i s. er ,v }Jo ts j of es i11 nf co e tl1 ld to ly ar cle s tate is l expropriation la,.v enactecl cia pe «s a r de ttn ne clo be ill 1 ,�, it s, ise a1· JJropriate 88,89 or 90» of tl1 e Revised les tic Ar of s on isi ov pr tl1e tl1 ,vi ce an ord acc in ion agreed sat Jen st n11 jt1 co of t J en ym pa on y up on d a11 5 195 of n tio itt1 Co11st d, che t rea 11o is dete1·1nined ent eem agr ere ,vl1 or, s tie par tl1e eu ,ve to bet . ifica11t that «by judicial proceclL11·e established by lavv».ws It is also sig n vvhile tl1e title of A.rticle 2034 i11 tl1e Freo.cl1 text speaks of «Destination de clroitS>), the saJ11e article can be found t1nder ll1e item of «Abus de droits» in tl1e TalJLe 1liJJ/1.abéliq1,Le tles A1.alières. 1

l'·l!tisance:

(c)

Tl1al tb.e docb·ine of abus de clroit sl1oulcl not reach i11 Etl1iopia the same p1·01Jo1·tio11s t]1at it achie,1ed iI1 France ,,._,as of the t1tn1ost co11cern to tl1e Coclofication Co111n1ission. I11 fact, exce 1Jt \,VÎtl1in t.l1e limits of the only two cases JJrovidecl for tn1der Articles 2032 a11d 2033 of tl1e E.C.C., it ,vas inte11cled tl1at it sl1011d be utilized i11 110 otl1er Célse.106 In vie,v of tlus, it is eviclent tl1at situatio11s vvl1icl1 1111der tl1e con1mo11 la\v con1e 1111der tl1e sL1bject of 11uisancc are 110,,v regt1latecl by the Etl1iopian Ci,,il Code else ,-vb re. For insta11,ce, in Lhe do1nain of Ia,.v of l Jroperty lJrovisions l1ave been specifically r>rovicled for in Articles 1225 ,,vl1icl1 is e•1titled «Abt1se of O\.vnersbjJJ» in. Englis.b b11t ,vi.tl1 tl1e 11101·e indicative J1eatli11g of «P,..bus de clroit de IJrop1-ieté>) i11 tl1e Frencl1 text. 101 It is also significant tl1at referenc e is macle to loca J custo111 (Art. 1225 (3)). e

( vi) Abste1itior1: Tl1.e Lerm ,iab5te 11tioti» i11 ll1e F.re11cl1 text I1a s bee11 L1-a'l1slaled as «failu re to act}> i11 tl1e E11glisl1 version of A1·t. 2029 (2 ) of the Etl1iopian Civil . · @0 de. Wh1Je abstention is al ·· ,.., s0 tls-=-e d as a sy110111ot1s of «0111ission», tl1ere . n• ci1�. f·LC 1.lilS c i,;, s,1✓ Elll.i'"' ta11ces ,vI1er· e 111e us. e. O•f 011e 1111gl1 t be p .refe1·c1 ble to tl1e ·@tifü, er. ios a:n..cl v1•oe ,,ersa. .. The \.vords « fai·1 LII ,. e to ac t» , th ereto.re' n1 ay be p1·e• li�Fal!l ro. •, 11 • ] . J.e, In t 1e c1rcumstances ' as tb . · ey cai, be 1 11clL1sive of both ter111s and · -w@ · ·f. fl1l!m. av©'�1cl l!llilne. cessa.ry confu . e Frencl1 le sion ai . ga . ru. cet1.es. . .lSl · • ng ou L of. tl1 l , -IDf , 1 ïfilfte � "îte · am «o.· ff-e.m.ce» for s11cl1 a failL1re to . � . · act, vvl1e.·n d o es i't beco111e �€:tiiÎ!)Jil a'be m ��,v,? e

'l'JJE LAW FROl\f THE CONTINENT

In p1-i11ci1Jle, liability uncler tl1e Lex Aqitilia, for damage to property, cljd reqt1i1-e a positi,,e act; and, in general, no one was uncler a legal obliga. tion to act t 1 nless l1e l 1ad clone son1etlù11g whicl1 woulcl place I1irn tulcler sucl1 a11 obligatio11 . T.his, too, seems to be tl1e position in E 11 glish Iaw.101 Tl1e P . osition in F1·ance, in the classical cloctrine of liberal and individua listic inspiration, \.Vas not far f1·om these ideas. The jt1stification was tI1at a man must at least 11 ave t11at little pleasu1·e of not acting at ail, if he has a 1·igl1t not to clo so ancl he feels not to do anything. This is not, l1oweve1·, the p1·esent position. It is enot1gl1 to look botl1 at the legal w1·itings and tl1e l1 oldi11gs of tl1e cot1rts for confirmation.110 Tl1e moclern tend.e11cy is «to increase a number of situations in which tl1e lavv obliges n1e11 to act i11 a certain \vay».11 1 Bt 1 t it is necessary to classify these sitt1ations and some recent efforts to tl1is effect have been made by different writers.112 Carbon.nier113 divides tl1em into (a) 01nission dans l'action, (b) J·rzexèc1,t. tian d'itn obliga.tion lègale d'agir, and (c) Abstension pure en l'abserzce de toitte obligatiort lègale d'agir. Catala and Weir114 too, divided them into three parts \.Vhicl1 roughly correspond to Carbonnier's classification - (i} specific duty to act, (ii) legal dt1ty to help othe.rs, ancl (iii) no specific (legal) duty but still vvhere there is ru1 «action by on1ission». (I) Tl1e1·e is a specific Jegal dt1ty to act because it is imposed by la\v, such as in t1·affic 1·egulations. The motorist vvho fails to inclicate tl1at be is about to change direction, or who n1ns at excessive speecl ancl fails to put on tl1e brakes at tl1e material time, or to light his far lights at night time, is 110 dot1bt failing to fulfil a specific legal clt1ty irnposed 011 bim by la\.v. It is some of these sitt1ations that Carbonnier calls «or11issiorz dans l'action». These are tl1e easiest to understand wl1en deali11g with criminal offences. But often this is a basis for a civil action. In failing to act in the prescribed manner tl1e motorist commits also a civil fault. (II) TI1e Ja,v, ho,veve14 sometimes demands tl1at there sl1ot1lcl be a positive action wlùch Catala and Weir call «legal cluty to l1elp otl1ers». It is a further restriction on individt1al liberties. Th.e best exa111ple given is tl1at of Article 63 of the Frencl1 Penal Code as amendecl in 1942 and 1945. Anyone vvl10 vvilft1lly abstains f1-om giving l1elp to a perso11 in clanger, \Vitl1ot1t cla11ger eitl1er to himself or to otl1ers, is puoisl1able to imprison1nent f1·om three rnont11s to five years a11cl to a fi11 e of from 360 to 15000 frétncs or both imprisoment a11d fine.115 Arnong the exa111ples give11 by Largt1ier/ 16 are three decisio11s of tl1e Fre11 cl1 cot11·ts - ( a) that of a 1nan who fails to give aid to a sitting old n1 an \vl10 late1· clies; (b) that of a fatber-in-law who fails to IJass an iro11 i-od ,

•

ClfAl''fER ,,

t e of the water _ to ou rn co to n1 hi ed lp l1e d ha a ii . in er th . _ . . 11 ano . ,vith w1uc . s, ter wa 1cy d a11 of t . ot1 r cu . 1a\1/ ,.v110 1·s struggling to •co111e sly' . iou n -i . l11s son 1·I a to a g1 ke ta ball, tl1o ugh to cl ile fa cl l1a 10 wl an m ig tu yo a of (c) tllat . nclo': ancl, t1nfo11ttna e w1 tl1 h ug ro tl1 f l. 1·se he \' 1·o\. tJ1 to ed ten rea slle llad tll rned autl1or points out that 0111y lea e Tl1 l. fal e tJ1 n1 fro s die d an so es do tely, clea1� ca se of a criminal a d fin e on n ca \v -la r-in l1e fat 1e of t1 se ca irl tlle . offence tlnder Ai·t. 63 a 11d concludes, no t without a sad note, tl1at tl1e ques. tion of morals ·11as been made int o an offence. Bt1t Anclré Maurois, of the Frencli Acaden1 y, bas recently con1e out ,vitl1 a strong app eal to tl1e public for tlie sanie idea in an article ,vl1ich appeared in the Le Soi1· of Bruxelles.117 It is also sig11ificant of the new trend i11 tl1e pres.ent era tl1at countries 8 ed stùt. 11 follow l1ave T11e same , e Europ n Easter ai1d 11 from botl1 WesteI too, J1as IlO\.\T been do11e in Etl1iopia. In fact, Article 547 of tl1e Ethio1)ian Penal Code is almost a verbatim reprocluction of Art. 63 of tl1e Frencl1 Penal Code, except for the ter1n of i1nprisonment wltich i s less se·vere.119 And in tl1e area of civil ,vrongs, it l1as been incor1Jorated in Art. 2029 (2), as aforesaid, and i11 A1·t. 2030 which speaks of <<Ma1�aze 0:z,L les bor1ries nioeros».

(III) Th.e category of situations wl1e.re the1·e is no specific legal duty to act l1as been called by Catala and Wier as «action by 0111ission». Such situations exist: wben there is i111prude11ce ( excessive d1iving); wl1en t11ere is a fault by omission or failure to take ca1·e (failing to apply brakes eitl1er quickl)' or I1ard enougl1); i11 11:egligence ,vhicl1 can b e incurred, either tl1rot1gl1 a positive fault (a flower pot placed in a dangerous place falls from a ,vindow and l1its a street walker), or throt1gh a 11egati,,e fa11lt or carelessness or fault of inaction (the failure of secLu·ing tl1e flo\.ve1· pot properly so as to prevent it from falling). Tl1ey finally mentio11 a11 ext1·eme case where the person is not obliged to act by la\.v or ,vl1ere be had not began tl1e performance of a \.Vork tl1rougl1 wl1icl1 da1nag.e occt1rs, sL1cl1 as ,vhe·n someone digs a hole and fails to protect tl1e pt1blic either by fencing it or by 1,utting a visible sign like a lantern at night. Tit is is a co n1pletely diffei·ent situation. The defendants i n it were a\v are of a certai11 cla11gerot1s situation and abstai11ed from i11forrning the pe rsons concernecl. Tl1is is tl1e situation ,vhere in · 1935 th · e Court of Appea1 at p01t1 · · ers l1a d to const'der tJ1e c�s� of a cow ,.vhlch died of a contagious clisease. The bt1tcher ,,yho l1a11dlecl iti.h:e anim.al cauglit the disease and clied as a restùt. Perso11s ,vho l 1ad bee11 a;w�e of t�e dangerous situation w ere l1eld liable fo r keepin.g silent and n01i 1nform1ng the butcl1er-.120 The d ecision is a n old, ai1d one migl1t add a 1 t e,�t'Eeme ene, bttt it did prepa.re tl 1e ground fo r the a111enclrnent o f Art. 63. �-ta,ti· t00k place in 1945.

l'IlE tA W FR0rt1 THE CO�TINENT

In ge11 e1·al, l1owe,,e.r, in tl1e ftbse 11c e of a specific cluty to act, tllere "vill not be any liabilit)' ttnless one c1·eates tl1e faulty situation as a result of an 1mclertakir1g 011 bis part. Tl1e 1·ecent BrcL11ly121 c ase is in point. Branly is considered in F1·ance as 011e of tl1e chief i nv e ntors of wireless telegrapl1y. A writer \.Vl10 pt1blisl1ecl the history of wireless telegrapl1y, ho,.vever, failecl to n1 ention Branl:y's narne. The Court of Cassation l1eld tl1e writer-historian liable on the g1·ot111d tl1.at 011 ce l1e l1and 1mde1-taken to write a work of tins kincl l1e sl1ould do it \\7.itl1 «reaso11able serio11sne ss ancl objectivity»; and faili11g to clo so, h is condt1ct was belo,v that of a conscientious historian. Catala and Weir attacl1 a g.reat importa11 ce to tl1.is d ec isi on, for t,.vo re asons: «On tl1e 011e l1a11d, it defines i11 very ge11eral terrns the conditions t1nde 1· \.vhicl1, p1·ofessio11 al pe1·sons ,vill inc11r Ji ability for tl1ei1· faults of omission. On tl1e otl1er l1and, i t relates the de finition of passive .fault to tl1 e same stanclard that serves to define ac tive or positive fault; the sta11clard of tl1e bonus pater faniilias. An omis sion is a fa11lt when a prudent a11d diligent individual wotùd have acted in the sit11ation \I\Tl1e11 the defendant failecl to act». 123 At the e11d of the i1· survey, the l ea1�ne d autl1ors try to give a compre hensive definitio11 of tl1e above situations tht1s: «We can tl1erefore concl11cle that fault and liability can arise fro1n f ailure to act, eitber bec at1s,e tl1 e defendant '"'as in breacl1 of a legal duty to act, or bec ause he did not be have like a bo11its z1ater fa111.ilias; tl111s is confirn1ed the unity of tl1e c oncept of fat1l t, wl1etl1 er appliecl to ac ts or to om iss ions>>. 123 Whether ot1r co111·ts will c orne up w itl1 tl1e same results or will take a dif ferent tt1rn, only the f ut11re can tell. But these ill11st1·ations were necessar)' to show the implic ation tl1at lie bel1i11d the term «abstension». Besicles, it is only after ac l1 iev ing some certainity in the legal terminology that 011e can be ce rtal11 of legal concepts tl1at sucl1 te rms are supposed to convey. 1z 4

3. INFRINGEMENT OF LAW (VIOLATION D'UNE LOI). (Art. 2035): It has al1·eacly been pointed 011t, in coru1ec tion witl1 ab.:,cension, th,tt a breacl1 of a specific provisio11 of Iaw (statute ) c reates civil liability. Tl1e qt1estion cloes not present any diffic ulty 125 but it lias been n ecessary to re gulate it expressly in tl1 e Code so as to avoid a11 y conf11sion or to diss ipate any dottb t tl1:;i t may arise. Uncler AI·ticle 2028, wl1osoever tl1rougl1 l1is own fat1lt causes damage to a11otl1er is constrai11 ed to make it good. Article 2035 ( 1) pointeclly sp ecifies

CHAPTEJl V 82

ion of law or any is v o it r c p li p x e r o ic if c e sp any 1g ii lg ii fr in e il o y n a tllat .. tr,ati,re 1-egulation' and thereby ca us es d.amage to anothe r · , . . decree or adn11n1s . gen1e11t 1nay or n1ay 6 f 1n 11 11 s h1 T e. t uo offenc 12 . · an h ic st ed •tt 11 n m o . c e ,.v1ll l1av l y vi lit ci bi , «a lia so if may be 1t bt e nc fe of al in · · · im èr a of rm o • t11e f be 1n 121 M » or e ,.vill be sa id on the . y it il b a li l . trred toOaet.ller ,,,itl1 the cri1ni11a ll1Cl l na t 1i of ec in fi cr (e on civil 49 21 le ic 1·t A h it w �n ti ec n n. co latter point in . 'V

action). the worcl «ordonnance» ap. of n tio sla an tr e th is e» re ec «d rd The wo nc na an on ce rd an «o Fr e» can In . de Co e th of xt te ch en Fr e t11 in peaiing r th a tl1e regular l1e ot dy bo ive at isl leg a by d sse pa v lav of t tex èither be a 11g or ordinary jt1dge idi es p1· a by e ad m ts en em nc ou on pr e th or t, 1en Parlian 128 » a pia hio e Et cre In es. «de 1~ti pa een t,N" be t sui a in re asu me as a p.reliminary can be tl1e measUI·e taken under Art. 92 of tl1e Revised Constitution in cases of emergenC)'; a n1inisterial decree t1nde1· Article 88 of the Revised Constitution; or a court decree vvithin the mea11i11g of Article 3 of tl1e 129 1965. of Cocle e edur Proc Civil n opia Etl1i 130 11 estio SL1gg A o11. icati it11pl d broa of is 1) ( 2035 le Artic Tl1e import of b.as been 111ade tl1at even orders or decisio11s l1eld to b e u11constitt1tional under Article 122 of tl1e Revised Constitt1tion 131 can create a vvrongful act, apt to give redress ttnd.er A1-ticle 2035. Para 2 of Article 2035 entmciates an old legal maxin1 - tl1at ignorance of tl1e law is no excuse - wl1ich goes back to Roman Law.132 A person who vio1ates a Ia,v is not allowed to plead that l1e \'lt/as not a,.vare of its existence. Sin.ce a statute is a main source of tl1e law in a given cot1ntry, it is essen tial tl1at every statute should be botl1 stable and of }Jublic domain.133 011ce sufficient publicity l1as been given to it, 110,",e,,er, it is every person 's duty to know the la,-v. Hence, the maxim that his ignora11ce ,.vill not constitt1te a valid defence.13• 4. · Ti!ERARCHICAL ORDER. ( Art. 2031 ): .. · not so vvel The phrase «Hierarch1·cal Q1. •d er» . 1s l kJ1owt1 as tli.:,t of «St1p• enor Orders». A third nam . . t· be not.ion 1s · e giv · en to also tha t of «Respo11deat . . . $�petxor». According to · some Frenc11 wr1..ters,'3 5 a st1bo1·d.111ate ,.vl10 1·ece1ves . S:Upen0 r orders and passively· exe . . cu . t·es t·hem - wl11cl1 l1e k11ows or ot1gl1t it,0 how that they are wrongfu1 - . ,v1 11 make l1imself liable.Wl1ere, be. . . tt, se 0f compe]l1ng c1 Gj}. rcum· nstanc.es, l1e l1ad no cbo1ce bt1t to exect1te t}J{:! . . �iâe.F, it WJll be up to the cou·rt . . V✓l1etl1e1· a norma co11sc1e11t 0 ap.prec . 1ate lly *' ;i;[01lls l!)er . , s0J;1 ,v.ould o r wou·ld not bave doue so Bt1.t , 1n tl1 e cir s. ct1 111 11s ta nc e . :r.i,,_.: • .1.,, J:>,1e it a �� ila, f>i't-i ppea1·s lhat where he « does no more tl1a11 carr�, tl1e orclers

TJIE LAW FROM 1'HE CONTINENT

received» the co111-t will l1olcl tl1e 11otion of superior orders as a complete de fence, especiaJly so i11 tl1e case of a Sl1bo1·dinate army office1-.u6 After tl1e Seco11cl Worlcl \'va1·, ho\vever, the position seen1 s to 11ave changed137 and i t is e11ot1gl1 to 1·e111e111ber tl1e War Crimes Trials at Nurem burg, ancl jt1st recently tl1at of (Aclol1Jl1) Eicl1man in Israel. As long as 1r 1 e person co11cemed l1ad a mo1·al cl1oice in tl1e matter he cot1ld still be held personally liable. No \,VOncle1· tl1at Catala ancl Weir are not wholly satisfied tl1at tl1is app1·oacl1 meets tl1e encls of justice and are of tl1e view that the matte1· is 11ot yet cornpletely settled - tl1ey ,vo11Icl p1·efe1· tl1at a reasonable bala11ce be st1·t1ck bet,veen tl1e clisobeclience of a superior order wl1icl1 entails tl1e perso11al risk of the suborcli.11ate a11cl tl1e seriousness of the l1ar111 \\1l1ich s11cl1 an order ,vould cattse.138 111 England, a su1Jerior officer \Vho ta]�es pa1·t in the wrongful act will be l1eld pe1·sonally liable, togetl1er \Vitl1 a11y otl1er participant. In such a case tl1e s11pe1·io1· orders 1·eceived wiJI not be a clefence. 139 It \vas pr.esltmably ,vitl1 tlùs i11 mind tha t the late Si1· Winston Cl1111·cl1ill, wben a jtrnio1· officer, refusecl to leave the scene of a battle and go for reinforce111ents as l1is com1nru1cli11g office1· wanted and clen1anded i11steacl that tl1e latter give him a vv1·itten order.'40 111 tl1e America11 army orcle1·s are pres11111,ecl to be valicl and a suborcli11ate disobeys at lus pei·il.14 1 Article 2036 of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code I1as three pa1·agrapl1s. Para 1 states the general p1·u1ciple - the fact that an act is carried 011t on the orders of a lugl1er aL1thority does not necessarily exempt tl1e subordinate from liability. Para 2 immecliately explains tl1at the latter 1nay be l1eld liable if he is aware of the illicit nat111·e of tl1e order. He can appreciate tl1is mainly either by reason of tl1e fact that the persan giving the order I1as no legal po,,\Ters ( con1péterz.ce) to do so or by the c1·iminal nature of tl1e act per se. Para 3 enumerates tl1e sit11ations in ,.vl1ich the subordi11ate may fincl legal justification, thus: «'fhere is no offence ,vhere, in tl1e circu1nstances of t11e case, and in particttlar baving regarcl to t11c st1·ict exigencies of adrninistra tive or rnilitary discipline, tl1e cloer was placed in sucl1 a position that be coL1ld not clisc11ss tl1e orcle1· 1·ecei,1ed or act otl1ervvise than l1 e did». It is very likely tl1at it wa s clt1e to an oversigl1t, b11t a very important .qualification l1as bee11 on1ittecl fro m tl1e Englisl1 text of tl1is paragrapll. TI1e French text14 2 contains tl1e aclverb «JJratiq1,,e1nenl» ancl if the Englisll translation l1acl been more acctrrate it wol1ld 11ave said «tl1e cloer... could

CHAPT ER V 6'1

. y d'1scu ss » wl1icI1 ma ke s quite a diffe1·ence. Whether 01• not • • not practzcall ll b e a 1natter tliat lias w1 en g1v e1· ord tl1e s cus ' dis ld coti a te 111 d. st1bor . t11e to th e sw·rot1nd111g circun--. rd ga 1·e ng vi ha t tir co '-.U• e ' tll by d • 1ne te1·m de be to ts om fr ar t st i if t11e premise , er ev w ho r sie ea be ' ld ou W Sk sta11ces. Its ta . » ra tller tlian «any» difficulties \Vould prevent tl1e subor that «pract1cal . d ,e i, ce re er rd o 1e tl g in ss cu dinate from dis ry examples. 1 ita itl n w al m tio ec nn co in e ov ab id sa en be Eilougl1 has 143 garding «strict exigencie s 1·e re be ew els ed ish furn en be iso a ve ha Examples , ter as su cl1 as an e arth dis a is e er Tb e» lin cip dis . .. e tiv tra nis mi d a. of g, tin t th loo ven \\ri pre to orders to led cal are ice pol . d n e a. fir a quake or who on the orders of l1is superio rs '511oot 011 sight. Conversely, a policeman toi..tures a p1-iso11er in order to extort fro m him a confessio11, ,.vell kno,ving tbat under tl1e law he sbould not do so. He ,vould be exen1pted in the first case hut l1eld liable in the second. One may or may 11ot agree with these examples but tl1ey serve to illustr a te tl1e point. But as a gen.e.ral rule, whe ther or not the order received was given by a competent autl1ority clœs not seem to play a decisive point in the determination of tl1e wrongful order for the purposes of Art. 2036. Except for the qtialifications made and provided tl1e order was «illicit» a subordin.ate will incur civil liability from wl1atever quarters tl1e order emanated. 1H 5. NON-PERFORM_ANCE OF CONTRACT. ( Art. 2037 ): Wbere a persan f ails to discharge his obligations under a contract, be does not thereby commit an «offence» witl1in the meanincr0 of Article 2028 {Art. 2037 (1)). Sucl1 a matter, instead, is covered by the provisions regarding non-performance of contra cts, which alo.n e sho11ld apply (Article 2037 (2) ). Pri�a fa.cie one may wonder \vhy tl1is elemenla1·y 1·ule wa s given st1cl1 a prominent place so as to appear in the gener a l rules of Title XIII. It is eneugh to look beyond the surface, ho\.vever, to see ho,-V complicat d the e _ matter 16• Cases a. rise in which there is a delic tal remecly for the w1·oog, tn'0ugb b t for the contract the defend ant ,vottld no t J1a d the opportunity � _ � e0mm1ttmg th··e wron . • ·.g. W hen the same facts give rise to both the c1v1l M'F0.Flg anâ a co-ntrac,·tual li a b1'l1'tY h ow 1s one to distinguisl1 one from tl1e l!>îher ? When does an acti.on arise · out of. a cont ..t ? . to r ra ct a an w1 f1·0 d 1e1 1n 1 .a fu(;)m.h e0ncep . m ts 'lnterchaoge and if so at wha t stage? 'Jhese a1JJe eve:cywhe·re bo·rde-r1 · ine cases - a11 d as tl1ey were uncler the � . . �� t�w st11l are now _ . . very dif f1cult to soI,,e. On tl1e \.vl1ole, the D-<!i, ,�, ·�tts seem to :have focused on the inter-indipe11dence of th e two actions _ �. ;:,,-- �, 1· �e aeit 1� actualJ.y done as part of the per formance of tl1e cont ract, -

THE LAW FllOM 'fliE CONTINEN'f

the ,1cquiliai1 action vvottlcl not lie, bttt 0111), that of contract; but if the act is really indi1Je11de11 t of tl1 e co11tract, tl1ougl1 it might not 11ave occuri·ecl l1acl tl1-e con.tract not been e11 tered into, the aqttilia11 action will lie.14s 1 16 l1as also tried to sum up tl1 e sittiation and writer glish E1 1 rece1 1 t ' A came t1p alrnost ,.vith the san1 e 1·esttlts, thot1gl1 the court's decision, subject matter of his con1n1 ents, see111ed, by implication, to hold that tJ1e. re is no conct1rrence l1et,vee11 to1�t a11d co11tract.147 In Ital)', too, tl1e n1atte1· is as just being l1otly debatecl especially in contract of car1iage. Tl1e Italian Civil Code of 1942, wltlcl1 st1persedecl tl1at of 1865, 011 tl1is tapie a n1 ere rep1·ocluction of the F.rench Civil Code, is in Et1rope the 111ost up-to-date legislative treatment of responsability as a ,.vhole, thot1gl1 tl1 e Ger1nan Civil Cod.e and the Swiss Code of Obliaa 0 tions have inflt1enced it in 1nany placeS.148 U11der Art. 1678 of tl1e Italia11 Civil Code, pro,1 ision is 1nad.e foi· tl1e <<coritrcttto di trasporto» ai1d ttnder para 3 of Article 1681 that of «coritratto di trasporto gratitito·». All at1tl1orities seen1 to agree that tl1e contract does 11ot p1·esent a11y ctifficu]ty even if gratuitous, as the two parties have a n unclerstanding that the cont.ract will be exect1ted. Tl1e rule is not so settlecl as to t.he «trasporto gratiLito a titolo di r11.e1·a cartesia o an1.ichevole (roughly tl1e Frencl1 «transport bènèvole») 14 9 \vl1ere t}1 e passenger is given a lif1 and carried purely as a favou1·. ln tl1e first case - that of «trctspo1·to et titolo grattLito» - the two often quoted ex. amples are tl1 ose of a man ,.vl10 ca1·ries a meclical doctor in l1is car in orcler to take hlm to see a patient a11 d tl1at of an en1 ployer wl10 carries l1is ern ployees to ,.vorl< f1·on1 tl1ei1· l101nes. In both cases, it is clear tl1at tl1e doctor and the employees we1·e 11 ot carried purely as a favot1r bt1t there ,.vas wl1at 150 If, on tlJe te» rilevan e . cament giuridi sse d'Orsi tecl111ically calls a11 «intere other hand. A gives B (his friend) a lift in bis ca1· as a mere favour or courtesy, both k.now that tl1e1·e is no legal dtity or any othe1· reason tl1an decency and if A decicles to drop B on tl1e way l1e may clo so at l1is \<Vill ancl will not be liable, unless, of course·, in so doing l1e worsens B's posi tion, thereby causing him som e dai11age. Novv, when in tl1e cotrrse of t]1is ? 151 A nst agai lie trip an accident occurs and B is killed \Vhat action does TI1e a11tl1orities a11 agree tl1at A bas a general duty towards tl1e con1 mtinity in general, expressed i n the legal (and strictly speaki11 g moral) maxim of ne111ine1n laedere, and as such i s liable if anything shot1Id l1appen because of his «clolus» or «ci,lpcl», wl1icl1 1nust be provecl by the plaintiff. If, instead, the same sl1ouid happen either to the doctor or to the employees tl1 en tl1 e sitt1ation changes. Tl1 e autl1orities l1e1·e, too, are as numerous as tl1eir clive1·gent views. Out of tl1e ma11y, there tl1e1·e are at least th.ree positio11s: (a) those holding the responsible liable only uncler the Lex Aqitilia; (b) tl1 ose l1olding l1in1 liable uncler tl1e co11tracl a11 cl coll·

CIIAPTER V

the .same; an d (c) those wli-icl of J1œ ma or . erf n-p no as .l'l:1 exlt . . sider t·he ac· ....r'd . 1ce a e cho we bet 1ff 111t n eitller an pla the e giv and two tlie _ b-·me . . wotùd con1 s r rd erther the co·n· . .1n tor ·t 01• an action in contract - in otl1e wo action . ,sz a rs . . e -v e ic v tract absorbs tl1e tort o1· 153 he classical view is e. nc ra T i11 F o ,,e als ali ll sti is rsy ve ro The cont rent; · bu t tl1e majority opinion ffe di lly ia nt se es e ar s ie Jit bi lia o tw that tlle m no is re da the ft1n t tl1a al lds ent bo d an ion sit but po e at edi erm int a n t akeS th at d bo tl1 an m the 1 depend on a ee1 tw be ce en fer dif ory ess acc y rel Otlly pu At an y rate, both views stticly of tl1e causes a.nd effects of obligations. icl1 is wh ity bil lia us broader and tio tor tl1e is e rul tl1e at 1 tl ee agr to seenl t11e exceiJtion, the contractual, which finds application onl y between the pai·tjes. The learned authors elaborating fu.rther on the point, swuma1ize 54 r/ nie ·bon tht1s: Ca1 y abl not s, itie tl1e French outstancling autl1or «If ,ve have a valid contract, contractual liability bet,veen the parties arises from the failW'e to perform a pro1uise in tl1e con t1·act ... This promise neecl not be expressed, and n1ay be implied. Tl1is is the explanation of tl1e pron1ise of safety (obligatiol'i cle sécu.rité) which is so in1po,rtant in F1·e11cl1 law. In certai11 con tracts, wl1ose main abject is sometbing quite different, (carriage of persans, public games, care of chilclren), justice assumes that one of tl1e parties (the ent1·epreneur) promises the other (eustom er) to ret11rn l1im safe and soud at the end of the ventu1·e. TI1en if the customer suffers persona! injW'ies, tl1ere must l1ave been a b1·ea.ch of the promise contained in the contract, ancl tl1e e11st1ing liability sl1ould sow1d in contract».155 Tlie J' tben tackle th_e problem of co-existenc e of tl1e two liabilities wl1ere botl1 the parties and the facts are the same.They express tl1e opinion that o·n the abo,,e facts botl1 contractual and tortious (or delictal to use their phrase) liability can occur. In sucl1 a case they po int to tl1e co11rses ope11 to a plaintiff and, i11 so doing, explain tl1e m eaning of tl1e concepts con veyed by the terms «option» and . «cil111ul», as follo,vs: «A eontractuac:l cred·i'tor m1· g l1t. be we 1 . . 1 adv1sed to try to str1p hunself of ltis qual-ity as con tractor an ..11·d party t111d appear as a tl1 eonnec · ted bY contract. The courts have held tl1at 'Articles 1382 et seq of the civi · 1 Code bave n.o applicatio11 in tl1 ev fault . · of en e t . lll t h e exe cution of a contractual obligation'. Req . Jfln. 21 1890, ' (1890) S.I. 408 ' (1891) D.I. 380. The. y deny the possibilit)' of the . . G0ex1stence of tb·e two ty pe . .. . s of lia b1l 1ty a11d in cioing so .reft1se to • 1 1 1 , f,,Q'.i.. , u. w th!.e v1.._ew bath of t hose:, wl. 10 th1nk that tl1e victim sl1ot1Jd

THE LAW FROltf THE CON'flNE�1'

be able to choose \vhicl1eve1· action st1its J1im, ( OJJlio,1) · and of those \Vho think that by cumulating tl1e actions tlie ci·editor· may have the benefit of the aclvantage offered by each ( cit,nitl).'s6 Roclière adds t\VO ft1rtl1e.r categories - tl1e co11cours (whicJ1 cleals wit11 st1bsidiary rigl1ts of the plaintiff under Article 1382, even thotigh J1is action on tl1e cont1·actt1al liability I1 ad bee11 disrnissecl); and tl1e jei, sitccessif concerni11g assessn1ent of damages, i.e . \-vhether, in addition to damages for breach of co11tract, the defendant sl1ould be orde1·ecl to pa:y «compli mentary» damages in connection with the tortious liability).157 But in prac tice all four go under tl1e broad question of «cumul» and this, it is asst1med, is ,vhat Professo1· David meant wl1 e11 he affirms that provision is made 011 the «qitestio11. cle ciLntitl» in that part of Title XIII ,vhich deals with the general rules.158 Tl1ough tl1 e problem of ci,.mul has now been solved in Ethiopia, it migl1t still be 1·elevant to point ot1t tl1e importance of disti11guishing bet ween a contractual and tortious liability. Carbonnier,159 speaking of French law, has st1mmarizecl t11e parallel of tl1e t,,vo liabilities and classified tl1em into rules of substance (règles de /011..cl) and rules of p1·ocedure or of evidence (·règles cle 11reit11e ). In connection ,vith the first group the salient points to be borne i11 mind are these: tl1e conditions of the two liabilities are not the same: delictal capacity is Iess demanding tban the contractual; the placing of one party in default (la 111.ise en de111eitre ) is required for one but 11ot for the othe1·; tl1e clauses of exclusion of liability (at times called co11,,entio11s cl'irresponsabilitè but better known as cl{lJl,ts es de nori-responsabilitè) migl1t be valid in n1ost contracts but are invariably null and void in tortiou.s Iiability. 160 In to1·ts an i11 soliditni obligation arises ex officia (de 11le in droit) in respect of all participants of the same civil \Vrong; the ex-officia obliga tion does not arise in contracts. Prescription, as a general rule, is thirt)1 years in the two cases but in the case of civil wrong it is t1sually bet,.veen ten, three or one year. As to rules of procedure or of evidence - as a general rule, in con tract fault is presumed ,vhen tl1ere is no perforn1ance of tl1e contract; i11 civil wrongs it has to be proved. Of course, there are exceptions. For in stance, \vhen the obligation is one of means ( obligatiori de 1n0)1e11s ) 161 a fatilt must be proved in the sarne \Vay as in civil liability. Again, in the cletermination as to \vhether a give11 sitt1ation faJls ei tJ1 er into the domain of contractual or tortiot1s liability, the exact n1oment as · cases of comto the formation of the co11tract is relevant, espec1a · 11Y so in mon carriers. If the otttcome of the inqt1iry sl1ot1lcl be tl1at ci,,il wrong

· ei�l1er before ( préco11trctct place took .tle be , ay 111 ase c u. ezzeJ . .• . or defatilt, as 1 t1me, the matter may beco 1al ter · 111a tl1e ) le itel acl ntr o rn · · �e or after ( 110Stc . , and as such trcicti1elle) on e,r,trac regttl ( .. p ,vi·ona ated , 11 . l� C by · f . O . e . 11 0 . ly o_ • • .. 162 . s1m_ . . y 1t 1l f:> a l1 . . tl1e r11les relati11g t o c1v1l . st the of f1r s1s 11 articl es. of Titl aly a11 tl1e tes ple coin tlS urs exc e Tliis -ules». In some insta11ces it bas not bee 1 al ner «ge led cal so n XIII _ the . s a n d tl1us tou ch on II1atters wlJich ail det o int ng eri ent id a,,o to �Jossible re . The ook b . are two reasons for t sen pre tl1e of pe sco the ond bey far are (and perbaps desirable), no ble vita ine is it re ,.vl1e ept exc , tl1at is One this. h the wit ng tion aini nec rem con in n give 124 articles. be will ils deta ilar sim the general rules, no intelligent in. g bein les artic 11 first these , ndly Seco sigllt c·an be gained of the import of th.e other articles, 11nless one has had, as it were, prepared the grou11d, beforehancl. II - PARTICULAil ILLUSTRATIONS: A. Nol'1zi1icLte Torts: CitlJJa iri Co11.tra/1enclo: (Art. 2055). In. tbis section ,.i..,}1ich deals with special cases (a corn.mon la,.vyer ,vould under perhaps prefer (<nominate torts») tl1ere is a peculiar civil \Vrong, . Art.. 2055, callecl «pre -contractual» negotiation - «a pe1·son comn1its a11 of fe11ce where havin,g declared his intention of entering into a contract and ha,ring induced others to incur expenses vvitl1 a vie,v to con.cluding a con tract ,-vitl1 him, l1e arbitrarily abandons his intention». Tl1at tl1is idea «is quite foreign to the common la\.\'» has beén in clicated once before. 161 But Dr. Russell suggestecl that tl1e Draft Article 29 (,vhich later became Art. 2055) migl1t have been inspired by a passage · found in the discussion by Amos and \Valton, 164 with respect to offer and accepta.11ce of co11tracts. TJie Frencl1 text of the Code speaks of Negociations pré-c01itract1,1elle. Mention165 h . as already been macle of the importance of clisti11guishing bet \veen a �ituation wl1icl1 is eitl1er préc ontractuel le or postco1'ztracti1elle fron1 that of coi1ttactuelle, so that any dam age wh ich is not wit11i11 tl1e contract can be regiùatecl by the rules of civil wrong. If 011e consults Professor �avid's higly important article,166 it \vil] be see11 tl1at a tl1eo1-y cal]ed cz,1lpa � c i1tral1e,1.do taken from other legal syste1ns, can be founcl incorporat ed � 111 Tit]e XIII. Th e doct1-ine is the creatio11 of tl1 e ot1tstandi.ng Gern1an jtiri st von Jl1erjn0"0• GeneraJI , · • · · · se ou t . t ar 1s ,vl11ch meant Y I i to regulate situations • · of 111t erference wit·1.1 contracts. It is a doct1·ine whlcl1 c1·eates responsi'b'1l·1 ty for negliO"0ently give · n «iric · orr.ect informa tians 01· 11egligent failtire to c orn· 1i

Tl:lB LA \V FROI\I TIIE CONTINENT

municate during contractt1al 11egotiations ... w11ich give rise to a i·elationshlp 161 cont1·act». a to similar · Tl1e best illt1st1·atio11 of this can be founcl trust of i11 the T.v.S.16,8 case, where <lainages unde1· this cloctrine ,.vere a,.\rarded vvl1e11 a telep]1011e offer to sel! some s11a1·es of n1ini11g stock was not honourecl, dt1e to the absence of the offeror from l1is office wl1e11 accepta11ce w�s confirn1ed throt1gh the sa111e 111eans. Tl1e Cot1rt found that tlie offeror ,vas at fault foi· failing to await fox· a reply or for 11ot Ieaving someo.ne to re ceive the message. Wl1en the sl1ares ,ve1·e not clelivered the plaintjff bougl1t them elsewl1ere ancl sued for dan1ages. The situation en,,isagecl is tha! wl1ich F1·ench ju1·ists call pou.rparlers (parley) - the preliminary stages before the co11clt1sio11 of a contract. The contract is stt1clies and disct1ssecl. It is possible tl1at tbere is 11ot yet an offer ,vhich is apt to b� acceptecl as st1ch; so tl1e1·e is no contract yet but only propositio11s and cotmter-p1·opo sitions. But a certain «ra.pport jitrictique» bet,vee11 tl1e parties cornes i11 to existence. Wl1ile it does not deal witl1 the execution of tl1e contract, it has 11evertheless imposed certain obligations on the 1Jarties as to their con cluct - as tbat of abstaining from any unfair n1anou,,res, or as tl1at of in forrning one anotl1e1· on all circumstances wl1ich n1ay be relevant to the conclusio11 of tl1e cont1·act. In other words tl1e parties are U11cle1· a dt1ty to act with one anotl1e1· i11 good faith, during tl1-e negotiation stages. If there is a violatio11 of tl1ese rules of concluct, as it were, one con11nits a fault, ,vl1icl1 Jhering bas caJled ci1lpa in co11.trahe11do, entitling one to da1n ages as the rest1 lt of this civil wrong. 169 In France, the doctrine is nowhere specifically enu11ciated but tliis clicl not prevent both the text-,vriters and the cow�ts from accepting it. 110 As a matter of fact, the F1·ench writers have tl1ought up a name for this civil wrong - tl1at of responsabilité précontractitelle.li• 111 this sense, only tl1en, one may agree that French law 1nay have served as inspiration. B.

STRICT LIABILITY (OR LIABILITY WITI-IOU�f FAULT).

(i)

A11in1als: (Arts. 2071-76).

Liability arising out of animais «11nder one's care. 112 in France is clealt vvith under A1-ticle 1385. The last decisions show tl1at tl1e article came to be regarded as imposi11g strict liability, unless force 111.ajei,re, 113 or the victim's fault can be shown. The n1le is applicable botl1 to clon1estic anima]s or to wild animals in captivity, sucl1 as a vvolf.' 74 cletails !11 th e Ethiopian Ci vil Code th e same matte1· is tre,1tecl i11 111ore ancl is found in Articles 2071 to 2076. Tl1ere a1·e, 110,vever, some differences. Tl�e first one is that w]1iJe the provisions of tl1e Frencl1 Civil Cocle do not

:,:________

�Il

CBAPTBll V --- -- --- ---------,-- ---;r-,------� �

surreodeai�g the anim�I as a . of es i ilit sib pos . late . . . 11).e�)ts a1Jpea1· to conte1np . . .. case In the �t:aiol"lian - li''l,,: . one's self fron1 l1abtl1ty, th1s IS the . , r1ng . ...,,, 'i"L_..,�I,V/A l of rel1e m.b w.. , ea 1d s he wa at th ry ve t iv,.; ,.". e n t ub do m no be to s a ezn . T se e · ·· 1 Code. l1e1 , 1,s ·thougJ1 foct1s seems to l1ave been both on slaves �;n--1 ·• · r-<.&!l!.!! an:i. Roman law, . . to f1n d ou t fro m the t-v(INaux né 116 J t \-v ould be inde·ed interest1ng [J rpa. mals. the dra ftsm en of the Bthiopiarr cr,ri,E Coi led icl1 \Vh s son i·ea the ratoires e l xa no of es liability, simc� fhese ·seeJ! ipl nc pri law n ma Ro old tlle ive n to rev •n » m nt e of me th . lop de ve de mo the on law e nc lue inf «to 11ave had no Custonlary Ja,v, therefore, cornes in one's mind. Of this we wi!; ll baiVe a chance to say somethi'ng later. At any rate, it is beyond cl©uil1>t ihat, in Rome t11ere was Iiability \.vitl1ot1t fa.ult in the case of damages caused 0� the animal. There was also a possibility, \Vbere tl1ere was no fauirt 0f tJJe ,,ictim, of lim:iting such liability by the noxal abandonmen t of the anhnaI. This concept is now fou11d inco1·porated in tl1e Etlaiopian Civil Code.•;a AD.other departure from Frencl1 law is to be found in the fact filla1 fhe Ethiopian Civil Code cont.emplates a11imals «othe1· than domestic» - a p:vinciple mo1�e akin to tl1e com1non lµ .w, \.vhere distinction is made bet. ,.veen «animais inhere.ntly dangerous or of known dangerous propensities and other anim.als».1;9 111 such a case tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code forbicls any l�mitation of liability (Arts. 2074-2075). (ji) B1-tildi11gs a1ul ((Cl'Loses»: (Arts. 2077-80). Unde1· French law, liability a.rising out of buildings is covered by the pro vis·ions o.f Article 1386, French Civil Code - tl1e last one of the fa.mous five a1�icles in whicl1 the French courts see1n to have found the solution. for almo.st every problem of civil wrongs. For tb.e purposes of Art. 1386, the owner of a building is responsible for tl1e dama.ge caused by irts fall ( ruirie), iw if such damage is due to want of repairs 01· because of defect in its construction. Owing to the wider use of Article 1384, however, Article 1 386 has now ((a restrictive effect ». 181 N evertheless, \vhat ha.s been said of animals is, 111.1;1.tatis mutandi s, applicable in th e case of buildi11gs. lu Ethiopia, th,e pertinent provisions are contain i 11 Articles 2077 to ed 2080 inclt1.sive. But also bere, unlik e French law surrender of tl1e building to t �e victim may relieve the o,vner of liabilit;, provicled tl1at no fault is attribtrted to bave been comm for on pe rs itt ed th e eit be by or r by hi m _ \vhom he 15 responsible (Art. 2078). Tl1e noxal actio11 under the Ron1an la\V �vas equally applicable to buildings and. l1as no,v been barmonized and 111corp orated in tl1e Eth' . . . . for 182 de 1op1a. ma . C1v1l 1s n provi Code. sio11 Speci fic . 1ngs falli.ng th bt froin the building (Art. 2080) do u an y at , so as to dissip , e ,vhetl1er or not 1la tJ1e . was also to · b1·1·ity · i tbai . . other be things extendecl to building z1er se.1sJ

TllE LA \V FRO�:l Tl-lE CONTJNEi'il'

In F1·ance, tl1e1·e is 011c imJJ01·tant differe11ce bet\.\,een Iiability arisiJlg ot1t of a11in1als a11 d bttilclù1gs uncle1· 011e's care - i 11 the first case tll e de f.enda 11t neecl not be tl1e o\-v11 er but can also be tl1 e persan who is makiilg use of the ani111al, vvl1ereas in tl1e seco11cl case it is always tl1 e ovvner ( pro priétaire) .184 Un.cler tl1 e Etl1io1Jian law, l10,veve1·, SJJecial provision is also 1nade so as to rencle1· tl1 e occt1pie1· of a bt1ilcling Iiable foi· «any clan1age cat1sed by a11 y abjects ( c/1.oses) falling fro111 it». (Art. 2080). (iii) Mac1'iines

01-

ft.1.otor,,eliicles (Arts. 2081 -2084).

Articles 2081-2084 co,1e1· 1nac.hines a11d 1noto1· vel1icles. Except vvl1ere tJ1e machine or motor vehicle has bee11 stolen, the o,.vner is liable for any damage cat1se by eitl1er the macl1i11e or motor vehicle, eve11 if tl1e cla-1nage ,.vas done by a person t1nauthorizecl to OJJerate, l1andle or d1ive it (A1·t. 2081); a persan wl10 has received (reçu) tl1e maclune or motor vehicle foi· purposes of pe1·s011 al gain is equally liable for the cL:"11nage cat1secl while tl1e machine 01· n1otor vel1icle is in l1is ct1stody ( pe1·zclerzt qit'il en a let garcle); bt1t, except ,vl1ere fa11lt is sho\v11 to exist, 11ot so in the case of a «préposé» wl1ose connectio11 ,,vith ( qiti est erz: ra1111ort avec) either tl1e machine or ,,ebicle is for tl1e account of the O\vner or of tl1at of anotl1<er pe1·s011 (Art. 2082). The ow11e1· wl10 bas paid compensation to tl1e victirn has a right to clai111 ft111 indemnity - unless he or someone for \.vhom l1e is responsible l1as con1n1itted a fault - from tl1 e person \,vl1 0 hacl the cttstody of tl1e macl1ine or vehicle (Art. 2083). FinalJy, liability arising out of collision betwee11 tvvo motor vel1icles js provicled for u11der Ai-t. 2084 - it envisages tl1e solutio11 that each sl1ot1lcl be regarded as I1aviog cont1-ibt1ted equally to the accident and consequen tly, bea1· l1alf tl1e total amou11t of tl1 e damages concernecl, unless, of cot1rse, it is p1·oved tl1at tl1e accident was due entirely or chiefly ( en totalité oit plus particulié1'1nerit) to tl1è fault of one of the drivers (Art. 2098). Sucl1 �ituations, u11der the F1·ench law, are treated uncler the general liabilty of Article 1384 whicl1, among other things, broadly states tl1at a person is responsible not only foi- the clamage tl1at l1e has ca11secl by l1is own act, b11 t also for that cat1secl by tl1e acts of persons fo1· ,vhom l1 e is responsible or by tl1e action of tl1i11gs in l1 is care or ct1stody ( cle c!1oses qi,te l'on a soits sa garcle). This writer l1as used «care» a11d «ct1stody» as sy11ony 111s but it appe. ars tl1at «care» is preferable. 135 A11 effort has bee n macle to keep as close as possible to the tecl1nical te1·ms usecl i11 tl1e F1-encl1 text. !11 so cloing it is hoped to avoid the indiscri1ninate ttse 1nade in tl1e E11glish text, of certai11 tecl1nical \Vords, s11ch as, foi· instance, «agent» for 11ré11osé», «taken posses-

. .

-=--·----

---------

-··-----·-··---�

· qiti est en rapport avec, at] fo1 e» arg cl1 s 11.a ho «,.v . · garde' ap. s1011» 1:01. la 082). 2 ( le ic t r A le o s e 11 o peaI.·llloa i·n • . 1. , . · l t 1 1e y . 1 1 eno cl11i1 age11t ôn-te <<t L 0 an 01 1cal 1s Jaw i Fi · , , s 1ch ·e · A prepose 1n """'·e >,, . e1•th.er pai pal ( co11ietta,1.t) lilOr bou0d to hin nci pri . the by · i bY d · tor l1e 1s n . . om 111s fatl1er banâ.s wh ild to ch a se, sen is th in d an , , ove , t· ,,. an.y cont I·ac • , , , ,M e. os ep as fJ' ed a But fu.e is Ilot t 11e rd ga i·e be ay in r ca s l1i of s el he \v thè isaged for in Art. 21 �9 of the Ethiop. env le, mp exa for is, t tha nt age kind of iai1 Civil Code. Tlle tern1 <<possession» l1as both in Fre11cl1 a11d English Jaw a preci se legal meanii1.g. As to English law we shall l1ave occasion to speak of it at a Jater stage, in co11necti.on \vith trespass to goods (Arts. 2053 and 2054). In Frencl1 la,v tl1ere is a differe11ce bet\vee11 a possesseur and a détenteu r. A possessor is prest1med to be the o,.v11e·r, t111less and until a better t:itle is shown by another person and a «mere materi al cont1·0I ai1d use is not by itself sufficient to co11stitt1te possession in the eyes of tb.e la\.v».187 In thi s connection, it migl1L also be profitable to 11ote tl1at Article 2051 of the 83 ' toclia». s Ctl. iri «cosa of speaks Code Civil Italian But to return to the main subject. The ,vord chose (tl1ing) of Art. 1384 has be.en l1eld to include water, gas a11d electricity, pipes and wires ru1cl falling trees, a.nd. bas certain!)' been used to caver cases of collision bet ,.v een two n1otor vehicles.189 The F1·ench development .in this matter has been slow in its gro,vth. L'af/air Jaitd'J,zeur19a was a landmark in tl1is de,1e lopn1ent. The Court l1eld that a defendant cannot exonorate l1imself by n1erely showing tbat he bas acted ,vith care and skill wbicl1 could be expected of bim or that it was not his fault. I t seems clear, the1·efo1·e, tl1at tl1ere \Vas liability ,vithout fault (or strict191 Iiability), except for force 1najei,re in tl1e sense of external cattse. It ,vas in that case that tl1e Court used the ,vords «préso1nJJlio1YZ cle resporisabilité», instead of tl1e fonr1er préso1nption cle faute», wbicb cou lrl ha.v e been reb11tted merely by proof of absence o f fault. In the guise of , . JJ res o,nptzo n cle responsabilité the doctrine ha s be en a1Jplied to l1old the OWllei· of a stole11 car liab le for damages caused by it; btLt tl1e doctri ne ,-vas latei· relaxed a1Jd in the case of Corinot C. Frct1ick 192 i t ,vas held that tbe owner in such a case ,,va s no t lia ble , a11cl late1· decisio.os have been · favot1·rable · to tl1e 11n p1·1e d 1·eturn to the fat1lt JJ1-i11ciple. 19 l I11 tl1e case of contribt1tory cl sai be wi ll negligence, o f which more la ter ' tl1e so-cal ' led· doct· rine ·· · of «common fault», as th.e method of· s·liar.i11g tl1e damage ' <::eems � t0 11ave been developecl i11 tl1e French co1.u·ts 0111Y l ateJ,, ·J • . Neve rthele · ss' tlie. ic · 1 ea was taken from then1 by tJ1e S\.\riss ù1 1868 ancl later o11 acce1Jted ,111 Q 11ebec, Germany ancl Italy.' 94

•

-----·-Cf{APTER V

1·nE L,\. W FRO�l THE CONTLNENT

These cot1ntries are n1 e11t11011ecl l1ere as I1 aving a bearing on the for n1L1latio11 of tl1 e latte1· m·ticles. 1'hc qL1estio11 o.f liability tt11cle1· Article 2081 I1as ;\Jready con1e befor e the CoL1rts of Etl1iopia. The1·e a1·e 110w ve1-y fe\v cases availabe but tl1e follovving t\vo cases 1nay be in point. I11 Ghebremesc/1el Gheb1·esillasie v. Weizero C/1iclczr1. Bai11.ot,'94 tl1e facts were tl1ese. GI1ebremeskel was tI1e owner of a 101·1-y \Vl1 icl1 was being operated by his driver Ai.nealem Tesfa n1ariam, on l1is behalf. During a trip frorn Acli Grat to Asrnara there ,vas a11 accident in "''hich tl 1e lo1·ry overturned, as a result of wl1icl1 a passenge1in tl1e lo1·ry ( 011e GI1ebreiohan11es Hailtt) clied. Tl1 e plaintiff in tl1 e case (and 1·espo11da11t 011 appeal) brought a suit against botl1 tl1e owner of the lorry and tl1 e drive1·, in J.1e1· capacity as a 111 otl1er and as tl1e sole l1eir of t11e victim. Tl1e t1·ial court, partly accepti11g her claiI11, l1 eld only the clri\•er liable and discl1arged tl1e owner fr·om ar1y responsibility. An appeal vvas filed befo1·e tl1e Higl1 Cou1·t of Jt1stice \vl1er.e the cot1rt entertai11 ed tl1e appeal (File 29 /62) and, conversely, l1eld tl1e o,vne1· a1one liable. It assessed tl1e da1nag.es at 2.000.. Etl1. $. and gave costs at Etl1 . $. 200. It is against tl1is decisio11 tl 1 et the second appeal ca1ne before tl1e St1preme CoLtrt. In confi1·mi11 g tl1e last decision, the Supreme I1nperial Court held the o,vner aJone strictly liable under A1·t. 2081 et seq. - t111 less .l1e cotùd prove tbat his lo1·ry hacl been stole11 - even \vhere hjs clriver hacl n1ade a JJrofit fro1n tl1 e ca11·iage of pe.rsons against the O\vner's express orclers. 1-Iis on.ly remedy, the court l1eld, lied i n an action against bis ow11 clriver. As for damages, the cot1rt agreecl tl1at under Art. 2102, tl1e Cottrt of Appeal cotùd assess and award them in an eqt1itable 1nan.ner. Exce1Jt tl1 at tl1e accident l1ere caused only bodily injt1ries a11 cl not death, the facts in tl1e case of Be1·acJ,zi Demsas v. Ogbe Haile196 are almost identical to those of tl1e first. Notwithstanding tl1at tl1e defe11 ce in the Demsas case hacl p1·ovided tl1e cou1·t with the benefit of an excellent brief - the sum and substance of wllich was tl1at ,vhe1·e the driver had accepted a sum of mon ey to cari-y the defendant, any liability arising thereafter ,,vas reg11latecl by tl1 e contract - the Sup1·eme Imperial Court stt1ck to its former clecision. It reinterated the principle tl1at the on1y defence, apart from fattlt, was the theft of the lorry. Even thot1gl1 the bench in bath cases consistecl of the san1 e 1nernbers, one may still safely say that this is the present trend of tl1 e As1nara court. That this was the ratio legis see1ns also certain.197 Tl1e policy behincl tbis harsh rule is tl1at the o,.vner· of the vehicle can protect l1 imself by an insurance; J1 e can also get reimbursed by bis clriver; bt1t tl1 e victin1 mL1st be constantly covered, unless be l1as l1imself con1 mitted f,1L1lt. TJ1 e otl1er excep tion is where there is tl1eft of the vebicle, bL1t if Prof. David hacl 111s . \Vay, even that exceptio11 wot1lcl l1a,, . e b een exc1 LIdec119s · .•.

·,

CEJA.l'TER V

TION: A S N E P M O F C O 1" N E T X C. MODE AND E

ge caused to an.othe t na da1 tha is 8 202 . Art of ple nci pri r Tlie gen.e,ral at is t wh tl1a ine erm det bas to to er ord be made In · d goo e mad • e 111ust b ture of th e damage compla:in e na e th m fro rt sta ily sar ces ne ist mL d good oile . _ He11ce the tra d1t 1on al classification de. 1na be y ma 11 atio ipes con t th� of , so . d categor3, now coruing to ligllt of damages into material and moral. A thir , is tice a prac in com bi11atio11 of both ch, whi s 1age dan l orea oorp of tliat is mater· ial and moral damages. Be tl1at as it may , the important eleme n.t _ indeed the first condition si,ie qua non of th.e Ia,v of res11onsabilité civile 199 This requirement, in France, is ge. d,,ma some be _ is tl1at tl1ere shall better illustrated by the procedural maxim that n o right of action exists unless the plaintiff bas an interest - pas cl'i1itérêt, pas d'action.200 Tl1e «interest» 1nust be a legitimate (I.egal) one, i.e., not contrary to Ia,.v 01· to good morals ( bonnes moer,trs). Ft1rtl1e1·, the plaintiff must show tl1at lie 11.as suffered dama.ge ,vhicl1 is certain. But this is not intended to be taken either too litera.lly or too restrictively. There is no diffict1Ity where it is actually certain. Tbere are, however, situations in wl1ich the effects of t11e damage e:x-tend to the future but ,vhich a1·e nevertheless, réasonably certain - such is, for instance, the case of permanent worki:ng capacity of a victim.201 Here, expert e,,idence will be usually called. To tlùs, on e mL1st add ,.vhat is k11own as a causal connection o.r simply cat1sation tbat t11e damage complainecl of is not too remote - fl relation of cat1se and effect bet\¼ee11 tl1e wrongful act and the dama.ge.2 ')2 011ce these co11ditions l1ave been fulfilled, it ,vil! be tl1en a n1atter of assessing tl1e measu1·e of damages ,v. hich usually - bt1t not necessarily always - are in the nature of money. The1·e ca11 b e also cases of restitu tion in kind and tl1e court is given, as before said, ample cliscretionar)' powers wbich, it goes witbout saying, a1·e inte nde d to be applied reasonably and ,vitl1î11 tl,e confines of the Iaw. The modern law of dama.ges i n Fra11ce ca.i1 perl1aps safely be SlIID· �narized as follo,.vs: materiaJ dam.ages as a measu1·e of 1·eparatio1.1 in full, iinply the right kind of inclernnity wl1ich is 11.ot 0111y the actual Ioss incurred by tl1e victim ( clamnitni e11ierge r1s) but also of an y gain or lJrofit o.f ,�hich the ,,ictim was d epnve . · d becat1se of tl1e l1arn1ful event (liicrum. cessans•) ·21.\l The date of evaluation is l1ere very relevant. Moral dam,:iges on tl1e otl1er 11and, would cover cases · . • 1nvo 1v1ng injuries to one's fa.mily, l1onotir, reputa· · . tion, a11d i11 ge11era1 ·t is . 1 n s person a! o· pers . feelings. In the case of moral J bad naine ,vh ·t1e · '1t ' · ic tl1 · · h · 18 ect · give n to 1·esp the of institution and tl1e lack . .

'fEIE LAW FUOl'lf TIIE CON1'1NENT

\vould e11sue f1·om it to\,Va1·cls the IJrofessio11 as a bocly tbat wotùd con stitt1te n1oral clamages.204 So far, tl1e folo,"'ing i11sta11ces I1ave been held to constitute 1no1·al i11 jw-y in France: i11jury to tl1e plaintiff's honotir and rept1tation; i11ju.ry to fe111ale n1 odesty; i11jt1.ry to religiot1.s beliefs; i11jt11·iot1s tise macle of anotl1er n1an's nan1e in a navel or i11 a film; bringing into 1·idict1le and l1atred a respectable persan «i11 a gt1ise of a fictiot1s cl1a"rac te1·»; and finally, even tl1e loss of a pet.205 Aln1ost identical rest1lts l1ave aJso been reachecl by tl1e Italian cotirts.206 CoqJoreal201 da1nages l1ave bee11 defined as bei11g of n1ixecl and complex character. «It is n1ixed, because tl1 e in1mecliate victim suffers damage whicl1 is at the same ti1ne mate1·ial and moral. It is con11Jlex, becat1se the barm wl1icl1 is inflicted on the victim ofien lias repe1·cussions on tl1e mem. bers of ]lis family».208 As st1ch, it covers meclical and st1rgical expens,es, drugs, medicines; pl1ysical sttffering ancl Joss of ear11ing capacity. It in volves both n1aterial and n1ora1 dan1ages t o tl1 e ,,ictim's nea1· relatives. Wl1en the damages touch on tl1ei1· feelings, they t1sually take the 11ame of of pretium cloloris or more appropriately of pretium affectionis.209 Section III of Cl1apter I, Title XII of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code, cleals \Vitl1 the mode ancl extent of compensation. Tl1.e first part covers material (Arts. 2090-2104) and moral (Arts. 2105-2117) <lainages ancl, tl1e second, other modes of compe11satio11 (Arts. 2118-2123). It is in this 01·der tl1at a brief survey will be made, in respect of the articles, coming within t.l1e domain of the Continental law. (a) (i)

Material Darrzages: A1·ts. 2090, 2091, 2099, 2101, 2102, 2103.

In principle, the con11Jensation to be a\varclecl shot11d be in equal measure to the v.1rongft1l J1arm suffered by the victim (Art. 2091); but tl1e court bas, '"'itl1 in. certain limits, power to order - in liet1 of or in addition to ordinary damages - any otl1er app1·op1·iate n1 east1re wl1icl1 tencls eitl1er to co1npensate or to Ji1nit the l1a1·m in qt1estion (J\rt. 2090). Foi· instance, tl1e cot1rt w.ill have power to relax the l1arsh n1le ancl 1·ecluce tl1 e amot1nt of tl1e clamages to be given to tl1e victin1 in the case: (a) "'1l1e1·e the author, Jike a 111inor, clicl not 1·eaize that I1e vvas con1 111itting an offen.ce (Art. 2099) ; 210 (b) wJ1 ei·e the clamage tl1at occt111·ed vvent beyo11cl 1·easonable expectations, clue to t1nforeseeable ci1·ct11nstances, in no case connected \vitl1 any intentional offe11ce (A1·t. 2101); (c) wl1 ere tl1e offence was co 111 mitted clue to necessity (2103 as 1·eacl vvitl1 Art. 2066); 211 or (cl) vvhei·e tl1 e offence \vas committed as a 1·estùt of a11 hiera1·cl1ical 01�cler (Art. 2100).

CHAP'fER V 96

. t 11e cou i·t bas ari1ple discretio11, wl1ere difficulty of assess-rnent. as . . Agam, 212 ai • 1 d ar eq aw an to s, 1st u ex b ta e ag .e m da of . t ,amount �·nt; no "' , . . to · t11e exac . tl1e existence . e1e ,.vl1 d 1 . d'1s cret ion e1 ext of t no the s doe · da:n-. :.",age . thot1gh th1s . . . ·. s Th1 1s 2). also 210 t. (Ar the v 1ew of th 1necl erta asc n bee not s a h . � .. e e p.ers d ec1s1on wh' 1cl1 he ld tihat wher t rn� Co ! ria pe Im e em pr Su a ab e Addis Ab ct any exa of amo unti of damages · » ion ulat calc tl1e for s basi no ,�. as . w . re « tue 1o2_2o ers en po giv to it ity by equ the \v of . lf Art itse il ava 2 ld cou the cou.rt

: (ii) Arts. 2092, 2097, 2104 . It is only reasonable that once future damag.e l1as been persuasevely ascertained, award should be ma. d e without waiting for it, to materialize (Art. 2092). Like\vise no one claimini damages in bad faith should be corn. pensated; no.r to the extent where tl1e victim, had be acted in a reasonable manner, could have either limited or avoid.ed the barm ful event (Art. 2097). îhere are times \.Vhen it is in the interests of the plaintiff to establish, judicially, tl1at his right has been infringed upon or tl1at liability bas been incun·ed by the defendant. In such a case purely nomial da,mages may be awa.rded (Art.2104 ). It is similar to tl1e kind of redress that under Italian law cornes under the cot1ce1Jt of arz debeatur, as distinct fron1 the qua11tum which may be fixed at a later stage, in anotl1er occasion .. 214 There may be many reasons ,vhy a , plaintiff may ask for nominal damages: it might be tbat the evid.ence leacling to tb.e establis ]1ment of damages may be long and expensive and be may feel tbat it is better to asce1·tai11 \vhetl1er he will have any chance of s11ccess; 01· it may be that l1e is not yet certai11 whether he can actually prove damages.:is2 Thls procedure allows I1im a provisional remedy ,vhicl1 may or may not be follo\ved up. (iii) Arts. 2093, 2094: •

As a general ru.le, \.Vl1ere tl1e victim is covered alreacly by ejther an �surance policy or benefits acc .n1ing fro m a pension, this will not prevent hlill from receiving compensation as thoL1gb he b.ad neitlle1· been insured 0�� pe �s.ioned off. This is what is meant wl1e11 it is explained2)6 tJ1at JJfO· vision 15 made for CtJ.mul of damages witl1 the co111pensation clue eitlier from an insurance policy or from a pension; an d these are the conte11 ts of Arts. 2093 ancl 2094. Tl1e matter bas not b een • . ere \.vhe1�e 1t · still so easily · . 1s settlecl. elsewh; controversiaJ ' thougl1 th . . . · e ma3or1ty v1ew 110w,. of botl1 legaJ w1·ite1·s and . n . .. holdi . gs of the cou11s, 1s· 1n fa vo ur o f tl1e vi ctin1.211

THE LAW FROM THE CONTINENT

In enacting specific ancl detai.led provisio11s, the drafters of tl1e Etliio pian Civil Code, tl1erefore, l1ave t1·ied to avoicl t}1is controversy in Ethiopia and ha,,e moreover acceptecl the last clevelo1Jn1ents on tI1e matter by taking side '\-vit.l1 the majo.rity vievv. 111 botl1 cases tl1ere are exceptions. TI1e Iaw provid.es that t11e victin1 ca11 enter into a contract wl1ereby be may create a so-callecl subrogation clause and enable either tI1e irlsLii·ance compa.ny, in one case, 01· the pe1·son paying tl1e pension, on the ot11er, to act for 11il11 in certain ci1·cumstances. It l1as been pointed out218 tl1at the word (<bo11d» appearing in Art. 2094 (3) of the Englisl1 text wl1icl1, at common law mea.ns «a solemn contract unde1· seal», may here create some con fusio11. In fact tl1e eqt1i,1alent Frencl1 word is <<le rapport» which, for cla rity's sake, might be t1·anslated as «relationship».

( i,,) Arts. 2095, 2096: Provision is like,vise made concerning the persans that are admitted to bring an action for material damages, st1ffered due to the accidental deatb of a person.219 Art. 2095 defines tl1e rights of the next of 'kin, limiting the n.umbe1· to tl1e spouse of tl1e victim and l1is ascendents a.nd descendents. Ali n1ay clain1 con1pensation on their own behalf ( en leur no11 p·ropre), whicb, in this case, takes the fon.11 of a maintenance allowance ( pe1'zsio·n alimerztaire) and is valid even where there exist other relatives vvho can support them. Art. 2096 ba1·s the possibility of other persans st1ing on their own behalf. Whetl1er tl1ese l1ad been materially assistecl by or ,.vere in the cl1arge of tl1e victim is, for tl1e purposes of t11Îs a1~ticles, ,,vholly irreJe,,ant. In these kincl of situations, Continental law has generally tv'.'O actions. One is the right to have a direct persona! action arising ot1t of tl1e civil \vrong and as such to st1e in one's o,.v11 name ( jitre proprio). The othe1· is successorial action ( jure successionis) ""'l1icl1 derives to the plaintiff in bis capacity as a beir if a11d wl1en the action of the deceased is transmitted to him.220 Botl1 actions wl1ere allo\ved may be exercis.ed jointly. Art. 2096 seems to be a limitation on tl1e jirre proprio right, if one is to construe the words «en leitr nom propre» whicl1 appear in tl1e Frencl1 tex t, in a restrictive manner.221 Fo r a bette1· understanding of tl1e ratioriale bel1ind this article, one may tt1rn, once more, to tl1e development of the law in France. fre e lat cil va to em se ts u1· co ch en Fr e th e e1· One of tl1e main poi11ts wh qt1en tly rega1·cls tJ1e clamages to be a,varded to a mistress ( or concubine), d ha r . te lat e tl1 at tl1 nd ou gr e th on l1, at ]lo fo wing l1e r lover's accidenta] de t l1een maintaining ber. At the beginning, tl1e colll·ts seemecl very reltictan

CH�PTEB V 08

t res s inte wa · l1e1 not légitir,ie. Lat t tl1a g t1in arg s · ' clairn · e . 1n eu . t· ·l1es . . to ei·1 terta 1·ecovered m m.any instance s 1b1ne conct and . l libera . ore _ _ s, . . . . tl,ey beca111.e m . . D1v1s1011 . the of o Court f, Cassaitiou nur C1v1l . tl1e of 1937 · of ,!, but a .clec1s1on . 1·ly hel d tha t the p1ai11tiff mus clea 1t as cy den 1 tei ' r·al li'be · . t . . a stop to tl 11s . m ag e a.s be 1n g a legitimate in. da of ct fa e th ut «b es ag m da ly sbo\v not on 2 1 law», 'J1. ; b terest flrotected not within the p·e1·sons that ere v \rt, cou the said s, ine cub con Since tion of sttpport ( obb.ligation iga obl an to d itle e11t are e Cad il Civ tlie under tions in direct Iine such alin1entaire), such a.s blood-relations and connec as spouses., th.e interest was not legitimate and hen ce n.ot protected by Ia,v. But a ne\v ,vave of decisions appeared agai n, allowing reco,,ery to con. c:ubines on the g1:ouncl tl1at focus should b e given to a factual situation i uents. Tl1us actions by concubi11es fiancés and argU 1etical and not to hYJJOtl illigitimate childre11, came to l1ave a favot1rable respo nse once they showed that tl1ey have ha.cl a11 «inte1·est», whicl1 need not be a legally e1ûorceable one; it was enougl1 to sho,v tl1e existen.ce o,f a regt1lar financia1 assistance, to prove prejudice.22.1 The m.atter, l1oweve1·, is still confused and no one kno,.vs what turn the future decisions of the Cl1an1b-res réunies 111ay bring. Wbat the authors call the «s\.vings of pe.ndulu1n» may indeed st.ill varry.22,1 It is perhaps in vie,.v of these de,,elopments that the clraftsn1en of the Et11iopain Civil Code thought it advisable to include an article wbic1l c1 earl)' forbids the ente1·tainment of st1ch claims. Tbis policy of the Ethio pian la'\v .is clearly reflected in the rules laid down by Arts. 708-721 (Irregu lar Unjons). The mere fact that a 1nan and a woman keep t1p sext1al rela tions, even if reguJarly and publicly, wot1lcl not be enot1g.l1 to constitute an irregular union (Art. 709 (3)); conseqtte11tly, no Iegal obligation of sup port or mainte·nance ( obligation alime11tai1'e)225 as bet,.veen thern arises (Art. 711). (b) Moral Daniages: (i) Article 2105 (Principle):

Wliile material damages a1·e tak en for granted, a certain reluctancy to . g1ve moral damao . . · t·s •••u If• ancl w11en 1t 0es pers·1s · 1s allovved, tl1en a11 adeqtia·te _proper procedure ( us·Lla IlY ln · , . . . . · . . of · 1011 1 t 1e fo1~rn of an 111J11ct1011 or pL1bI1cat . · t· M Jtidgment) . . . mt1st e xis s . . case · the oreove1,. ..tl1e la,,v spec1f. ov1cles r 1caJly p . ,vhere ·n1oral· damages s hotùd be awarded. TJ-ùs is t be ·prin.ci1Jle fotmc l 111 . Article 2105.227 In th·1s, the , clrafiers of tl1e Ethio1Jia11 Civil Cocle follo\.vccl tI,e Ge1.1nan and S,.vis s Jeo . 2• - ce � ren 1 syste 0 ms. reJ.e 23 It the seem s tl1at very . I1key to these 1vvo legal . 11s syste1 made by Prof. David, co11cer11s Arts. 253 an d a

1'HE LAW FROJ\-1 THE CONTINENT

·99

847 of the B.G.B. and A1·t. 47 of tl1e S.C.0., 1·espectively.2.29 TI1011gJ1 the cleve lop1nent of tl1e law in. tl1is 1·egard is also att1·.ibuted to Gerrnai1 01-igins by Gie1·.ke, Ron1a11 Ia,,v W1der Jt1sti11ian did e1npower the juclge to award spe cific reclress and a s11ggestio11 l1as bee11 n1ade that it might be «a mere ge neralization of tl1e Ro111an rules» otl1er tl1a11 tl1ose contau1ecl in the Lex r1qitilia.230 A1·t. 2059 of tl1e Italia11 Civil Cocle, too, provides «non patrimonial » damages (tl1e Italia11 equivalent for moral cla1nages) 011ly in cases ex pressly laid clovvn by Ia,.v.231 (ii)

Arts. 206 ta 2111:

Under tl1ese a1·ticles, powe1· is given to the court to order tl1e defe11d ant to pay a fair coi11pensatio11 to a cl1arity, shoulcl the plaintiff so desire. That sucl1 a provision is «strange to a cornrnon lawyer» l1as already been pointed 011t.232 Tl1ese p1·ovisio11s, insteacl, are \.Vell kno\VJJ. both in Etl1iopia (the discussion of wl1ich is 1·eserved to a latter cl1apter) and in Portt1gal; whence the i11spi1·ation clea1·ly cornes from.233 In addition, it may be 111en tioned i11 passÏJ1g tl1at by the same tol<:en of its eqt1ity power, the cot11·t can 1·edt1ce tl1e compe11sation where the offence is cornmittecl by a cl1ilcl (Art. ·2099) or by s01neo11e executing a su1Jerior 01·der (Art. 2100). ( c)

�

Other Macles of Co111pensatio1'1-:

(i) Art. 2118 - Restit;ittion:

Apart f1-om material and mo1·al damages proper, a thircl category of re1Jairing the damage st1ffe1·ed by the victim .ex.ists. Art. 2118 allo\.vs tl1 e court to order tl1e retmïl of the property (choses) 1·ernoved fro.m the plain tiff in an improper manner; the anus is also plaœd on tl1e defendant to return any emblements (fruits) pe1i:aini11g thereto. In case where tl1e pro perty ( cJ,zoses) is eitl1er lost 01· clestroyed ( péri), tl1e defendant pays its valu�, 11otwitl1standÏJ1g that force 111cLjeitre l1ad i11 terve11ed; but wl1ere the defendant had inct1r1-ed some expenses on the cfioses tl1at l1e is orclered tq 1-etum, clue 1-egard is gi\,e11 under tl1 e provisions relating to 11nJ.dwf11� enricl1ment (Arts. 2168-2178). In this fiecl, too, tl1e i11 flt1ence of tl1e Continental lavv on tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Cocle is apparent. The 11se of tl1e lati11 te1·n1 of jz.LS tollendi i11 both the English ancl tl1e Frencl1 versions of Art. 2173 is, in this connection, sig1uficant. TI1e remo,,al on the part of tl1e clefenclant of a11y part of l1is property, before making restittttion of tl1e main prope1·ty is, in Conti11ental

CHAPTER V 1 Oil

it1s tollendi,-,,u wnich. is p of n tio no . n ma Ro old . the der un d a.rt treate . . Ja\V, . 225 · re1n verso, · th.e essence of· in de actzo of ciple o. pri· Whic r . h d e oa br , the . , . of other s expense. an at t f1 ne be t no ld ou sh n O is tbat one pers

: zd ir K in n o ti u it st e R _ 9 (ii) - Art. 211 t , the cour lved invo can, · in its desc be may e Stat the re whe . r e·. pt E�e laced or put in orde.r at er . rep eith be ses cfzo of d kin h suc t tha r rde tIOil, 0 . n atio en e par itr. Ré is nat a well know n ed. cern con son per tl1 e of e ens exp the 236 , W la h c. en Fr er nd u y rem.ed D. Responsibility fo1· th.e Action of Others (or Vicarious Liability). (i) A.rts. 2124 and 2125 - ( Father ar1:d

Gard·ien):

Article 1384 of the French Civil Code, it bas already been pointed out, covers responsibility for the actions of others, tbat is - the father and after bis death the mother a.re liable for damage caused by their minor children wl10 live \vith tbem; maste.rs or principals for the damage caused by their servants or agents in the exercise of their functions; school teach ers and artisans for the d.amage caused by pupils and apprentices, during the period tl1at they are und�r their supervision. The parent and the artisan a1·e presumed to be at fault for the actions of those ,.vho are und.er their care but they cao. easily rebut this presurnp· tion by showing th.at they could not have prevented the event that caused the dam.age. In the cases of the employer or principal, however, the pre• sumption is stron.ger in that, in additio n to showing that he has used all due care in th.e selection of l1is servant, he must also prove that the servant or agent was not at fault.237 By the Law of 5 April 1937, the liability of the school teacher bas be.en relaxed in the sense that the plaintiff must prove, in conformity with tl1e principles of general Iaw ( droit commori), tl1at theer ,vas fatilt, carelessness, or negligence, and if the school is a State owned, the State instead of the School teacher, w ill be liable.238 The resemblance with the Etltiopian Cod her is 111anifest. Under e .e Art. 2124 a fatl1er is liable for the torts of the rninor. Art. 2125 seems to have taken the law from Art. 138 4 of the Frencl1 Civil Code almost verbatt'.m - in li�u of the father, liability falls on the mo th er when sl1e has «paternal» autbority on the persan who bas charge of the cbild if th e latte r sboul<l be living outside the fam ily home; on tl1e teacl1er or' the mas ter (patron) · 0ne \Vl1en the cl1ild is a t seh oo1 or unde . r apprentiship. llowever, tl1ere 15 . . ,important differe11ce, concerning the father of tl1e minor. Unlike the ap·

1'llE I,AW FRO�i THE CONTINENT

101

proach in -�11� Fre �1cl1 law, t111der t]1e Ethiopian lavv, t11ere is a prestimpt ion _ of respo11s1b1l1ty m 1-espect of tl1e fatl1er. Tl1e policy \vl1ich compellecl tI1e drafters of tl1e Ethio1Jian Ci,,il Cocle to aclopt this stem attittide, is the vievv tl1at tl1e fatl1e1-'s responsability does not cle1-ive from a fatilt 01- lack of supe1-visio11 but ste111s fro m tl1e fact of l1is beil1g tl1e father per se. For tl1is reson, it \vas tl1e codifie1·s' it1te11tio11 that he sl1ould not be allowed to exo11orate lu111 self fro1n lial>ility, by 111erely sl1owing that he Iiad not com1niJted any fat1lt 01· lack of st1pervision or tl1at l1e could not bave pi-e vented l1is n1ino1· cl1ild fro1n cat1si11g tl1e clamage.239 By reason of the pro visio11s of Art. 2125 tl1is prest1mptio11 of res1Jonsibility in connection with tl1e minor '\Vottlcl be transferred to tl1e persans therein enume. rated wben ever, vvitl1in tl1e n1eaning of tl1e saine article, the chilcl's fa1tlt is involved. (ii) Arts. 2126, 2.127, 2128, and 2129 (State Liability): More details ,.vil! be give11 ,vhen dealing '\vitl1 Im1nunities ( Chapter VIII - S.ec. D.) later. For tl1e moment it will be enougl1 ta l1ave onJy a ct1rsory vie,.v at the Frencl1 clroit adniinistratif, wl1ich is tl1e creation of tl1e French Coriseil d'Etat. The ,vorcls «droit acl111i11·istratif» ancl their un derlying principle l1ave not l1ad a l1appy connotation in tl1e common law \.vorlcl. This, it is now known, was dt1e to a purely verbal misunclerstancling of tl1e ,,vords on tl1e pa1·t of the famous Dicey. In fact, in lùs theories, Prof. Dicey Iiterally t1·anslated «droit administratif» as «administrative law» and l1eld tl1e ,,iew tl1at tl1is was foreign to the Englisl1 constitt1tion, «in compatable \Vitl1 tl1 e rttle, vvith corn.mon Ia,v, and with constitutional liberty», since t1nder it, gove1·nn1e11t officiais were not IJlaced unde1· the same ge neral n1les «as applied to an action against a private individ11al».240 This assu1nption Ied him into the erroneous conclusion that st1cl1 courts in France <<culminati11g in tl1e Conseil d'Etat, must ex.ist for the purpose of giving the officiais a wl1ole body of special 1·ights, privileges, or prero gatives as agaist private citizens».241 Tl1at this conclt1sion was mistaken is no,v patent. In fact, the French acl1ninistrative courts - ,vhich l1ave since served as mod e! for many countries242 - «l1ave st1iven to in1pose effective control on officiais and to raise the standa1·d of adtnin.istration», and have incleed achieved «such a bigl1 degree of objectivity» tbat tl1ey are now overwb elmed witb cases.243 T]iere was, incleed, a period dt1e, no cloubt, to practical grotincls, in w11icb state responsibility ,vas denied i11 Fran. ce, but that country graclually came to recognize the liability of tl1e State 1n cases of faute cle service _ th e best example of this ·being where tl1e agent of the State was at fault in tl1e carring o11t of adn1i1ustrative respo11sibi lities - as opposed to faute perso1111elle. �

102

CHAPTER V

applicable only to tl1e State and its law . of body a " 1s agen. Tl1at t l1ere . , 44 1 l1 elcl tl1at liabi wl11cl case, o· Blaric . co1rec tl1e . 1s since Evei· litY to _ _ t. . cies . . .. cl e ise cat nag to da1 1nd1v1dua ls by p for ·. t jec sub be ay 1 n te a t s· 1e er. . wl11cl1 t1 be governed by tl1.e IJrincip ot ca1111 ies agenc c IJubli ill ed les so11s e111ploy . . . . in res1Ject of 1n�1v1d�1als, cases of such de Co il Civ cl1 en Fr tl1e i11 ecl 1 establisl _ ive Jur1sdiction of th «exclus tl1e under as ecl 1-eaard be . o t· me o . e a nat t11e ca . tb tl1e ordina1·y civil courts, \Vll ecl ast 1tr co1 as s»; irt cot ve ati str ini ere adnl lt with. There is, therefore, a net cases of faiLte JJersoririelle wou ld b e dea ry ina il civ 01·cl e Tl1 s. courts would apply ion not O t¼' tl1e e11 vve bet oi1 cti clistiiJ oruj' princiJJles of «droit commit 11.», tl1a t is of private law nature . Tl1e ad. miiùsti·ati,,e courts, too, \voucl l1ave regard to the p1inci1Jles of private law 5 s,2 s110\v but they have also deve ly clear ce ' ' servi de e t fai1. as tlle concept of opecl a body of public la,,v vvl1icl1 is applicable only in cases coming before the111 a11d i11volvi11g tl1e Administration. T11e question, howeve1·, does not 1·e111ain tl1e1·e; for it is 11ot easy to dra,..., a 11et distinction between acts ,.vl1icl1 co11stitt1te faute de service and a11d tl1os.e ,...,11icl1 constitt1te faitte persorz.rielle. Tl1e question of jt1risdiction ( cor1i11éterz.ce) is 11ot tl1e11 so easy eitl1e1·. To solve this cliffict1lty un der the tl1eory called ci,111.itl des res11011.sabilités de l'Acl1nir1:istratio11. et cles fo11ction. 11.aires tl1e case \.vot1ld still corne befo1·e tl1e aclministrative courts, every ti1ne tl1at tl1ere \Vas a stibstantial conft1sio11 between tl1e t\vo notions; and \.vl1ere tl1e faztte 11erso1111.elle 111ay l1ave bee11 cat1sed in tl1e course of ad n1in1strative dtity, tlùs might subject tl1e State to liabiity.2�0 No\v it \.\1ill be obse1-ved tl1at tl1e Frencl1 text of tl1e Etluopian Civil Code s1Jeaks of «fa11te cle service» (Art. 2126 (2) a11d of «faute personnelle» (Art. 2126 (3) ). If tl1ere is faitte de service \Vitl1in tl1e n1ea1ùng of ,i\rt. 2127 (1) tl1e ,,ictin1 n1ay, tlllder Art. 2126 (2), claim co1npensation from tl1e State, ,vhicl1, in tur11, will ask for rein1bursen1e11t fro111 its o,v11 servant or ernploj1ee (fonctioririaire ou e111.ployé). If, on the otl1er hand, tl1e fault is perso11al (fctute perso11.nelle) witl1in tl1e n1eaning of Art. 2127 (2) tben 110 liability of tl1e State attacl1es (A1·ts. 2126 (1 a11.d 3).2�7 Before going fur tl1er, to be notecl ar e tl1e wo1·ds «pro fessio11al fault » a1Jpeari l1g in tl1e En glisl1 versio11 of tl1e Cocle. 111 is suggested tl1at tl1is is anotl1er unl1appy trar1slatioi1, at least for tl1e sin11Jle 1·easo11 tl1at it ca11 easil)' be co11.fused _ \.VItl1 JJrofessional fat1lt (fait te professiori11elle) of Ar t · 2031 of tl1e Etltlopian · Ci,,il Code, co11cerrung persans practicing a profession, st1cl1 as a me d'ica I cloctor. Be tliat as it 111ay, tl1e t,vo notio11s of tl1e Fre11ch droit ad1 11irii5lratif are fotmd Î.11 ot1r C0 . tl1ere is no adn1i11istrative cow·t coI Tl· de. In Etl11. 01J1a parabe to tl1e Fren cl1 , c 011 sel . ·l· cl Etat; no1· ,vas it intended tl1at tl1ere be t\VO .. , cl1fferent bocly of r1.ù es ap1J 1·icable, one to tl1e p1�i,,ate IJe1·so11 and tI1e 0ther

THE L;\ W FllOt.1 THE CON'flNENT

103

to the employ ee � f . the � tate. Neve1·tl1eless, tl1er·e is grotmd for thinking . t11at French adn11n1strat1ve la\v \vil l play a grec.at par c. ·t 111 · sh a1J111g tl1 e • • • • • • jtltïspri,clence; 111 d1st1ngt11sl1111g tl1e facts that \,vill constittite eitll er faitte cle service 01· faitte persorirzelle, i n the ordi11a1-y Etl1iopim1 cotii-ts. Moreover· it is a fact that tl1e notio11 of faLLte cle service as tisecl in otir Code is t� be interpreted far n1ore 1·estrictivel)1 tl1an the notio11 of a faute JJersonrzelle committed say by an en1ployee of a p1·ivate bocly.248 So, \Vllile Pr·of. David did not intend, as a ge11eral n1le, to cr·eate a clifference bet\veen tlle t\vo formulas, as t1sed i11 tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Cocle, l1e also alJIJears to agi·ee that \vhenever tl1e question of disti11ctio11 sl1ould corne LlIJ, t]1e terminology rnight be l1elpf11l foi· inte1-pretatio11 p11rposes.249 Art. 2128 sin1ply exte11cls tl1e p1·ovisio11s of Arts. 2126 ancl 2127 botl1 to liability of se1-vants ( for1ctionnaires) 01· e111ployees of territorial sud division of tl1e State and to tl1ose of public ser\1ice \Vitl1 legal statt1s ( dotés de la pe1·so1111cLlite').

(iii)

Cit111.itl of Liabilities (Art. 2136):

In France, tl1e fact tl1at the n1aster l1as been held liable for the civil \VTongs of l1is servant, does not relie\re tl1e latter fro111 persona! liability. In suc11 a case tl1ey are botl1 liable solicla1~ily ( solidaire111ent) a11cl tl1e master, wl10 bas had to pay tl1e da111ages, l1as a 1·ecot1rse against lùs servant.250 This approach is novv i11co1·po1·atecl iI1 A1·t. 2136 of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code. The fi1·st paragrapl1 is a confi1·111ation of Art. 2028 tl1at l1e \vho has committed a wrongful l1arm sl1ot1ld n1ake it goocl. Tl1e tl1ircl paragrapl1 allows tl1e master, or 1·atl1er tl1e person \,\1}10 l1as been cleclarecl res1Jonsible by la\v, to demand that tl1e author of tl1e clamage be made a party to the civil proceedings brot1gl1t by tl1e \rictin1 for compensation ptu·poses.

1): ior ai r · pa Ré e11 11 tio l' Ac ( De es ag ni Da n r fo tio Ac E. possible as r fa as n w do t se to is 11 io ct se is th of e Th scope an d abject a certain number of precise rules as to tl1e action for clamages.

(i) Reference ( Renvoi) ta Administrative Lct1;v (Art. 2140 ): a 1r i5 u1 lm ac of s 1le rt 1e tl , le ab li e If and vvhen the State is declared to b e th n1 ho \1/ l nS ai ag e i11 11n te tive law ( 1·égles de clroit administratif) will cle shall e ic rv se or t en tm ar p cle action is to be brouo-h t an d wl1icl1 0 finally bear the burden of tl1e clebt.

JO\

CIIA P1'Ell V

1g to the Continental la,,, ngi1 belo as cl sifie clas n bee 11as " Art. 2140 " group . . . . . , _ , .5.0115 for tJ1e 111ere fact tl1at 1t 1nakes an ex1Jress referei1ce 1 l 0 t1le Of J>fû\ 1. 1 · , . . réales cle droit adnii11ist1·atzf. 111 v1ew of vvl1at l1as bee11 said as to the i11 France, t1'atif i11i one ca 11 see also 1 ad· clroit of 1 positioi � · � pe�tùiai here 1op1an Cou 1·ts to have at tl1eir disposai Etl1 I1e for be vvill i1t i·eleva , tliese ho,,. régies. Wllile 011e vvill not expect identical solutions, tl1e criteria adopted by Frenc11 lavv j11 tl1is co11nection, will be releva11t for the interp retation of Art. 2140. (ii) Burclen of Proof (Art. 2141): «Ex allegata et JJl'obata» is an olcl n1axin1. Tl1e expectation that be ,.vho alleges soroetl1ing sl1ould be able to prove it - Bi i1icumbit probatio qui dicit, n011 qui 1regat251 - is, on tl1e s1rrface, eleme11ta1·y. In actual fact,

llO\.\fever, 111any 1111expected clifficulties ca11 a1·ise.252 There acco.rcUngly evol ved n1a11y tl1eories ,,vhicl1 still botl1e1· j1rrists - tllis is especially so, when a clisti11ction is a. atten1JJtecl be,.\fee11 tl1e kincl of proof required or tl1e con ditions of its adi11issibility il1 n1atters of contracts a11d tl1at of civil wrongs; 253 ancl even tl1at bet,vee.n a pw·el)' ci, 1il from a comn1ercial mat ter.254 Uncler Art. 2141 tl1e victim is expected to establisl1 tl1e riature of the damage complained of a11d the conclitions ,vl1icl1, t1nder the law, render tl1e defe11dant to n1ake it good. Thot1gh sucl1 an app1·oacl1 n1igl1t be found in 1nany otl1er legal systems, tl1e provisions contai11ed i11 Art. 2141 l1ave been patterned after the Continental Ia,v.255 (iii) U11.discoverecl Az.ttrior of Da111.age (A1·t. 2142): Tl1e rt1le that tl1e victim sl1oulcl prove tl1e ,vrongful damage contained i11 tl1e previo11s article is not an absol11te one. Art. 2142 places an exception to it. Tl1ere are til11es \vhen it is practically cliffict1lt to pin1Joi11t tl1e liability arising out of tl1e damage 0 11 one particular person. Tl1e exanlJJle given by Prof. Da,1icl256 of the JJerso11 iI1jured dU1·i I1g a l11u1ti11g expedition is in point. In s11ch a case, it may well be that tl1e pe1·son is injured by one pellet fro111 any of tl1e ma11y firecl vvitl1 a single sl1ot, at son1� birds. Wl1ere there are 1nore JJerso11s i11volved in tl1e sl1ooti11g, tl1ere may con1e a case where 110 one can tell wl1icl1 exact JJellet, comi11g fro111 a particular shotgui1, I1it tl1e victin1. To co1nplicate tl1e 1natter, tl1ey n1ay all l1ave been usiilg tl1e san1e kind of a 11111111nitio11 a11d \.\falki11g side by side au<l maY all llave firecl simulta11eo11sly. Yet it is ce1·tai11 tl1at tl1e dan1age ,vas caused s, uire req by 011e of tl1e grot1p. Art. 2142 enables tl1e co11 rt, wl1ere eq11ity so

TllE LAW FROM TllE CON'flNEN'f

105

to or�er tl1at th e �a111�ge b� n1a�e goocl by tl1e grotip as a ,vllole (para 1); _ v1 ca of r1o tis l1ab1l1ty, to attacl1 sucI1 liability to t]1 ancl m cases e person \vl1o, in law, is respo11sible fo r the at1tho1· of tl1e dan1age (para 2). 111 France, tl1e 111atte1· l1as not bee11 a11 easy 011e to settle. The fear that an innoce11t ma n n1ay be t1njt1stly l1eld liable co1npelled tl1e Court of Cassation in 1941 to l1olcl tl1at tl1ere cot1lcl be n.o liability; btit since this conversely, left tl1e poor victin1 vvithout a 1·emecly, a cl1oice between tlie t,vo evils l1ad to be n1ade. It vvas fi11ally ancl co11clt1sively 1nade in favour 25 7 The civil di,,ision of tl1e Cotu·t of Cassatio11 took up and vict im. of tl1e confirmed tl1 e idea introdt1ced by the Aix Court of Appeal in 1950,258 tl1at, in such cases, there ,vas a «concurrent fault », wl1 icl1 could justif-y tl1e Iiability of each one of tl1e g1·oup. In fact, in tvvo cases vvl1ich ca1ne t1p in 1955259 and 19572e-0 concerning hunting acciclents, tl1e Court o.f Cassation «l1eld that tl1e bunters bacl con11nittecl a concU1·re11t fault, perl1aps il1 tl1e organization of tl1e hunting party, perhaps in tl1e m . a11 ageme11t of tl1e exp.editio11, pos sibly even in the n1utual excite1nent, tl1 e con1mon negligence, displayed by the different members of tl1e l1 unting party»261 and hence they mt1st be collectively held liable foi· tl1e clan1age. Section 830 of tl1e B.G.B. provides that ,vl1ere an unla,\rftù act is com1nitted througl1 the JJartecipation of several persans and if it cannot be discovered ,vl1 0 the actual author is, each one of the participants is l1eld to be liable.262 It is, perl1aps, to tl1is development that Prof. David was referring to \vhen be said that this «provision» obtains, at tin1 es, in the Western cotm tries.263 (iv) Heirs (Art. 2144): It is easier, for the heirs, to claim a.nd obtai11 material damages suf fered by the victim, eve n if t_l1e action l1 ad not bee11 comme11ced dtiring the latter's lifetime (para 1). It is not so easy for moral dan1 ages. Tbese can be claimecl only i f and \,\,}1 e11 the action l1acl been co111menced by the victim himself (para 2). The persan wl10 steps into tl1e shoes, as it were, of the persan who has caused tl1 e injtiry, is obligecl to n1ake good tl1e damage in the same wa y as the defe11dant wotùd l1 ave done (para 3). 1e creditor tl at th se ca e 1 tl e at pl em nt co to Tl1 e Iast paragraph seems cannot get more fr om tl1 e heir of th e victim than he \VOuld I1ave got from the victim itself. A comparison ha s be en made between tl1is pr�visio� and later Ron1 an law, wl1ereby the heir "vas allo\ved to accept tlie 1 nl1 eritan�e 1 law, a heir cl en Fr 264 il1 at tl1 ue tr so With the benefit of inventory. lt is al be ay ol"Y nt ve in 1 a1 of fit ne be Who accepts tl1 e inheritance tmder the °: n ow s 111 to g 1 ùi cl ta at 1 on fr l ec as ab en lecl to prevent Iiabilities of tl1 e dece

CHAPTJ�Il V J06

tl1e t ér n1 (J tl1a ter 1t o irs» «he cl nte t IJoi 1 11as R D itiers ) ell uss r . . · rty prope · ·1 La\v but · e c1v1 sense a1so 1 n th e sain 11e 11as le ar·tic not . ' . tl115 . as t1sed 1n 1t n1ea11s 011ly a «JJerson wI1o take s case latter tlle in , La\.v , · . in the Co1un1on 266 of 11 at10 lan the san1e word give n ex1J Tl1e y». stac iilte on t ·· P real pro1JeI Y Lt . • w.261 . v1e . 1s 11 th 1·1 f1 11 co ,s to en se n o lt a W l anc c: os Am by •

265

): 45 21 . rt (A rs o it d re C i's 1 , ti ic V (,r) tai11ed in this a1-ticle are con ions not e tl1that ecl ark rem bee 11 11as It 268 ». yer law n o n1. er Com Und a to the general s, \vay e so1u in , nge stra te «qui tl1-e of clebtor is regardecl as the ty per pro tl1e , la\v nch Fre the of e principl 269 Creditors \Vho bring the so-called ,,obli s. itor ci·ed com11100 pledge of lus que actio11», if t h. ey ca11 sl1ovv tl1at tl1ey l1ave a sufiicient i11terest, may 11ave a rigl1t to i11te1-vene in a11y action wl1ere tl1e debtor is a pa1·ty; but tl,ey clo not tl1e1·eby obtain it tl1e1·e and tl1en. Tl1e obliqt1e actio11 is 01iginaJ l)' a11 actio11 belo11gi11g to tl1e debto1·, b11t tl1e cr:editors use it in J1is name to bring tl1e action.. Uncler Arts. 1166 and 1167 of tl1e Frencl1 Ci,ril Code they ca11 tl1us exercise ail lus rights ancl actio11s, «except those \Vl1ic.h are purely personal». An10s a11cl Walto112;0 l1ave subdiviclecl these into t\.vo categories: tl1ose tl1at are 11ot of a pr·onounceclly pectLniary nature and tl1ose wl1ich tl1e clebtor may decli11e to exercise «for conscientiot1s or otl1er persona! reaso11s», such as defan1ation 01· otl1er mo1·al damage. Art. 2145 of tl1e Etl1iopia11 Civil Code, too, p1·even.ts creclitors from clai ming co1npensation on b.eJ1alf of tl1e debtor if tJ1e injury is com1ected \,\rith bis persan, l1is pl1ysical integ1·ity or l1is l1onoL1r (pa1·a 1); \.vl1ile it :=tllows tl1em to clo sa i11 connection witl1 tl1e matter covered by Art. 1993 of the Etl1iopian Civil Cocle (JJara 2). (vi) No11-trans11'zissiblit), of Claini ( [11.cessibilité cle la Créa.r1ce) (Art. 2146).

Thougl1 it 111ay substantially l1ave obtai11ed tl1.e saine results tl1rougl1 0ther means, Roman la\v, as a gene1·al rt1le, clicl 11ot }Je1·n1it assignment of actions.211 In France, tl,e notion of patrin1oi11e co11notes tl1e totality of a IJerson's a. ssets and 1·iabil"iti.·es ancl 1t • 1s • to tl1is tl1a t tl1e }1ei1·s succeed.2n But pat rz. ,noirie is traclitionally cli\1 icled into cl1'oit's 1 ·éels 01· rigl1ts i11 re11i and droi t persor111elle or 1-·ight5 z,,z z7 . tapi·c · . erso11a1n; tl1e latter·, in tt11·n, including tl1e of the la\v of obl"iga · ril . . . . t ci, · 1011s a11cl co11seqt1e11tly r1gl1ts ar1s111g from .wrongs.213 . : .. . . .,s011an1 ca n be tl1e abjec of a cess .01'l (or. as. . . . Tlus r igI1t i,i JJe, t z sigmb1I1ty) bt1t only wh . . , ' 1ce eai ere 1t c, •. 1s • ce1-ta1n; tl1e a11cl tl11s l1aJJpens \ v. l1e11

l'l:IE L.A \V FHOi\1 TilE CONTINEN'f

107

. . . ca11 b e co11ceivecl as l1aving a pat1·i1no11ial valLle atlc ' l 11 0 t ,. v 1 1 en It IS JllSt a . 274 , n1ere personal 17.ght. Tl1e co1·rect E11oli ' lent of tl 1e vv 0 sl1 eq t1 iva or d creance • • is «cl1 ose 1n action» bt1t, Sa)' An1 0s a11cl Walto 11 ,2;s 1·t lac1es e 1egance and . popt1lar1ty. Tl1e object of A1·t. 2146 seen1s, tl1erefore, to JJI"e\1e·n·t tlla, t a11 . a bstr·act persona! 1·igl1t be assig11ed befo1·e it l1as co111e to be a, concr·et"" ...... 011e; w11eret1po11, it ca.11 be f1·eely assig11ed t111cle1· tl1e JJro,,isions of i\i·ts. 1962-19ï5, wllic11 deal ,vitl1 co11tracts in ge11eraJ. Recently, 110,ve,,er, a 11 attempt 11as been 111ade to s110,\r a sligl1t cliffe1·e11ce betvvee11 Art. 2146 ( 1 ) ancl tl1e FrencJ1 jttrisprt1cle11ce on tl1is topic.2i6 ( vii) flgree111.e11ts Exclitclirig Liability

- C011veritiorzs cle 1101i.resporz..

sczbilité (Art. 2147).

The lavv contained in Art. 2147 l1as alreacly been discussecl i11 connectio11 ,vitl1 A1·t. 2037. DetaiJs were then given regarcli11g tl1e so-calle.d clai.tses cle no11.res11on sabilité otheI"\vise lmo,vn a. s corive11.tiorz.s cl'irrespo11·sabilité.2n Notl1u1g spe cial need be adclecl no,v except to poi11t OLit tl1at even in co11tracts, tl1e French legislatu1·e l1as s1Jecifically i11te1·venecl to prol1ibit stipL1lations ex. cluding Iiability. Tl1ese Iegislative enactments gene1 ·ally caver co11trcats for the ca1·1-iage of goods by la11d a11cl sea ru1cl ca1·1·iage by air. 2;8 A fortiori, ag1·ee1nents exclt1cling liability i11 tl1e lavv of civil ,vrongs are prollibited. (viii) Date of Assess111erit of Da,1,zage Clnd Reatecl Tapies ( Arts. 2150 to 2154 ):

As a general rule, in Fra11ce, th e date of assessn1ent of da1nages is made as at tl1 e date of th e j11dg1nent of the court. Nevertl1 eless, the court has power to us,e its discretion j11 1nany ways - to avoicl deba1·ren1ent ll wi it at tl1 nt me dg jt1 e th in y sa 1 sly ca es be 1se of a ·res jitcliccLta it can expr re to s ise ar 11 sio ca oc e tl1 en wh ve d lea tl1e do or OJJen fo r revision if an consider a p.etition for recluction of tl1e damages avvarcled. Tlns is a rare case, for harcUy would circ1unstances arise j11stif-ying a reclt1ction. A peti tion for incr·ease instead ,vottlcl b.e met 1101·mally i11 a favoiirable light, and the jt1dgm ent-creclito1· ca n b1·ing 11p tl1e qt1estio11 of reconsideration of tl1e damages awarclecl, by w ay of revision. In tl1is, botl1 tl1e docti·i11e wi·iters e 279 e r · g a t o 11 · o d y e h T · · 1t r e em e . cl an tl1e 1ur1s1Jrude11ce co-nstcLtate are 1n agr

CBAPTER V 108

·t of Cassatio11, for ii1stance Cou1 The tl1is. 1ct 1 beI1ï y polic . ab. , 1s as to t e • an 1 ncrease, on tl1e grou11 c� that during ng nti g1·a to ary itr coi the in. soltitely occt1red so as to cle1 Jrec1ate the IJttr cl l1as n '-' uatio cleval 11one l J terva J lasina _e se . 1crea i n of ,vl1e · u favo e 1 1 tl1er i J is 1 it is · but ) , an f ereo intrins1c power tl 111, sucl1 as tl1a t of a bodil y l1a1· l ngfu ,vro the of ri» ,atio inJ·ury, on ggr-a 1 «a the grouiid 111at it is a new ca11se of action ancl hence not clebar red by res jitclicata.250 Tlle court J1as also 1Jowe1· to avvarcl da1nages in tl1e nature of a pe. riociical payn1ent vvl1icl1 talces the form of a maintenance allowance (verse. ,,zerz.t d'itne re11te JJeriocliqite). It woulcl be an appropriate case to do so for instance, ,vhere tl1ere is either a pern1anent ea1·ning incapacity o r deatl1 of the victim. This forn1 of con1pensatio11 talces place during the victim's lifetin1e in the first case and until tl1ose unde1 · tl1e charge of the victim are able to look afte1· tl1emselves, in tl1e second.281 But also he re the Court of Cassation is reluctant to acln1it a1 1 ap1 Jlication for revision te11ding to get a 11 inc1·ease, which came to be d11c to n1oney depreciation ancl conseqt1ent rise of p1·ices.252 In Ethiopia, all tl1ese 1 natters l1a,1e bee11 dealt wit}1 under Art. 2150 to 2154 inclt1sive. Tl1ese are pro,,isio1 1s concerning the date of assessment of tl1e clamage (Art. 2150), the conditions w1der ,vl1icl1 revision is allowed (Arts 2151-2153), and tl1e IJayment of an allo,,vance n1ade (Art. 2154).m In vie,v of tl1e con1i11g into fo1·ce of tl1e Civil Proced111·e Cod.e of 1965, it is a debatable matter whether or 11ot tl1e question of res jiLclicata (Art. 5) a11cl tl1 at of appeal (Art. 320) corne 1 1ovv under its do1nain.26� 1 11

(ix) Joirit Liability - (Soliclarité) - (Art. 2155):

The heading of tl1.is article in tl1e Englisl1 text is «joir1t liability» wl1ich purports to be tl1e tra11slation of tl1e Frencl1 «solidarité». In Englisl1 law, one 111ay w1s11ally speak of a «joi11t and several liabi lity» bt1t there are some st1btle distinctions. The follo,,ri11g extract from I-Iamisl1 Gray285 ,vill better illustrate tl1e point: «Where tv.10 n1ore perso1 1s l1ave togetl1e1· co1nn1itted a tortious act, tl1ey are callecl «joi11t tort-feasors» a11cl tl1ey are jointl)' and sever ally respo11sible for the ,,vl1ole of tl1e da1nage caused . • • «To be gttilty as joint tort-feaso1·s, tl1e perso11s conce rnecl inu5t • · 11-·se to the a.11 be gt1·11ty of 011 e a11cl tl1e sa 111c to1-tious act g1v1ng e san1e damage: bt1t tl1 ose ,,vl1ose i1 1clepe11de11t indi,1idual acts }lav t l1e comb1. necl effect of IJ1·odt1ci11 g tl1e sa 111.e clama.ge. are 11ot joint tortfeasors 111 1less tl1eir i 11 di,,iclt1al acts are tl1e outco111e of some

'.r�l E L(\ W FRO�I 'fflE CON·rtNEN 'f

10')

co111mon desig11. St1c.l1 pe1·sot1s are 111erely concu,-,erz t· t01·tf·easors . and eacl1 1s seve1·ally .liable foi- tl1at '- propo r·t·1011 of t.11e da11 1age . _. . _ • • wl11cl1 1s att11bt1table to 111s ovv11 tortiotis cact, Lrincl 110 111ore». I 011e 111igl1t i1tler tl1a t tl1e absence of tl1e \vorcl <<Se\reral» from tlle En glis11 text ( also poi11ted ot1t 1011g before tl1e IJron1tilgation of . 1·11..,.... coc1 e ) ,2s1, prest1mably 111ea11t to e1npl1a5ize tl1e «joi11t» 11ature of tJ1e dmnage, vvhere all the perso.ns concerned together \-VOt1lcl be 1·espo11sible foi· its totality. But, tl1en, the same v\ro1·ds «joint and seve1·al» appear as a translation of the Frencl1 <<solida1·ité e11lre clébiteiLrs» (Art. 1896), vvl1ile tI1e \,vorcl «joint» alone is useà to t1·a11slate tl1e Fre11cl1 «solidarité eritre créa 1 iciers» (Art. 1910 ) . vVl1en elabo1·ating 011 tl1e tyJJes of obligatio11s t1nder Frencl1 lavv, Amos a.nd Walto.n ha,;e t1·anslatecl tl1e F1·e11cl1 obligations soliclaires as joint and several obligatio11s, tl1e esse11tial rL1le of vvl1icl1 «is tl1at clebtors are not prest1med to be bound jointly ancl severall:)1 » foi-, .except in a fevv cases providecl by lavv, soliclarity 111t1st be exp1·essly stipttlatecl.281 In fact, in Fran ce and in Belgium, tl1e1·e see111s to be a11 academic differe11ce bet,vee11 the concept of solicla1'ité a11d tl1e obligatio11 known as iri soliclu,11.283 Solic[a. rité, in tum, is divided into active ai1d JJassive. CarboI1nier 89 bas concisely laid it do,vn tht1s - Unde1· tl1e fo1-r11er, any creditor. l1as powe1· to claim and obtain the totalily of t11e debt ( cfet te) f1·om tl1e sole clebtor. 011ce this takes place, the debtor w110 l1as IJaid tl1e ,v, l1ole debt to one of tl1e creclitors of h.is cl1oice, will be completely f1·ee tl1e1·eafte1-. Tl1e only n1atter left wot1lcl be as among the creditors tl1emsel\1es. U11cler tl1e latter case, (passive) the sole creditor J1as pow er to clain1 and obtain tl1e totality of tl1e clebt from any among tl1e several debtors. Tl1e clebto11 \vho bas paid tl1e total amot1nt claimed \-Vi11 the n I1ave the right of 1-ecot1rse against tl1e otl1er co-clebtors. The sole credito1- thus has a f1·ee coice of debtors ancl consequently a better chance to be paicl. TI1us, wl1ile solidarité active concerns several creditors and 011e debtor, soliclarité pclssive, conversely, co11cer11s 011e cre ditor and se,,e1·al debtors. Tl1e soliclarité passive ca n exist eitl1e1· dt1e to a clause wl1icl1 is part of the contract tl1at gave ris e to tl1e obligation or cltie to a legal text or jurispruclential inte1·pretation, st1cl1 as \vl1ere com111on inte1·est (co11,z111itnait té cl'i11terêst) between co-debto1·s or commo11 fat1lt ( co1111nit11aitté cle faute) between co-respo nsibles exists. Ca1·bonnier obse1·ves that tl1e soliclarity in the case of a co1111nun fattlt - th e jw�ispn1dential t1·e11cl tl1at eacl1 co-at1tl1or of tl1e damage shot1ld be he lcl lia . ble to n1al<e it goocl totally - cloes n�t, l 1l • ,-v · t1 o y if is · It c e ' rt ·t ' . so · z 1 according to the decisions, becom.e a gent1111e LCi L lca be n ca l1 tc Sl as cl an s ct fe an «imperfect» one w hi ch c1·eates very few ef

CilAP1"EU V 90 btit tl1is obligation irz soliclu11z can be 1,2 obligatioi . 111 L-'d it 1 so llad Jecl a11 ltl • • .. . . ong cloers al ,v1 of seve1 tl1e same offenc-. among oit) cl r • , , z . ei1,. (d JJ . . e e, e.t off icto . .act. a1.e not 1n . . so1,.1.c.1 a 1.L•te' se,,eral clebtors of. ..tl1e san1e contr . 111 t11e same ,vh1le • • pos1t1on.291 · · · · 1 c. ton 111 tl1e «Notes» from , even fii1d a si1nple1· zstzrzcL Perl1aps 011e Cail . · of BrlL'Celles (U.L.B.): tl1e obl1gat1on . . in solicluni is · ersit·.Jv tl1e Free Un1,, a • • , • . solzdarzte 1s t]1e rest1lt of a Jeoat but solicl'arité of ' tlJat to e 1 os 11ot1011 c bJ provision or of 311 agree111ent; ,vlule the obligation i11 soliclum is created from particulai· circt1msta11ces i11 the absence of eitl1er a legal provision or of an agreen1ent. r11 tl1e obligatio11 i,i soliclit111 eacl1 debtor is held Jiable for the discl1arge of tl1e vvl1ole clebt bt1t none of the «secondary effectsl> of tlle solidarité (Arts. 1205, 1206, 1207 B.C.C. and F.C.C.) will arise in his respect. TJ1e only effect of tl1is obligation (i11 soliduni) is to enable tl1e sole creditor to cle1nancl f1·om eacl1 a11d any of tl1e s.everal debtors the discharge of tl,e ,vl1ole debt, on bel1alf of ail. Tl1t1s, vvl1ere one kind of damage is causecl to a sole pe1·so11 by several persans dt1e to a common faul t (faute co11z11iuri), each and ever·y one of tl1e latter can be l1eld liable for the "vl1ole rest1lti.11g l1ar1n.292 In tl1e ligl1t of tl1e abo,1e, it seerns safe to co11clude tl1at, t1ncler modern l:;-rench (Belgian) Ia,,v, a soliclarité passi11 e is sy11ony1nous to an obligation ir1. solicliL111; and tl1at, wl1e11 tl1e '"'Orel soliclcLrité is t1sed in connection \.vitl1 civil ,vrongs, it may be take to co1111ote tl1at kind of solidarity ,vl1icl1 pro cluces 0111:y tl1e effects of an obligation i1i solicli,ni. At any rate, it appears to be a settled matter for tl1e cow·ts ancl a good nun1ber of \vriters, in France, tl1at «joint "vr-ongcioers are liable jointly and severaII:y».293 It ,,.,. ould also appear tl1at this ,va s a ct1sto1nary rule of tl1e French 1·L1le, follo,.\1ed in earlier lJractice, «\vhicl1 wa itself based upon s Roman la,v.».294 Nevertl1eless, it might no t be ot1t of place to 1Joint out t11at tinder tl1e Lex Aqiiilia a11 iri soliclitni lia bilit)' \.Vas «ct1111tùative>), for even a full satisfaction of tl1e clebt 01 1 tl1e 1Ja1·t of a debtor dicl not necess arily release tl1e others.295 Tliis differeiice of a1J1Jroacl1 can be better see11 vvl1e11 one remem bers tliat tl1e Germa11 Ci,,il Cocle recogr1izes on e forn1 of joint liability only «a form corresponcling, i11 essential, to tl1e solidary obligation of Ron1an la,�.r».296 It is, IJe- r·11a1Js, tl · · t al 1es e · ,,ar1ed patler11s of approacl1 of tl1e Cont1ne n la"v tl1at Prof· Da'vi·ct cr 1 iac l 111 · 0 i 1n1n d • 0 ern · ,vl1 en con c l1e s1 Joke of 1Jrovisio11s . . . l1ab1l1ty bei11g borne - OLit bY several pe1�so11s (11litralité cle resz1orzsab· les) , 'as . �eiiig aclnlittecl in tlie count1·ies o f tl1e coclified lavv - solt1tions wliicll v.rere incorporatecl in E tl11. . o1Jia11 l a\\r ,vitl10Ltt a 11 y cliffi culty.297

1'IlE LA\V FHOl\1 TUE CONTINENT

(x)

Ill

No Pa·rtitiori ( Pa1•tage) of· LicLbili"t)· , a 71 cl R ez ative Exterz.u ation (Arts. 2156, 2157, 2158, 2159 ).

Where, t1nder the Ia,v, 1·esponsability falls 011 several persans btit wllere in actual fact, 011 ly one of tl1e111 l1as co111mittecl tl1 e offe11ce, 11e alone sllall, in tl1e final a11alysis, bear tl1e bt1rden of tl1e 1·est1lting clebt (Ai·t. 2156). An illt1stration of t l1is l1as been give11 by D1·. Rt1ssell293 - tl1e case of a civil wrong con1n1itted by a tena11t, as a 1·est1lt of wl1icl1 botl1 he ancl th.e land. lord 1nay be suec� and. l1eld liable but tl1e victin1 \vill collect tl1e debt from the landlord alo11e - ,vho empl1asises tl1e importance of tl1e \vord «finally» (erL cléfiniti,,e) wl1icl1 apJJears i11 A1·t. 2156. 111 fact, tllis principle seems to fi11cl clea1· expression in tl1e subseqt1ent Article (2157). Wl1ere in the exercise of their fu11ctions ( l' exercise cle ses forzctiorzs), a civil \v1·ong is committed by t11e rep1·esentativ.e ( représe11tant) or agent ( age11t) of body corporate (Art. 2129) or a paid work.er ( salarie), tl1e court has power, in its discre. tion, to decicle t l1at tl1e debt sl1all be finally bo1ï1e, eitl1e1· in v.1l1ole or in part, by the body corpo1·ate 01· by tl1e e1nployer (Art. 2130 et seq.), as the case may be ( paragrapl1 1); like,vise ,.vJ1en the 1natter conce1"Ds a fai,1,t e cle ser1,ice (Ai-t. 2127) committed by a civil servant (for1.ctionr1aire) _01· an em. ployee, the court is empo\vered to decide that either tl1e State (Art. 2126), its te1·ritorial subclivision 01· the public service concer11ed (2128) sl1all final ly bear the debt, in \vl10J.e or i11 part (paragrapl1 2). The otl1er two sub sequent Articles (2J58 and 2159) give the cot11·t clear clirections to be fol lo,ved in arriving at its decision and as to ,vl1e11 t11e discretion granted to it is to be rest1-ictively exe1·cisecl. Al1d to take the example of tl1e relationsl1ip between a landlord and a tenant again. In F1·ance, if tl1e la11cllo1·cl, for insta11ce, sl1otild a\rail himself of bis right of ownersI1ip to take baclt tl1e p1·en1ises from the tenant not in order to satisfy a Jegitimate interest bt1t \Vitl1 tl1e i11tention of cloing some harrn to the interests of tl1e tena11t ( clarr:s l' i11tentiorz.s cle niiire) the cou .rt can, under the doctrine of abits cle droit, 1·eft1se st1cl1 a request.299 Ta. king this into the clomai11 of civil ,vrongs in Etl1iopia, it vvill be seen tl1at if the act giving rise to thë Jiability was con1111ittecl, irzte1· c1lia, vvith intent to l1arm ( clans l'intention cle 11i1ire) tl1e cot1rt is not empovvered to proceed to any kincl of partition (partage), u11cler A1-t. 2159 (1)· (xi)

Sitbrogcttio11 ( Art. 2161 ):

• er d n u ce 11 · " ra F 111 · l c 1ze 1· 1 t· tl vv no Legal l1istory sl1ows tl 1at tl1e n1ecl1an1sm the notion of subrogation dates bacl<: to the sixtee11tl1 centtiry,_ tllo��l� � tl1at tin1e its basis la.y inore in equité rat'her tl1an i11 eco11om1c t1t1l1ty.

CHAP1'ER V

112

conveys tl1e idea of replacemen n» o ati og br «su n1 ter • 1e t . . Broadly speak1 11e, tl . ., . · n (subrogcLtion 1 eelle) ,.vl1e11 on e patnn1on1al tlung re. . 1o . _ real sttbrogat ri persorinelle) when a zo at og tbr (si 1 io.1 at ·og bi su al c n . . . . IJlaces a110tl1e1·; per.so .. . a are tl1e of n obligatio ns. A 1· 1 dito cre a as er 1 . otl n a s e c , persan r. ep1a . . . . . . le legcL and a a nto con11etzon 11 elle 1 v1 ded 1 , cl turn in , s · 1 n t io a g ro b u persona} s . . es JJlace as a tak . ot1 1 result of a 1·ogat st1b tbe . ere wI1 s 1· , t a th , on t1 st1broga . . 301 bto1·. It 1s ,v 1th the subroga. cle e th or r ito ed cr e th r l1e eit of ll declared vvi on 10 1·s ,vl pe e has paid, by the tl1 of ur ve fa in es at er op J1 tlc ,.vl tiori zegale _ on ati est y nif of will on the an 1na g ·i11 t1.i1 req ut tl1o wi v, Ja, e 1 tl of sole force tl 1 at Art. 2161 Etl1iopia n Civil · to1 deb tl1e or or dit cre t11e iei· eitl of t par Cocle is concerned ,vitl1. TJ1e qttestion of subrogatio 11 l1as al1·eacly bee11 tackled vvhen speaking of tl1e victim covered by a11 i 1 1surance IJolicy (Art. 2093) or tl1rough tlie receipt of benefits accruing from a IJensio11 (Art. 2094) and n1ention ,�as t11ere n1ade of that cont1·ove1·sial matter.302 St1ffice it l1ere to acld tl1at, un cler Art. 2161, tl1e party wl10, say, pt1rst1ru1t to Art. 2157, l1as l1acl to pay tl1e ,.v}1ole clebt, ,.vhile it vvas bot1ncl to bear only a portion of it, has a recot1rse against tl1e otl1er co-clebtors (coobligés), ancl is to tbis e[fe.ct sub rogated to the ,,ictim's claim. In otl1e1· \\70rcls, it is presumed that the victi1n l1acl al1·eady bee1 1 dt1ly con1pensatecl beca11se the whole clain1 l1as been satisfied by one of tl1e several deb to1 ·s. Tlte only thing left pending is tl1e matter of settlen1e11t as amongst tl1 e latter. Tl1e IJarty ,.vl10 bas paid tl1e \Vbole clebt no\v replaces ( st1b1·ogates) tl1e victim, for tl1e pu1-poses of clain1ing l1is 1ights. Tl1e in1port of A1-ticle 2161 l1as si11ce been, at Ieast once, tested before the St1JJreme In1perial Cot1rt (Asmara Divisio11).303 I 11 a. perso 1 1al injtrry action brot1gl1t by tl1e victim directly against tl1e inst1rance company of tl1e persan ,vl10 cat1sed tl1e injury, the rligl1 Co t1 rt of Jt1stice gave judgment in defat1.lt against the ins11rance compa11y. Tl1e a1Jpeal filed before t11e Supreme Court ,,vas successful and tl1e fir st jud gment vvas 1·e,,ersecl, tl1e latter court l1olcling - irzter alia - tl1at Ar ticle 2161 did not en title an «injured tbird JJarty to clai111 compens 04 er ».' ation cli1 ·ectly from tl1e instu· îlle Stipreme Imperia! Court ,vas, l1o weve1·, of tl1e opinion tl1at the article ,vas applicable i11 tl1e case of on e wl10 l1as pa id tl1e \vl1ole a111ount and \VatJtecl to reco,,er from tl1 ose Iia ble to l1im like, foi· instai1ce, tl1e O\\rner of a ,,eJ1icle fo r tl·1e inJtu · •y cat1sec 1 by h1.s di·1. ver, on \\rl1ose bel1alf tl1e pa yn1e11 t l1ad been effectecl,· or,. · e 111 tI1e case of a debto1· «\,\r}10 pays the ,v1o 1 J , . . of a ctebt for \Vl11cl1 • se,,era J per.s011s are l1a ble» a11cl vvl10 «ca11 reco,,er f·ron1 the otl1er clebtors».3os It is neitl1er tl1e inte nt· ion no r tl1e sco1Je of tbis book to offer e1'ther . . 1. cr1t1c sm or approval of . . n. . 1on . a11Y c1ec1s of tl1e Etl1iopian Cou1·ts - 1 ts inte 0

1'HE LA ,v FHO?rl TIIE CONTI NENT

113

. . tio11' it cannot be too ofte1ùy empl1asized ' is to catte·n1JJt an 1n • c11cat1on as to • • • the sources of tl1e la\v of c1v1l w1·ongs tu1cler tl1e Et111· 0p·1a11 c·1v1.1 Code.For this reason, no con1111ents ,vill be macle i11 co1111ection wi· tl1 tl1e dec1.. s1on . . . 1gl1t 11o t be ot1t of place to n1a per se. But 1t m c l(e tvvo obse1,,a tion · s, stem• • • ming ot1t of tl11s clec1s1on, a11d tl1at 011ly for tl1 e sake of 1-ele vant 1n · f 011natio11. In the first pac.e, it wotùcl appear tl1at the cot 1rt of last resort con siders Art. 2161 applicable also i11 insurance mattei·s exceiJt, of course. where a direct action by tl1e tl1i1·d injurecl party is concer11ed. In fact, as a ge11eral rtùe, Continental lavv does not ad1nit sucl1 a clirect action , b tit tl1ere are some exceptions. In Italy, tl1ese exceptions concer11 workmen's compensation a11d damages causecl by aeroplanes, tl1ot1gl1 tl1e policy is re gardecl as ,vitl1in insurar1ce against 1-isk of a third party.306 In cot111tries, st1cl1 as S,veden and Svvitzera11d, a direct action is allovvecl b)' express pro vision of la,v.107 In Belgium, too, a specific p1·0,1ision of Ia,.v exists vvhereby in comptùsory insm·a11ce cases regardi1 1g liability arising out of motor vehlcles accidents, the injured party l1as a direct persona! ( z1ro1Jre) action against the i11surer.3as Secondly, botl1 the Aml1aric and tl1e Englisl1 texts of Article 688 ( 1) of the Ethiopie Comn1ercial Code wllicl1 is one of tl1e three articles of tl1e Commercial Code 1· eferred to by tl1 e Court i1 1 its jt1dgment, are completely different from tl1e Frencl1 text, in tl1ree instances - first, unlilce the tvvo other texts it contains folll· and not t\1/0 paragraphs. Second, paragrapl1 1 thereof allows the injured party a di1·ect actio11 against tl1e i11surer, 1111cler certain conditions.309 Third, v,,11ile paragraph 2 of botl1 tl1e Amharic ancl tl1e Englisl1 text corresponds to paragrapl1 4 of tl1e French version, tl1ere is nothing in paragraph 2 and 3 of tl1.e latter corresponding to paragraph 1 of the fonner. 11d a de Co vil Ci n pia l1io Et e th tl1 bo of s 1 o1 dl rsi tte ve cl1 mi Ad y, tl1e Fre11 3 10 Nevertl1eless, it will be r». cte ara Comme1·cial Code have no «official cl1 readily adrn itted, likewise, tl1 at tl1e 11ecessit)' of lcnovving tl1e exact vvord5 employecl by tl1e Frencl1 «expe1·ts» i11 tl1eir final «projets» remains of tl1 e utmost importance fo r· Ethiopian jtirists.Indeecl, Prof. JaL1ffret I1as, in l1is Note [1itroclitctive, pointed ou t tl1 at wbere the Fre. ncl1 _ text differs fro�1 ) .) . no e Su ls y ar 1n 1·d ao tr Ex those JJubJ isl1ed in the Negarit Gaze ta of 1960 ( it \Vill have l1ave been shewn in italics. No passage in italics l1ovvever, ap n io at tu si l ia nt te po a , ce en I I. cle pear in A1·ticl.e 688 of tl1e Commer·cial Co for a conf usion arises. I Il X le it T of 1 er pt l1a C 1 i1 h SulJrogation is tl1e Iast subject clealt vvit 1e of the law of civil wrongs. It is al so tl1e last article vvllicl1, pttrSLtant 1? tl of classification 1nacle in this book, con1es 1111der tl1e particualr domaii: the Continental law. Next cornes tl1e categor. y of Con1n1on La,.v notioils ancl it is to that tapie tl1at this work ,vill e111bark 11ovv.

NOTES CHAPTER V

1 . During the discussion of what follows the writer will be drawing heavily from the informai Lectures given by Dr. Russell, F.F .. So as to avoid excessive repetition and unless the text makes it imperative, no citation from him will appear. He will furthermore draw from his own Yale Law Scheel unpublished paper. 2.

Author's italics.

The famous definition of Pothier in his Obligations § 116 might not be of general knov.,i I edge: «On appelle dèlit le fait par l e quel une personne, par dol ou malignité, cause du dommage ou qualque tort à une autre. Le quasi dèlit est le fait par le quel une personne, sans malignité, mais par une imprudence qui n'est pas excusable, cause qualque tort à une autre», cited by Catala and Weir, Chapter IV supra note 1, at 607, n. 143.

Maine, HJS, Ancient Law, Chapter IX ( «The Eearly History of

Delict and Tort»)

World Classics ed. 1954. 322, note 48

Krzecz unov,icz, Statutory Jnterpretation in Ethiopia, l JEL

David, Un Project du Code sur la Responsabilité Civile, at 236.

Arts. 1382-1386 of the F.C.C.:

( 1964) ·

dommage, «Art. 1382 - Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un oblige celui par la faute du quel il est arrivè, à le réparer. seulement <cArt. 1383 - Chacun est responsable du dommage qu'il à causé non par son fait, mais encore par sa négligence ou par son imprudence. cause par Art. 1384 - On es t responsable non seulement du dommage que l'on

NOTES . CHAPTER

116

causé par le fait des perso son propre f a1't, mais encore de celui qui est nnes dont a sous sa gar de . n l'o e qu 1oses c I es d ou on doit répondre, celui qui détient à u n titre quelconque tout s, f • oi ut To ) 22 19 ou ( L. 7 nov. mobiliers dans lesquels un incendie a s bien des ou ble meu l'im pris partie de vis-à-vis des tiers des dommages causés par cet e nsabl respo Sera e '1 e nc naissa incendie que

S •., 1

est prouvé qu'il doit être attribué à sa faute ou à la faute des

personnes dont i! est responsable. ( L. 7 r-Jov. 1922) _ Cette disposition ne s'applique pas aux rapports entre pro. priétaires et locataires qui demeurent régis par les articles 1733 et 1734 du Code Civil. Le père, et la mère après le décès du mari, sont responsables du dommage causé par leurs enfants mineurs habitant avec eux; Les maîtres et les commettants, du dommage causé par leurs domestiques et les préposés dans les fonctions auxquelles ils les ont employés; Les instituteurs et les artisans, du dornmage causé par leurs élèves et ap prentis pendant le temps qu'il sont sous leur surveillance. ( L. 5 avril 1937) - La responsabilité ci-dessus a lieu, à moins que les père et mère et les artisans ne prouvent qu'ils n'ont pu empêcher le fait qui donne lieu à cette responsabilité. En ce qui concerne les instituteurs, les fautes, imprudences ou négligences invoquées contre eux con1me ayant causè le fait dommageable, devront être prouvées, conformément ou droit commun, par le demandeur à l'instance. Art.

1385

Le propriétaire d'un animal, ou celui qui s'en sert, pendant qu'il

est à son usage, est responsable du dommage que l'animal a causé, soit que l'animal fût sa garde, soit qu'il fût égaré ou echappé. Art.

1386 - Le propriétaire d'un bâtiment est responsable du don,mage causé

par sa ruine, lorsqu'elle est arrivée par une suite du défa ut d'entretien ou par le vice de sa construction ». For the English versio n of Arts. 1382-1383 of the F.C.C. see pp. 201·202 of Amos and Walton, below at 21.

8. The writer has avai led himself of the translation made by Professer Von Mehren in 9.

his The Civil Law Systen,, Boston ( 1957), p. 339. Risarcimento per fatto illecito · Qua1unque fatto obbliga colui che a con1messo ·1 1 fatl O a risarci re i I danno» · De Cupis, . A., Fatti llleciti in Comn1entario del Codice -

N01'ES · CHAPTEll V

117

Libro Quarto - Delle Obligazioni, Bologna/Roma (1964) p. 285_ 10_

Art. 1382, Code Civil Belge ( Texte Officiel Cornplet bout, Verviers (Belgique) ( 1965).

l l.

et Mis a Jour) Bibliotheque f>/iara

Art. 1053 Quebec Civil Code, though this is comprehensive of both Ar ts. 1382 and 1383: Baudouin, L., Delicts under the Quebec Civil Code in Canadia n Jurisprudence (ed. by Mc Whinney) Stevens and Sons Ltd., London, p. 173.

12.

Von Mehren, op. cit. supra note 8.

13.

Lawson, F.H., Negligence in the Civil Law, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, London (1955) p. 225, in his translation of Art. 2024 of the ltalian Civil Code: «Reparation for wrongful act. Any malicious or negligent act 'vvhich causes

unjustifiable damage to another obliges the persan who has committecl the act to n1ake good the dan1age». 14.

The heading of Chapter 11 of the Sv,iss Code of Obligations is: Des obligations re sultant d'actes illicites; Art. 41 speaks of «faits» which are contrary to good nierais - in Lawson, Ibid a t 210-211 ( 1ta Iics suppliecl).

15.

As quoted by Lawson, F.H., in A Co1nn1on Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Thomas M. Cooley Lectures Series, Ann Arbor ( 1953) p. 164.

16.

Id.

17.

Ibid., at 165-166.

18.

Paton, G.W., A Textbook of Jurisprudence ( 3rd ed. by Perharn) Oxford U.P. ( 1964), p. 417.

19.

Carbonnier, J., Théorie des Obligations, «Themis», P.U.F., Paris ( 1963), 62-63; see also Book I on «l'Acte Juridique» and Book Il on «Le Fait Juridique»», at PP· 67 and 324, respectively.

2O.

ish «act-» Notice the justification for translating the 1 ta 1.ran «fatt o» in the Engl given by Lawson op. cit. supra note 13, at 225, no. 4: n «fatto)) ia al lt e th t bu n; at,o • 1 ns tra «This v,orcl is used for convenience of • d to show se u ,s · t 1 n. tio ota nn co e tiv includes ommissions an d has no subjec obligation». th at it has no connection with the «will-theory» of

21·

Oxford, ) al et son Law by Amos and Walton, Introduction to French Law, ( 2nd ed. U.P. (1963) p. 21.

22.

Carbonnie r, op. cit. supra note 19, at 63.

23.

Id.

24.

Arno� and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 21,

11•

NOT ES . CI:lA l:'TER

118

«The importance of the distinction between

actes

juridiques

and

faits

matériels lies also in the fact that the former in general do, while the latter

do not, require written proof, or at least a commencement de preuve par écrit».

25.

Id.

26.

David _ Private Con1n1unication « B».

27.

Note where Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, gives among others, Art. 1382 of the F.C.C. to illustrate the place where the word «fait» had been utilized.

28.

David, supra note 6, at 235.

29.

Id.

30.

Id.

31.

Russell, F .F., The New Ethiopian Civil Code, 29 Brooklyn L. Rev. 237-240 (1963).

32.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 225.

Ibid, at 17. The theory of Abuse of Rights is clealt with in Art. 2034 of the

E.C.C.

below.

34.

Catala Weir, Chapter IV supra note 1, at 607.

'35.

Arnos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 218.

36.

Catala and Weir, supra note 34, at 607, n. 143.

37.

Id.

38.

Arnos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, 217.

39.

Catala and Weir, supra note 3, at 608.

40.

Ibid., at 609, citing 1 Mazeaud and Tune § 428.

41.

«Uncommon Lav1», p. 2 as cited by Hamish Grey, The Law of Civil Injuries, at 17.

42.

O.W. Holmes, The Common Law, at 108-9, as cited by Lawson, op. cit. supra note

13, at 41. 43.

Winfield, A Textbook of the Law of Tort, at 41 O.

44.

Hamish Grey, op. cit. supra note 41, at 39.

45.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. su pra note 21, at 21 4.

46.

Ibid, at 218.

47 .

Id.

48 .

NimeS, Feb. 18, 1959, (1959) J.C.P. Il. 13 74 (Note Vienne}, 1960 R.T. 301 ci tee! b,v Cata1 a anc 1 elr, supra note 3 4 , at 609. R. Rodiére nla Responsabilité Civile», Rousseau and Co . Paris ( 1952) at § 1494 and 496 {p · 123 et seq.) .111 reprint from Vol. IX bis of Cours cle Droit Civil

49.

NOTES · CF[APTER

y 119

50.

Français, by Ch . Beudant ( 2nd ecl., by R. Beudan t an d p. Lerebours-P. 1geonniére). As to the difference between «in concreto» lë.1t1d <Cl · ll a bstracto» considerations , see Catala and We ir supra note 34 ' at 608·1 Carbonnier , o p . c1 •t. supra note 19, at 375. Catala and Weir (Il) 38 Tul. L. Rev. 221, 259-60 (1964).

51.

Ibid, at 260: (Req. May 24, 1866 (1866) S.I. 237) (ltalics supplied).

52.

The position is quite different in the Common Law. Notice the following observation by Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 265: «The con,rnon law has fants;

not dealt too

satisfactorily with

lunatics

and in

but litigation has not offerecl rnany opportunities for dealing with

them at ail. This is not surprising when it is noted that neither parents of minors nor guardians of the

insane are

vicariously responsible

for

the

wrongs or dan,age clone b y those uncler their care.They may be personally responsible, of course, in just the same way that anyone in charge of some thing likely to clo damage n,ay be responsible for carelessly allowing it to do so. Qua parent and guardian, 1,ov,ever, they are under no special liability (footnotes omi tted); See also Russell, Lectures « 1 nfancy and Mental Weaknes5 (lnsanity, lmbecility, Feeble mindedness} are not defenses to a civil action. This is the general rule in English Law». As to American Law, Catala and Weir supra note 50, at 268, n. 161: «There is further conclusive fact that the American decisions unanimously hold the lunatic to the standard of the sane ... The analogy between lunatics and infants has been accepted, .. • and rejected .. . » Nevertheless, most An,erican decisions require the child defendant to satisfy only the standard of a reasonable child of like age, intelligence and experience, a view endorsed by the Restatement" • · · «The present American rule which applies a child's standard to a child reached its nadir in a case which held that a motorist of seventeen years need not drive as carefully as an adult ( Charbonneau v. Mac. Rury, 84 N.E. 501, 153 Atl. 457 (1931) Wittmeir v. Post, 78 SD 520, 105 N.W. 2d 65 (1960). As to Common Law in general, inter alia, see: ot1cl, Torts, lm Sa }; 55 ( 19 . ed d. 2n (a} On Lunatics: Presser, Torts, 791-93 82-83 (13th ecl. (1961); (b) On Children:

Salmond, Torts, 77 81

(13th ed.

Tort, 71-75 (7th ed. (1963)); Presser, Torts, 788-90 (2d. ed. (1955) );

(1961) ;

Wienfield,

--------------------- NOTES . ClIAP'fEI{

}ZO

Shulman, Standard of Care Required of

Children, 37

Yale L.J.

618

( 1928 ); ( c) On both: Bohlen, Liability in Tort for Infants and Insane Persons, 23 )· Mich. L. Rev. 9 ( 1924

53.

Ibid, at 262_ The guardian n,ay, true, be sued but the evidence is difficult to establish either in carelessness or negligence.

54.

Id. (Trib. Civ. Metz, Feb.

55.

Id.

8, 1951, ( 1951 ), D. 306).

56. Cfr. the following observation of Lord Justice Denning in 63 L.Q.R. 517, as cited by Fisher, J., The Law of Torts, Nutshell Series, London (

1958), p. 1:

«The province of tort is to allocate responsibility for injurious conduct».

50, a t 262-3, referring to 1 Mazeaud. and Tune § 464.

57.

Catala and Weir, supra note

58.

This writer has availed hin1self of the translation given in Catala and Weir supra note

59.

Id.:

50, at 264. «The solution consists in giving the courts a cliscretionary power ( un pouvoir <eThe solution consists in giving the courts a discretionary power ( un pouvoir d'équité) to cleclare the insane persan whol ly or partly li able to make

good

the damage he has caused. The judge takes into account ail the facts of the case, and especially the material circumstances of the parties, in order to arrive definitely at the solution which seen1s to him most just. This is not a true instance of the operation of civil liability, because genuine liability involves a con,plete reparation of the damage caused and is not left to the cliscretionary appreciation of the courts. Here it is a question of .,.,hat French lawyers call un pur pouvoir d'équité - that is to say a judicial ap· preciation of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. ln the exer· cise of this power the juclges need follow only the dictates of thelr ovin conscience».

60.

David, supra, note 6, at 23 6: «Finally, provision is n1ade as to whether the relevant fault should be deter· rnined objectively or by taking account of the personality of its author; the first solution was re ce·1 vecl but n1a11y subsequent provisions of the -' l., raft , open divers possibilitie st of the judges so as to enable them, where équr•te requires i t to soft · en t11e extent of th e child ' obligation incumbent upon the

and the lunat'rc» ( Li 1)eral translation by writer) .

NO�rEs • CHAPl'ER

6 J.

121

The French text of the same a rticle is as follows: «Pouvoirs d'équité. l. Inconscience de la faute.

Les juges peuvent limiter le montant de la rep ' a rat1on, si l'équité l'exige, lorsque la faute qu i eng end re la •

responsabilité

a été comn,ise par une

p ersonne qui n eta 1 t pas en état d'apprécie r le ca racté re fautif de sa •

•

conduite. 2.

Les juges p rennent en considération, à cet effet, la situation respective cle fortune des parties, et les conséquences que l'obligation de réparer entr aînerait pour l'auteur de la faute».

62.

Notice for instance the ltalian colposo, supra.

63.

For Latin and English texts see Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 80 et seq.

64.

Buckland and Mc Nai r ( 2nd ed. 1965) Ron,an Law and Common Law at 365; see also Lav,son supra note 13, at 40.

65.

La.,.,son, op. cit. supra note 13,at 4; see also Leage, R.W., Roman Private Law, ( 3rd. ed. by Prichard) Mc Millan, London (1961), at 409-416.

66.

As to the famous Hammurabi Code , see Dekkers R., Le Droit Privé des Peuples, B ruxelles (1953), at 34 et seq.

67.

Lawson,op. cit. supra, note 13, at 4.

68.

Ibid, at 6.

69.

Ibid, at 36-7.

70.

Ibid, at 14, 40.

71.

lbid,at43: «lt is therefore not easy to clecide finally whether Roman law

regarded

culpa

in a subjective or an objective light; but, pa rtly, no doubt, under the in fluence of canon law and its secular offspring, natural la\.V, the modern systen,s based on Roman la\'✓ took culpa to imply moral blameworthiness». 72 .

supra note 64.

73.

De Cupis, Fatti llleciti, at 290: a seconale du gra è lpa co la e, on isi ev pr n co lpa «Anche a prescindere da lla co tre famosi gradi · i rs da or ric no vo De . ità av gr re 1 da de Ila magg1ore o m·no · · inchè sorga l'obbligaaff c nt cie ffi su E' . 1 ma 1ss liev della colpa: grave, lieve, e vissima, colie a lp co la e nt va ile irr è a m zione di risarcimento, la co lp a lieve; • Aquilia ge . le in o ic id ur gi io rb e ov pr sicchè non tro va più applicaz1one l'ant1co supra note , eir W d an la ta Ca so al ; d) et levissima culpa venit ( ltalics supplie

NOTES • CT:IAPTJ'!:R

122

.. «Toclay's tendency both in legal writi ng and in the cour 148 ts 3, at 611 , n . conception of fault, ... and also tov,ards the ary unit a rcls to\.va is generaIl Y constituting a fault». as a lp cu a im iss lev of • 11 exc1us10 74.

a at 363-64: pr su , ns io at ig bl O s de e ri Carbonnier, Théo ences, n'o nt pas le même degré de gravité. rud in1p ou es enc ligi nèg les s «Toute Mais la responsabilité quasi délictuelle peut être engagée par une faute

légère; certains disent mên1e, avec la tradition ( que le pratique ne semble pas suivre): une faute trés légère. La notion de faute lourde, en tout cas, n'a ici que trés peu de conséquences propres ...>,. 75.

Pirson, R, Droit Belge de! la Responsabilité Civile. ( Complément au Traité pratique de la Responsabilité Civile de Henri Laleu, 6th ed.), Dalloz, Paris ( 1964) at 29: «Dans l'ensen1ble, doctrine et jurisprudence belges professent que pour en gager la responsabilité sur le base des articles 1382 et suivants du Code Civil, la faute la plus légère suffit» ( ltalics suppliend); for the French viev, see supra note 74.

76.

Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 221.

77. Id., and also Bibliography at p. 237, no. 25; see aise Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13; at 15; Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 219. 78.

Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 237, n. 25.

79.

Lawson, supra note 13, at 15.

80.

See generally Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 74, at 366-379; Rodiére op. cit. supra note 4 9, at 65-78.

81.

Ibid., at 16.

82.

Id., Colmar, May 2, 1855 (1846) D. 11. 9.

83-

Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 222 -3, n. 2, also for citation of case and English translation of excerpts of the decision: «Considering nevertheless that the depen dant was, on the eviclence, act uated by malice an d the sole ain, of damaging the plaintiff without any corresp onding advantage to hin1self in erecting a false chim ney <starting only on the roof) opposite to an d aln,ost touching the plaint iff's wir,clow, already partly occluded by new construction and nov1 deprived of aln,o 5l all the remaining dayli ght; and that this chi1nne y is the work which the defe nda nt clain1s, on his narrow I · rig · ht P ead'ings, to be entitled to n1aintain by reason of bis of ownership· co . •in nsi·cer 1 ing • t h at wh ile in principle the right of ownership 15 ' some sense absolute and pern1its their ow ne r to use and dispose of the thing,

N01'ES - CHAl'1'Ell

1 :!3

still the exercise of this right, like that of al! t 11 c others, mus t be limitecl by th e requiren-ient that it satisf" , son-ie serious ancl 1 eg1t1 · • rnt1tc interest; th.:it moral and equitable principles alike are opposecl to the law's .,�uppor t of an action motivatecl by malice, carried through in anger, justifiecl by no persona! advantt1ge and causing serious clamage to another; and tht1t v,hile the defencl 3nt's property is ad rnittcdly free of any servitude of light, the clecision of the judges belov-1 to have the false chimney clen1olishecl must be uphelcl». 84.

Lawson, supra note 13, at 19.

85.

Catala and \Veir, supra note 50, at 233; Claude Lev-,y, The Code and Property in E. Schv-1artz's The Code Napoleon and the Con11non Law World, N.Y. Un. Press (1956) at 167: <<Furthermore the ct1se lavv1 cleveloped for the protection of neighbors a set of limitations, that, under the nan-ie of abus de droit, provicles about the same results as the Anglo-American notion of «nuisance».

86.

Amos and Vvalton, supra note 21, at 219-220.

87.

Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 230-31: «At the present tin-ie liability for abuse of rights is in-iposed for unintentional fau I t in a grea t man y cases, except for abuse of legal process where, . . . an intention to cause harn-i 111ust be always sho\,vn. Elsev-,here, the test applied to cas'ë)s of abuse of rights is that of the bonus pater fan,ilias». cit. supra note 13, at 19.

88.

Lawson,

89.

See Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 50 at 65-78, for these views and criticism.

90.

Josserand, De l'Esprit des Droits et de leur Relativité (Théorie dite de l'Abus de

op.

Droits) 2nd ecl. (1939) citecl by Catala and Weir supra note 50, at 228, n. 12. 91.

Amos and Wùlton, op. cit. supra note 13, at 18; Cùtala and Weir, supra note 50, at 228.

92.

Dekkers, R., Introduction a u droit de l'Union Soviétique et des Républiques populaireS, U.L.B. (lnstitute de

Sociology) Bruxelles

(1963)

at 33, n. 37; 92, n. 172-

For another concise exposition of Soviet Law, see Bellon, J., Le Droit Soviétique, «Q.J.S.» Series, no. 1052, P.U.F., Paris (1963) • 93.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 18.

94.

Ca tala and Weir, supra note 50 -at 229:

l interests and ra ne ge e th e ar n io at sl gi «Thus we see that the ai m s o f this le juStice». ëJI ci so t no d an lth not indiviclual interests, economic wea

95.

Id.,

NOTES • CBAPTEH

12'

96. 97 98.

Ibid., ùt 229-230. te 13, at 19. o n ra p su t. ci . op , n so Law cloctrine by the Conseil d'Etat, see Waline, Traité the of ent prn elo dev the Id., As to ( 6th ecl. 1951 ) , in Von Mehren's Civil Law if, trat inis Adm it Dro de ire enfa Elem seq. System op cit. supra note 8 at 251 e t

99.

Series n. 115 2 P.U.F. Paris ( 1964), at 10?. Wei 1 , P., Le Droit Administratif, «Q.S.J.»

100.

voir pousse la notion de légalité à Ibid., at 108: «le controle du détournn1ent de pou son extrême limite, puisque aussi bien il lui intégre celui de la 'moralité aclmini .

Galeotti,

s.,

strat1ve ». 101.

The Judicial Control of Public Authorities in England and in ltaly, Stevens

and Sons, London ( 1954), at 109. 102.

Consider the following observation by Catala and Weir, supra note 50, at 222-3, n. 4: «One of the great concerns of the French Revolution of 1789 (The Bourgeois Revalution) was ta establish freedom of property in private lav1 along vtiih freeclon of the persan; this explains the strength of the formulation of article 544 of the French Civil Code. Today it is fair to ask what has become of this absolute exclusive and perpetual right. The administration has, in the public interest, created a rnass of regulations and servitudes ( highway and overflight servitudes, the obligation to permit passage of electric power lines). If the Government needs property, it takes it - by requisition, if the need is urgent; if it is not, then by expropriation on the grounds of public utility ( n o longer public

necessity - and the difference is considerable). For

political purposes, the legislator has in,posed on o,..,ners the duty of co existence with others, peaceful or not» . 103.

Tc better convey the intenclecl me aning an d avoid confusion the French verb .:nuirell ought perhaps to have been translated as to

«harm» and

not to

<i:injure » to

distinguish it fron1 the Rornan «injuria or iniuria», likevvise the phrase «sans rapport avec ce dommage» ha s been translated as «disproportionate to the daniage caused». l t is suggested t Iiat «d'1sconnectecl with the damage caused» might h ave been better. T o avoid con f·usion the French text i s reproduced below:

«Intention de nuire». 1 ) Une personne con1met une faute lorsqu 'elle agit I en vue de nuire à autr ui, sans rechercher pour elle-me"1 11 e un pro fi t personnel.

NOl'ES · CITA P1'EH

2) Elle cornrnet d e n1ên1e une faute s1,

125

à autrui un clon1 1nage considérable,

connaissance de cau se, elle cause recl,ercl,arit un profit personnel

qui est sans rapport avec ce clon,mage».

104.

David, R., Private Comn1unication «B»: «Le s mot s détournn,ent cle pouvoir r 1e son t pas emp • 1oyés qu en droit administratif, où ils ont un sen s technique bien defini i) ; see also the eus e tern1 a:détournment» occuring at Article 422 of «Title Il I

the

the French text

1 nfractions contre la Fonction Publique).

105.

Revised Constitution of Ethiopia, 1955 Aclcli s Abeba, Ar t. 44: a:Everyone has the right, v,dthin the limits of the law, to ov,n and dispose of property. No one tnay be deprivecl of his property except upon the finding by ministerial order issued pcrsuant to the requirements of a

s pecial

expro

priation law enactecl in accordance with the provisions of ar ticles 88, 89 or 90 of the present Constitution, and except upon payment of just com pensation determinecl in the absence of agreement, by judicial procedures established by law. Said ministerial order, to be effective,

s hall

be approved

by the Council of Ministers and publishecl in t he Negarit Gazeta».

106.

David, supra note 6, at 236: «On a réglé égalment à c ette place ( in Section I of Title XIII) le probleme cle l'abus cle droit en indicant que la responsabilité ne pourrait être engag ée pour abus de droit que dans deux cas: celui où une personne agit en vue seulement de nuire à autrui, et le cas du détournn1ent de pouv oir où une personne utilise dans son interêt Personnel U,1 P ouvo .,r qui lui a

été

conferé

dans l'interêt général ou dans l'interêt d'autrui. En dehors de ces hyp othèses, il a paru indiquè, dans un pay où l'esprit proce ssif est trés developp é, de ne pas admettre que la re s ponsabilité puisse être engagée pour abus du droit>>.

107.

The Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1960, Art. 1225:

FRENCH

VERSION :

«Article 1225. - Abust du droit de propri ètè. 1. Princip e. oit, de s'abstenir de dr n so de e is rc xe l'e ns cla , ( 1) Le propriétaire est tenu e de la pro c an ss ui jo . la it ra t et om pr m tout exce , s qui d'1 m·1 nuerait ou co priété du voisin.

e suie, les d ou e é n1 fu de s on si (2) Son in terdit en particulier les én1is

N 01·Es . CH A PTEH.

12b

émanations

incon1111odantes, les

bruits

trépidations

excédant les

e se do iv en t les voisins. qu ce an er 1, o t I a J e c lin1ites ses li111ites, à l'usage lo:al, ùinsi qu'à la situation (3) On a égard, pour fixer ls ». et à la nù ture des fonc

EN&Lll!iH VER.SION : «Article 1225. - Abuse of ownership. l. Principle. ( 1) The ov,ner shall not cause nuisance or damage to his neighbour. (2) He shall not cause smoke, soot, unpleasant smells, noise or vibrations in excess of goocl neighbourly behaviour. ( 3) Regard shall be had to local custom, the position of the lands and the nature thereofi>. 108.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 360-61; Catala and Weir, supra note 3, at 607, 615.

109.

Buckland and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra, note 64, at 374-75.

110.

Catala and Weir, supra note 3, at 615: «The existence of fault by omission, and of legal liability attached to such fault, is almost universally ad111itted. The concept receives practical application in n1any judicial decisions».

111.

Id.

112.

See, inter alia, Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, at 316; Catala and Weir supra note 3, at 615-618; Larguier, J., French Penal Law and the Duty to Aid Persons in Danger, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 81-85 (1963).

113.

Id.

l14.

Ibid.

115.

Fer the translation into English of Art. 63 see Larguier, supra n�te 112, at 81.

l16. 117.

Ibid., at 85. • André Mauro,·s , « Non-assist ance à personne en danger», Le Soir, Bruxelles, of D e· cember 12, 1965, p. l, col. , l.

118.

See for instance Belgiurn (Art. 42 2 bis Belgian P.C., Law of June 6, 1961); Soviet Union (Art. 127 ( 1) of S.P.C.); Hungary (Art. 259 ( l) H.P.C.), cited by Larguier supra, note l 12, at 85.

l 19.

Especially the French r text 0f Art. 547 under the heading of «omission de porte secour s à autrui», . de in Le Code p.enal de ais l'E,npire d'Ethiopie, Centre Franç droit con1paré, Paris ( 1959)_

NOTES · CHA PTI�R

120.

Poitiers, Nov. 12, 1935, (1936) D. Il. 25 (Note,

127

saIle

c1e 1a Mariniere) cited l:>y

Catala and Weir supra note 3, at 619, n. 174. 121.

Civ. 1, Feb. 27, 1951 (1951) D . 329; ( 1951) J.C.P. li, 6, 193,· Civ. 1, Feb. 27, 1951, (1951) D.329 (Note, Desbois), (1951) J.C.P. 11.6, 193.

122.

Catala and Weir, supra note 3, at 618. See also n. 172 at same page for actual worcls of the court as cited, in turn, by authors from 2 Marty and Raynaud § 408, and by Mazeaud and Tune § 544: «Whereas the fault envisaged by Articles 1382 and 1383 can consist just as well of an abstention to act as of a positive act; as the abstention, even if not prompted by n1alice or the intention to do harm, makes its author liable when the act omitted was required whether by virtue o·f an obligation arising from law or by contract or, particularly in the case of a historian, by virtue of the requirements of objective information . .. l>.

123.

Ibid., at 619.

124.

Dekkers, op. cit.supra note 66, at 242: c:Car tant que les mots n'ont pas de sens precis, le droit n1ême reste in certain».

125.

See for instance the U.S.A. where breach of a statute constitutes negligence per se. (Miller, V.X., Selected Essays on Torts, Dennis and Co. Inc., Buffalo (1960) at 11); Carl:>onnier op. cit. supra note 19, at 367: «La trangression d'une loi ou d'un règlement est a priori une faute».

126.

·-

David, supra note 6, at 236: «On a indiqué ainsi clans le projet que la faute pouvait consister . • • dans une contravention aux ... prescriptions de la loi)>.

127.

Graven, P., Petit Dictionnaire Juridique, Libraires Techniques, Paris (1956), iten, «ordonnance», at 221.

129.

is Ababa See also Redden, K. et al., The Law Making Process in Ethiopia, HSIU, Add (1966), at 24.

130.

as to violation ); 64 19 ( 3. 11 1, 11 L JE 1 , ia op hi Et Krzeczunowicz, Hirarchy of Laws in note 99, atl08. ra sup . cit . op il We see nce Fra in s de la loi by administrative bodie

13 1

Article 122 of Revised Constitution of Ethiopia, supra note 105: ional treaties, at rn te in se t,o 1 1 t1 · w1 r 1 t1e ge to «The present revised constitution, rty, shall be the pa a be l al sh ia op hi Et ich conventions and obligations to v,h clerS, juclg0r s, ee cr cle n, io at isl leg supreme law of the Empire, and all future

NOTES • CHAPTER

128

inconsistent therewith, shall be nul! and void >>. acts and ns • 10 . 1s c e d ments,

132. 133. 134.

196. Russell, Lectures, at

es), 1s t ed. Retirage, U.L.B. ( 1965) at 10-11. ot (N l vi Ci t oi Dr de Eleinents only a minority can read? See Jarne ere wh y ntr cou a in e tru s thi s But how much is

African Peoples ( «Th e Impact to Law an ope Eur g ptin Ada of of S. Read, Mode circulated in Collequium on topic From Afrier pap »), Law an ope Eur n upo Africa Type of Law, held at Centre di Cultura can Traditional Law to a Modern e Civiltà della fondazione Giorgio Cini ( Venice, Oct. 3 -6, 1963) - ( Private Cornmunication).

135.

Planiol et Ripert, 6, no. 560; Mazeaud-Tune, 1, no. 497, as cited by Amos and Walton op. cit. supra note 21, at 223, n. 3.

136.

Trib. Seine, Nov. 13, 1945, (1946) G.P.I. 93, cited by Catala and Weir (Il) supra note 50, at 273, no. 177.

137.

Ibid., at 273-74: <<During the past twenty years, however, subordinates have sometimes had to carry out orders of such unnatural kind . . . this excuse is today regarded with greater suspicion» (See also case reported a s Civ., March 18, 1955, (1955) D. 573, (Note, Savatier), ( 1955) J.C.P. 11. 909 (Note, Esmein) at footnote 178).

138.

Ibid., at 274: «We believe that in this matter, as in others, there ought to be a reasonable proportion between the persona! risk run by the defendant in the case he disobeys the orders of his superiors, and the sericusness of the harm ,vhich he is ordered to cause. If by disobedience the defendant risks his life, it is fairly bard to hold him responsible, even when he carries out inhun,an 0rders; at any rate the question is open to argument. But if the defendant's interest is only a pecuniary one, it all he risks is the loss of bis job, he couId net be exculpated as a mat ter o f course when he con1mi ts an unlawful

139.

140. 141

act in execution of superior orders». • Wade' 1-1 ·W · R ·, Admin · is • trat,ve Law, Oxford a t the Clarendon Press ( 1961), at 2l 3 : « Superior orclers can never 1)e a defence, since neither the Crown nor .1ts serv ants have power to authoriz e a V✓rong». Retold by Russell in Lectures, at 198. Id.

NOTES · CIIAPTEl't

142.

129

Article 2036: 11 n'y a pas faute si, clans les circonstances de l'esp èce, et notamment du fait d'exigences spécialment strictes de Ia c1·iscip · 1·ine étatique ou n1ilitaire, « ( 3)

l'auteur de l'acte placé clans des conditions telles qu'il ne lui était pratiquement pas possible de cliscuter l'ordre re çu et d'agir autrerne nt qu'il n'a fait» ( 1 tal ics

143.

suppliecl).

Lectures , at 197-198. As to 1,vhat rnay constitute an «acte licite» and justifications

in criminal matters, see Section Il, Title Ill, Book f (Part 1) of the E.P.C. and particularly Arts. 64, 65, 69, 70. 144.

David, supra note 6, at 236: «Est règlée aussi, la question de savoir si l'ordre reçu d'une autorité legitime constitue ou non une cause d'exemption de la responsabilité: une reµonse negative est, sous certaines réserves, donnée à cette question».

145.

See Bucklancl and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra note 64 at 350- 351.

146.

Jolo\vicz, J.A., Contract and Tort - Concurrence - Professional Negligence in Case and Con11nent, The Camb. L.J. April 1965, at 27:

«If I employ you to make or supervise the making of something for me and as a result of your negligence it is less good than it ought to have been, 1 have an action against you for breach of contract. 1 have no claim in tort and no one else has any clain1 at ail. If, on the other hand, as a result of your negligence the thing is less good than it ought to have been and therefore causes damage ta some third persan or his property then, excep tional cases apart, you will be liable to hin1 in tort. If the thing similarly causes clamage to me or to my property there seems to be no reason for saying that I have no claim against you». 147-

Bagot v. Stevens ScanJan and Co. Ltd. ( 1964), 3 W.L.R. 1162. The facts of the case -

were briefly these. The defenclants were architects en1ployecl by the plaintiff and were responsible for the supervision of «certain building works which involved amongst other things, the laying out of a drainage systen1». Subsequently the pipe in the system broke ancl ,,vater escaped carrying some dan1age to the plain tiff's property. The defenclant's cluty can1e ta an end before April 2, 1952 but the writ on the action was issued only on April 2, 1963. According ta the time limitations in Englancl, in contract ( tin1e of breach) it was out of tin,e but not so in tort, as the damage took place only later in 1961 and, if the action was

NOTES . CIIAPTEH V

130

The Queen Bench Division ( w· i thin the time limit. I t'II s was it nce, Per in neglige was ill-founded and that plain nce lige neg in m clai the t tha tiff's Diplock, J.) held currence of the tv,o actio ns con ing giv es cas t tha tecl nit adr do action failed. lt like pub lic calling ( con1n1on carrier, corn . tus sta of e tur «na the in y onl exist but status of n1aster and servant» e «th or » ee) bail or or bail or er eep mon innk

•

the professional skill is in relation to the re whe ly app not did e cipl prin a such matter. 148.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 224, n. 2.

149.

See aise Carbonnier op. cit. supra note 19, at 149

192 regarding the differences

between acte de pure courtoisie and acte de pure complaisanc e. 1n this con nection sophisticated differences made by French writers such as «relation de travail», «relation de transport» or «relation d'occupation» in Rocliére, op. cit. note 49, at 298.

supra

150.

D'orsi, V., Responsabilità Civile

e Circolaxione Stradale,

Santi Editori, Milan ( 1960),

at 14. 151.

Aln,ost si111ilar facts took place in a case v1hich was decided in the then Eritrean Courts under the repealed ltalian Civil Code of 1865. The writer has dro\\'11 heavily, as to the position of ltalian law, fron1 the juclgrnent of the Eritrean Suprerne Court of June 30, 1961 ( See Fiorina Oreste e Giacomo Norma v. Rag. Pietro

Tringali e Ditta S.A.R.B.E., Court of Appeaal Civil Division Jud/no. 55/61).

The trial court in that case had held that the action was one of civil wrong and the decision was confirmed by the Supren1e Court in the case cited. 152.

Cigoglini, R., La Responsabilità della Clrcolaxione Stradale ( 1950) Milan, at 787, 798, 800 et seq.; Cass. Civ. 14/1/44 no. 15 as cited in lstituto ltaliano Studi Legislativi

153.

Giurisprudenza Cotnparnta della Corte di Cassazione,

at 426 et seq.

Catala and Weir (1), suiora note 3, at 576, n. 2: «The essential difference between these two types of liability has been n7ucl7 discussed and the discus!;ion continues». They cite the follov,,ïng authorities: 2 Carbonnier § 197; Cauden1et § 390; 2 Marty and Raynaud§ 361; 1

Mazeaud and Tune § 96; Rodiére § 1667; l Savatier § 108. 154. See also Carbonnier op . cit. supra note 19, at 440-448. 155. Catala and Weir, su pra note 3, ut 5 7 6 , n . 2. 156. Id. 157.

Rocliére'

O!"'l r- ·

ci't·

supra note 49, a t 301-30 2.

NOTES · CHA PTEH

158.

131

David, supra note 6, at 236: «Dans les dispositions générales, on trouve régl ée égalernent la question du cun1ul de s responsabilité contractuelles et clelictuelles». See also Articles 2086 I

2087, 2088, 2136, 2155 E.C.C. 159.

C:arbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, nt 422-443.

160.

Ibid., at 297 et seq. ( § 161 ) and 434 ( § 194); Amos and Walton op. cit. supra note 21, at 190.

161.

French la-..v indulges into a technical discussion to distinguish between obligation of means ( obligat:on de 1noyen) ancl obligation of result.:; ( obligation de résultat). ln the first case a party merely promises to put his best means at the disposa·, of the other, such as the diligent rnedical doctor; in the second case the party has promised a cletermined result, such as paying the demanded price. ( Ibid., at

271) - See aise the Table Alphabétique des Matiéres of the E.C.C. (French Texr) \Vhere under the item «obligations de moyen» appear listed Articles 1712, 1795,

2636, 2648 and under «obligations de résultat» (Artile 1712. 162.

Rodiere, op. cit. supra note 49, at 296.

l 63.

This is the accepted translation of the French words «sans sa garde», which inclucles anyone who has the use, direction or control of the subject matler. (Amos and Walton, op cit. supra note 21, at 235).

164.

As to the subtle difference between force 1najeure and cas fortuit see Ibid., at 214; as to force majeure and cas fortuit being synonyms see Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, at (§ 157).

165.

Ibid., at 233.

166.

Russell, The

New Ethiopian

1963); Civil Code, 29 Brooklyn L. Rev. 236, 240 (

Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 49, at 201.

167.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 13-4, 69-72.

168.

with its English Ibid., at 72; as for the Latin text of Noxal Actions of the DigeSt translation, see Ibid., at 192 et seq.

169.

David, supra note 6, at 238:

t: rorna1n, oi dr au t en ém m or nf co e, «Une responsabilité sans faute a e'te' admis . la responsabilité est . , · · · dans le cas du dommage causé par !es animaux, ossibilité p la r a , p se ,i n m co té limitée, ... sous réserve qu'aucun faute n'ait é droit ron,ain». u a nt 1e en al ég e té n ru p d'un abandon noxal, dont l'idée a ét é em

170 •

Ainos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 233. •

NOTES . CHAPTER

132

171.

to ,nean any fall of materials fron, buildings ed terpret • 15 in e» in ru « and rd The wo . . ( Ibid., at 23 2, 11. 2). e ps lla co e let mp co •5 1 1 ve not exc 1 us1 Y ,

172. Id. 173.

David, supra note 6, at 238: «Une responsabilité sans faute a été ac/111ise, conformément au droit romain, dans les cas du ... , et dans celui du don,mage causé par les bâtiments, ou par les choses qui tombent des bâtiments; . .. », for the rest of the sente nce see supra note 169.

174.

See supra note 171.

175.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 232: «lt is the proprietor alone who may be sued under article 1386».

176.

See supra note 163.

177.

Ibid., at 229; see also n. 6 at same page where Savatier, 1, no. 589 et seq. is re

ferred to as to the exact meaning of the term. 178. Ibid., at 11O. 179.

l'-lotice the remarks made by Dr. Russel 1 { Lectures, at

183), for

the absence of

«ownership» and «possession» in his English translation of the celebrated French v,ords sous sa garde, as «in his custody». As to the difference betv,een «pro priété and «ownership» see Lèwy «The Code and Property, in the Code Napoleon

and the Con,mon Law World, ed by Schwartz, N.Y.U. Press, 1--J.Y. ( 1956), at 165-167. 180.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 234-235.

181.

( L'affaire Jaud'heur v. Les Galeries Belfortaises} Ch. reun.

13.2.1930, D.P. 1930,

1.57, S. 1930. 1.121, reportecl in Ibid., at 236, n. 5. For the original text of the judgment see Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 249 et seq. 182.

lt seems that in English law the term «st rict» is preferable to «absolute». See Sal n,ond, Law of Torts { 13th ed. 19 61 }, at 546.

183. Ibid., at 235, no. 6 ( Cannot v. Docteur Franck), Ch. reun ., 2.12.1941, S. 1941. 1·217; for text of French jud gement see Law son, op . cit. supra note 13, at 285 et seq. 184.

Ibid., at 235-237,· Law so11 op. c1· t • supra note 13, at 48 ; see ge11erally Von MeI1ren op. cit. supra, at 383 -4

1O.

185. 186. 187.

Lav,son, op. cit. supra 11ot 13, at 56. Supren1e Imperia! Court (Asmara) F'r le 83/57 E.C. of 10.10.57 E.C. Supreme I mperial Court ( Asrnara) Fi"le C. 110. 18 and 22 /58 E. C. of 20.5.195 8 E.

NOTES • CHAP1'ER

-·-----------------------188.

David, supra note

133

239:

«Les droits occiden taux n1odernes ont é t é suivis pour acln,ettr e une respon sabilit é sans fau t e, dans les cas de s clomrnages causés par des véhicules ou machines à n1ot eur. lei !'.abandon noxal n'est pas autorisé; c'est par l'assu rance que le propriétaire d'une telle n1achine ou d'un

tel

véhicule peut se

garantir cont re les dangers d'une telle responsabil i' té. ce 1u1· qui s'assurera, en · pareil cas, sera le proprié taire,· pour cette ra·,son le pro1ect a de façon constante retenu la responsabilité du propriétaire, lors même qu'il aurai t confié la garde de son véhicule à u n tiers, et sous reserve des recours possibles du propriétaire contre ce tiers».

189.

Ici.:

«Allant plus loin, j'avais dans l'avant projet admis la responsabilité du propriè taire, lors n1ên1e que la voiture aurait été volée et l'accident causé par le voleur».

190.

Russell, Lectures, a t 277.

191.

« ... There is a tendency in favour of based upon reasonable cause makes A,nos and Walton,

19 2. See supra, 193.

note

1935

opinion

t he

t hat

a revocation which is net

offerer liable in darnages» ( Id., citing

t he

15 2).

ed., at

16 2 .

David, supra not e

237:

«Nous avons envisagé, parmi les cas particuliers, la plupart clés deli ts sp eciaux du droit anglais . . . et diverses hypothéses empruntées à d'autres droi ts, relevant par example de la théorie de la culpa in contrahendo .. • ))

194.

Rabel, Recht des Warenkaufs ( 1936) §

Civil 195.

Law

System,

supra, at

24,

pp.

157-59,

ci t ed by Von Mehren, The

491-92.

(Reichsgericht, First Civil Senate,

3-1--1920, 97

ERG (Z)

336) -

reported in Von

Mehren, at 489.

196.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra no t e

19,

choisies», translation MEULEARE 11,

197. 198-

103

p. 77 et seq.

. supra, note Lawson, Common Lawyer Loocks at Civil Law, op. cit Roubier, Responsabilté Précontractuelle,

Th.

citecl by Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note

1992

oo.

vres citing from Jhering's «cœu

100),

(§

Id. at

337

(§

Lyon,

19,

1911;

171);

Motulusky,

103.

171 ).

Ibid., ôt 338 (§

15,

pra, note su t. ci . op al on t W d Amos an

21,

at 210·

171·173·

S. 54,2,49)

NOTES . CHAP'fJ�R

134

201. 202. 203.

td., Catala and

. A/e,r Iv,

. 6 . (111) Delict and Torts, 38 Tul L. Rev 663 -71 (1964), at 703_

note 21, at 211. a pr su t. ci . op n, to al W An1os and Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, at 340 (§ 172); Catala ancl Weir (Ill) supr a note 201, at 672; on ltalian law on this point see d'Orsi V., Responsabilit

à Civile

e Circolazione Stradale, op. clt. supra note 150, at 206-213; De Cupis Vol. IV op. cit. supra note 9, at 349; Catala and Weir supra n. 201, at 673, n. 38. 204.

Carbonnier, Ibid., at 340-341.

205.

Catala and Weir (Ill) supra note 201, at 681.

206.

D'Orsi, op. cit. supra note 150, at 229; D e Cupis op. cit. supra note 9, at 372.

207.

But Amos and Walton prefer to say «corporal», see a t 209.

208.

Catala and Weir, supra note 201, at 685.

209.

Ibid., at 685-691; Carbonnier op. cit. supra note 19, at 342 (§ 172).

201.

For the policy behind this equitative power, see notes 59-61, supra.

211.

David, supra note 6, at 240.

212.

As to the different meanings given to the term «equity» in the common law, see Russell, Lectures, at 425.

213.

S.I.C. (Adclis) C.A. no. 204/53 E.C. of Miazia 26, E.C. (4-5-61 G.C.) reported in

1 J.E.L. 155 (1964). 214.

D'Orsi, op. cit. supra note 150, at 224.

215.

Id.

216.

David, supra note 6, at 240: «Sont règlées ainsi, dans le projet les questions soulevée par celle du curnul des don,mages-intérêts avec une inden,nité d'assurance ou un pension dues à la victime, .. . ».

217.

For the development in France see Rodiére , op. cit. supra, note 49, at 266 et seq. (§ l648-1651 bis); for an identical position in ltalian law see d'Orsi, op. cit. supra, note l SO, at 231 et seq.; for Belgian law see Van Ryn J. and Heenan, J. Princi pes

de Droit Commercial, Establissem ents, E. Bruyant, Bruxelles, Vol. IV , at § 2523 et seq, (p. 111), (1965). 219.

David, supra note 6, at 2 40:

219. David, supra note 6 , at 240.

220.

« · · · celle personnes qui sont adn1ises à faire valoir le préjudice matérial par el les subi dans le cas d 'acc .rc1 ent m or te l causé à un e personne». For French law see · Carbonn'r er , op, cit. supra note 19, at 342 ( § 173); for lta1 ran

N01'ES · CIJA P1'Ell

135

law see D'Orsi, op. cit. supra note 150, at 222. 221. For a situation in which a claim ,vas entertainecl on the grouncl thnt it

W"' "' S

a « .1ure

proprio» one, in the Ethiopian courts, see the clecision in tl,e T rrn · ga 1 i case, supra note 151. 222. Civ. July 25, 1937 (1938) D.P.1. 5 (note Savatier, (1938) S I.321 (note Marty) . cited by Catala and Weir supra note 201, at 710, no.220. 223. Arnos and Walton, op. cit. supril note 21, at 208. 224.

Catala and Vveir, supra note 201, at 713-714. Prof. Catala suggests that the besl solution n,ight be to rely on Art. 6 of the F.C.C. which lays dov1n situations of public order and n1orality.

225. lt is significant that the \vords «obligation ali,nentaire» here used in the French text are the sarne words used by the French courts in sin1ilar circurnstances. 226. For the position in France and ltaly see Catala and Weir, supra note 201, at 689

,,-, .. __

et s,eq.

David, supra note 6, at 241: «La question du préjudice rnoral donne lieu dans le projet à plusieres articles. Le principe posé est que le préjudice moral cloit être réparé, toutes les fois qu 'il exist un rnoyen adéquat de pcrvenir à ce résultat: publicité donnée à une decision judiciare, injonction adressée au défendeur)>.

228.

Id.:

<1:L'allocation de dommages-intérêts en réparation d'un préjudice moral n'est au torisée, en revanche, que dans les cas prévus expressérnent par la loi: le pro jet suit, à cet égard, la règle adn1ise clans les droits allen1ancl et suisse)>.

229.

For the text of these articles see Lawson, op. cit. supra note 13, at 202, 209, 212-

230. Ibid., at 63. 231.

Ibid., at 229, with relative English translation.

232.

Lectures, supra, at 418.

233. Davie!, supra note 6, at 241: « Lorsque

la réparation

· , . uc11ce pre du 1

intérêst, est adn1ise, le projet aclmet la soit versée à une œuvre de

n1ora1, au V·rct·,m�

moyen

don1 mages-

à clen,ancler que l'indemnité

,, S ·r gnee ' , au lieu de lui eae e ell r pa e nc beinfaisa

uve au o tr re n o l' . . . n ,o 1 · être versée à elle personellement: cette c1•r spos •t Portugal, ... ».

23.:!

cit. supra note . p o ge ea L ; 6 1 t a For Roman lav-,, see Lawson op. cit. supra note 1 3 ,

65, at 183-184.

NOTES • CIJAP'1:E11

)36

235.

under French law see Arnos and Walton , op. cii:ile prin this f o nt c'it. For the treatn1e op. cit. supra note 19, at 464 nnier, Carbo 99· 197-1 ' at et seq. , 21 . supra, note (§ 203); for ltalian law, see Paolo D'onofrio, Dell'Arricchimento senza Causa, in oma ( 1964), at 277. l Codice Civile, Vol. IV. Bologna-R

Commenta rio de

236. 237.

at 435 ( § 194). , te 19 no a pr su t. ci op , er ni on rb See Ca betv1een culpa in eligendo and culpa in vigi. ce eren diff and of on ussi disc the to As o f culpa in instruendo, see Rocliére, op. cit. lando and the less frequent concept supra note 49 , at 97 et seq. (§ 1463).

238.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 226-227; Von Mehren, op. cit. supra 8, élt 340; generally, Carbonnier op. cit. supra note 19, at 379 et seq. (§ 181-182).

239.

David, supra note 6, at 242.

240.

V-./ade, op. cit. supra note 139, at 7.

241.

Ibid., at 8.

242.

See Galeotti, op. cit. supra note 101, at 249.

243.

Id. Prof. Wade adds that, unlike England, the Conseil d'Etat can take cognizance of both the merils and the legality of the act, whereas «The English courts are powerless when faced with an act which is within the lett'er of the law».

244.

Blanco, Trib, de Con. 8.2.1873; D. 1873. Ill. 17, 20; S. 1873. Il. 153; see also Street

belov, note 245, at 16. 245.

Street, H., Governmental Liability, Carnbridge Un. Press (1959), at 58.

246.

Ibid., at 19, 58, 64.

247. 'See also Krzeczunov-,icz, <cStatutory lnterpretation in Ethiopia», 1 JEL 315, 322 ( 1964); and Chardon. R, Du Cumul et de la coexistence des responsabilites en 1natiére administratif, Doctoral Thesis Un. of Paris (1939), passin1.

248.

David, supra note 6, at 243: <<Le projet est revenu à la distinction de la faute personnelle et de la faute de service, en s'efforçant de préciser ces notions. La faute de service corn· n,ise par le fonctionnaire ou l'employe' de l'Etat, est une notion beacoup plus stricte que la faute que le salarie d'un patron particulier . . . » See also Slreet supra, note 245, at 18: «This faute (de service) is not the sanie as that cleter,nining the liability of a cornmettant, for the act of a préposé under

the Civi I Code». 249. David, Private Con1n1unication ({

«B» .•

., . · · · 1 a, pense, prèferable de reprendre les expressions de faute de service

NOTES · Cflr\P1'ER

Ili

et de faute personnelle, en,ployees dans le droit crois pas qu'il y

a it

ac1m1• n 1s • trat1'f

en f ait un e grancle difference

entre

frança is. Je n e

Ie cleux formules I

mais il pe ut en avoi r , et la circonstance que !a termin:)logie du droit français ai t été employée, niet à la d isposition des juristes ét hiopiennes des documents qu'ils pourront u tilisés cle façon plus aisée pour interp rete r ces for mulas». 250.

Amos and Wal ton, op. cit. supra note 21, at 231.

251.

Paul, D. 22, 3, 2 , cited by Lawson , op. cit. supra,

252.

Carbonnier op. cit. supra, note 19, at 431 (§ 194).

?5 - ",.).

See Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 49, 288

254.

See for instan ce Arnos and W alton , op. cit. supra note 21,

et seq.

note

197,

43, n. 2.

(§ 1668 et seq.). at

344 on proof in con1-

mercial mat ters. 255.

David, supra note 6,

256.

Id.

257.

Catala an d Weir

258.

Aix, June

244.

(IV), Delict and Tort, 39 Tul. L. Rv. 701, 748.

6, 1950, (1951) D. 173 (Note Besson), (1950) J.C.P. Il. 5736 (Note

Rodiére).

Il. 8793 (note Esmein).

259.

Civ., May 18, 1955, (1955) J.C.P.

260.

Civ., June 5, 1957, (1957) D. 493 (no te Savatier).

261.

Ca tala and Weir, supra note 257,

262.

Lav,son op. cit. supra,

n o te

748-749.

13, a t 206 for German text and

a ccompain in g

English

tran slation.

263.

David, supra note 4, at 245: « ... s'il appa raît que le dorn n1age à été ca usé p ar une de plusieurs person nes A.B. ou C, mais que la victime ne puisse établ ir l aquelle des ces person nes, précisément , est l'auteur clu do 1nmage, les juges peuvent condamner so lidairement à la réparation du dommage de groupe de personnes parmi 1 �squeIl es se t ian

trouve ,

cl e façon Certa ·111e, l'auteur du dommage. Cette disposi

a été proposé parfois dans les pays d'Occident,

envisageant

parti -

. I'on pe ut ne pas savoir si le plomb culier le ca s des accidents de c',asse, ou agnons » . p • . rn co s se e d l e t u o e qui a blessé un chasseu r, a é te t ire p ar t 1 264.

Lectures, supra, at 499.

265.

Amos

266.

Ibid., at 498.

267.

a nd

Walton, op. cit. supra, note 21, at 20.

of the terni sense double the A rnos and WaI ton, op. cil. supra, note 21, at 290, where

NOTES . CTTAPl.ER

_ 13_ s______ _______________________________ «succession,> aile! 1·1,c eXJJlanation of the term <,de cujus» are also given. 268.

Lectures, supra, at 499.

269.

op. cit. supra, note 21, at 239. n, to al V✓ d an An1os

270.

Ibid., at 241-242.

271.

Lectures, supra, at 500.

272.

An10s and Wa I ton, op.

273.

Ibid., at 20-21; see also Carbonnier op. cit. supra, note 19, at 39 et seq. ( § 12-13 )

Cl·t.

supra, note 21, at 19-20.

as to the distinction between droit réel and droit personnel. 274.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 477 ( § 206).

275.

An1cs and V✓alton, op. cit. supra, note 21, nt 21, n. 1: <( The

French are to be enviecl for the word créance, which enables them to

distinguish n1ore easily than we d o bet,veen the creditor's right and the clebtor's obligntion. The correct English equivalent, «chose in action», is neither elegant ncr popular. The French have t,,vo pairs of tern1s for creditor and debtor - the n1ore general words créancier and débiteur, and the ternis créditeur and crédité, specially applicable when the créance arises fron1 a lonn or opening of creclit». 276.

Graven, P., Joinder of Criminal and Civil Proceedings., 1 J.E.L. 135, n. 11.

277.

See supra note 160.

278.

Amos and Walton, op cit. supra, note 21, at 190.

279.

See Carbonnier, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 436-440 ( § 195).

280.

Ibid., at 440.

281.

Rodiére, op. cit. supra, note 49, at 280-81 ( § 1662).

282.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 436 (§ 195).

283.

See also David, supra note 6, at 245: «On a égalen1ent posé des règles touchant le date ou le domn1age doit être · évolvé par le 1·uges, et on ' · · de a prevu c1 ans quelles hypothéses une rev1s1on l'incien,nitè allouée par les jug es pourrait être clen1andée. Des dispositions

ennn conservant le cas ou ' l inden1nité est allouée à le victime sous la forn,e d'une rente». 284.

See Art. 3 of Decree n. ;.i r. 2 which reads:

1965 (The Civil Procedure Code Decree) of 8.10.196 5

<<Ali rules whether ,vritte11 or custon,ary, previously in force concerning ' inatters provided fo r in the Civil Procedure C o d e of 1965 shù11 be replaced

N01'ES - Cl1,\1'1'Efi \i 13'1

by th is Code and are hereby repealecl»; but s 0e also Art. 320 ( 1) C.P.C. which is as follows: <,Unless otherv,ise expressly provicled for by this code or any other law, the plaintiff or any other de-fendant n1ay, on the conditions laid dovvn in this chapter, appeal against any final judgn,ent of a civil court>, ( ltalics suppliecl). 285.

Han1ish Gray, The Law of Civil Injuries, London ( 1955) at 143 ( ltalics supplied); see also Salmond, Sec. 25 ( p. 87) citecl by Russell, Lectures at 477:

(< joint

\vrongdoers are jointly and severally responsible for the whole damage». 286.

Lectures, supra, at 479.

287. Amos and Walton, cp. cit. supra, note 21, at 141. 288.

( 217); for For French lavv, see Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 19, at 518, 519 § Belgian La\v, see L. Sin1ont «Les Obligations» ( Notes prises au cours) U.L.B., 4th ed. ( 1965), at 56.

289.

Id.

290.

Id.: «Ce n'est pas, du reste, selon les arrêts, une solidarité véritable: il y a solidarité imparfaite, moins riche d'effets, ou obligation in solidum».

291.

Ibid., at 443 (§ 196).

292.

Supra, note 288; see also Pirson, R., Droit Belge de la Responsabilité Civile, op. cit. supra note 75, at§ 101 to§ 1110 (p. 9); and§ 1085-1088 ( p. 52).

293.

Colin and Capitant, Vol. 2, p. 392, as cited in Lectures, supra, at 490.

294.

Id.

295.

Lawson,

OjJ.

cit. supra note 13, at 76:

«This liability o f each wrongdoer in solidum was cun1ulative, that is to say, · not even f u11 satis • f action by one wrongdoer releasecl the others. 1n modern law the victim can recover comp:=nsation for damage only and the solidary liability of the several wrongdoers operates only to garantee him againSt the possibility that one or n,ore of them n1ay be insolvent». 296.

Sohn, Institutes of Ro,nan Law, Ledlie's Translation, 3rd ed. p . 361 et seq. cited by Russell, Lectures, supra, at 492.

297.

David, supra no_te 6, at 243-244:

solules nt re ac ns co es bl sa on sp re «Les clispositions relatives à la pluralité de ctrine et do la r pa é, fi di co t oi dr cle s , \, tians qui ont été adn,ises, dans les Pa, dispode n io ct da ré la r pa s , eve 1 sou , ete la jurisprudence. Aucune difficulté n'a , lions législatives qui édictent ces solutions».

298·

Lectures, supra, at 479, 480.

NO'rES . CUAP'fER

299.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 375 (§ 180).

300.

Ibid., at 508 (§ 215).

30 l.

lbid., at 504, 505 (§ 213).

302.

See supra, note 217.

303.

Universal lnsurance Agents Trading Co., Ltd., v. Ghebre-Meskel Tekle, Civ. Appetil n. 90/56 of Guenbot 7, 1956 E.C. (May 14, 1964 G.C.,) reportecl in 2 J.E.L. 1 5 ( 1965).

304.

Ibid., at 18.

305.

Id.

306.

also ditference between azione diD'Orsi, op. cit. supra note • 150, at 236-237; see

retta and azione surrogatoria. 307.

Id.

308.

Pirson op. cit. supra, note 75, at § 218 (p. 19); Van Ryn, op. cit. supra, note 217, at § 2531 ( p. 119).

309.

See Code de Com1nerce de l'Empire d'Ethiopie de 1960, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris ( 1965), Article 688 ( 1) : «Le tiers lésé a une action directe contre l'assurer de la responsabilité de l'auteur du dommage, mais doit nécessairement mettre en cause l'auteur du dommage».

31 O.

Notice the words «Elle ne présente, tout fois, aucun caractère officiel .> , ap;Jearing in the Note Introductive of both Cocles.

CIIAPTER

COMMON LAW ELEMENT A. Special Cases ( Notrzi11ale Torts):

(i)

[11trodiictor),:

In tl1e disct1ssion that follovvs, one ,viJI easily r. ecog11ize the «syste111a. tization» of non1inate torts macle by the Comroon Ia,.v countries - tl1at is, the enumeration of specific civil wrongs - bt1t, as eve1-y\vl1ere else in the Ethiopian Civil Code, this mttst be taken ciL11i grano salis. Tl1e policy be hincl the experts' decision to supplement tl1e ge11eral 1·ules ,,vitl1 some par ticular cases was clictatecl by tl1e overriding aim of gi,,ing certainty to legal n1Ies and enable the jt1dges to discharge tJ1eir dt1ty 1nore efficiently, witl1out any n.eed for tl1e111 to 11ave to Iegislate; i11 this sense EnglisJ1 law served as inspiration.1 Nor, in cloing so, d.id tl1e expert's idea abanclon or discard the Continental Iaw rnodel iri toto.2 Again, experience demo11strates that, though the original 11nderlying policy may be the same, tl1ere are <lifferences of approacl1 between England and tl1e U.S.A. \,VI1ere possible, this will also be pointed ot1t. (ü) Physical Assaitlt ( Atteinte à lcL perso1'zne plzysiqite) (Article 2038). îl1e general rule tmder Article 2038 is tl1at a n1ere tl1reat of pl1ysical assauit does not constit11te «offence» (faute) JJer se (para. 3 ). A pllysical assa ult will have been cornmitted ,.vhere a person makes a contact ,.vitll another, intentionaJly against the Iatter's will (para 1); ancl ru1 offence takes place regardless of whether the bodily barm is cat1secl by pei·sonal con. tact or by tl1e use of an object, animate or inanin1at.e (para. Z). In order to co·nstitute physical assa11lt, therefore,· tI1ere mu5t be a tl1e t ins aga «co ntact» befor e eve1de 111a be tst mt it ytl1ing aise; secondly, Will of the otl1er . perso11; thirdly it must be done intentionally

C 1:l A 1'1ï�J,{

1orcl « batte1·y» nor \\ e tl1 1er itl ne that of «as. at 1 tl d ve ser It \vill be ob itely this kincl of ci v defi11 \\,as it yet, . A11d e. articl ' . tllis ·n 1 il· saLtlt» apiJea1 . 3 t l1 e ,vo1·ds «pl1ys1cal assatùt >i ead, Inst 1·. cove . to decl Jten i i ,as t vvrong tl1a '", . «cLt te1.1ite , a la 71ersori,ie 1111)'· F1·encl1 tl1e of n tio 1cli 1-e1 e tlJ e b. to iJg rti pLtrpo . _ inte» 1s not easy to tran s «atte of . cl wor 1cl1 Fre1 TI1e d Joye emp • ere siqite» ,v · «blo\,\r», a «stroke» or a11 «atta ck».� a a11s n1e it ce la11 par 0n 11111 c01 ii1 but lnte l By � qLlick lool( at tJ1e F1·encl1 text it ,vill also be noticec tl1at the sam e vvord apJJears in Art. 2040 (i11te1·fere11ce ,vitl1 tl1e liberty of another); in ·y to tl1e 1·igl1t of s1Jouses). tu (iI1j 2110 . A1·t in ; ult) assa al ysic (IJ11 Art. 2107 5 tl1at as t1sed in t]1ese provisions, 111ed affir It 11as no,v bee11 at. 1tl1oritatively it ca11 be safely taken to co11vey tl1e san1e idea t11at tl1e Englisl1 eqt1i,,alent (or nearest tl1 ereto) does by tl1e ,vords «vvro11gful interference». If that is tJ1e case, tl1en tl1e acct1racy of tl1e E11glish renclition . of «boclily l1arm» ap 6 1l. btft dot1 ly ious 1s obv seen l1 2 grap 1Jara 1 pearing i1 At any rate, Com1no11 la,v mal(es a clea1· clistinction bet,vee11 assault a11cl batterj',' tl1ot1gl1, it is t1·11e, tl1ey are ofte11 treated under the same general J1eading of «Assat1lt and Batter-y».8 Botl1 ci,1il ,vro11gs are often JJresent i11 ordi11ai·j, cases, st1ch as ,.vl1e11 a tl1reat of a mo,,ing l1and to strike is see11 by tl1e victim and st1bseq11ently tl1e san1e l1ancl tot1cl1es or l1as co11tact ,vitl1 tl1e Iatte1·'s nose. In tl1e fi1·st case tl1e1·e vvoud be assault and in tl1e second battery.9 T.l1e clen1arcation li11e see111s to f. ocus on the ,,vorcls «contact» 011 one side, a11cl «apprel1e11sio11»10 0 1 · «fear», 1 1 on tl1e otl1er. I\Jeitl1er of tl1 ese ,vorcls appears in Art. 2038 E.C.C., but tJ1e reasoning bel1incl paragraph 3 tl1e1·eof 1nay, pe1·l1a.ps, b. e comparecl to tl1e Con1 r11on law rt1le tl1at n1ere ,vo1·cls, 110,vever violent a11cl n1enacing, do 11ot constitute assault JJer se, 11 bt1t 111ay \Vell do so if certai11 conditions are J)resent.13 TJ1e question of '"'l1at constitutes «contact» i 11 the Co111n1on la,v ,vorld ma)' be also rele,,ant. Contact iI1 tl1e U11ited States can occt1r bjr n1erely toucl1ing the plaintiff's clotlti11g or even by tl1e 111e1·e co11tact witl1 a ca11e, ,-vitl1 a IJiece of IJaper or vvitl1 any otl1e r. abject l1elcl in l1is l1a11d.1� Tl1e sa111e result seems to obtain in E11gland, wl1ere tl1e t1·0,ving of \.vater on plaintiff's face, tl1e n1ere tot1clting of bis IJerson, or tl1e taki11g of tl1e clotl1i11g, l1ave been J1eld st1fficie11t to co11stitt1te a ba tt.ery.'5 011 the otl1er l1ancl, tl1e la11gt1ag e of tl1e Etl1iopia11 Civil Code seen1 s to be conœntrating 11 1ai11ly on «persona! co11tact» ,vl1icl1 l1as occu red «,,vitl1 tl1e person of a110 • . · t I 1er» a ( , la, · ted b otl1 11er so11 . 1 1e cl'al t fruz ) and co111n11t . aga111st tl1e wisl1 of· ·tt1e Ja·t c ter an d . 111te • , 1t • ct·f · 11t10 1 ·f·ers fr·o n1 • 11a1ly. In tl11s Englisl1 la w as exiJos ed . b Y Je. 11.1<:s,16 at least 1n · - f· ro1n as · ' i11sta11ces o , t,,,,, sault, ,vl1e·re e v e n a' t l • . · lre at . 1s st1ff1c1ent; a11cl f1·on1 battery, ,vhere a1JP1·ica. tion of force (llo\.vever sligl1t) 11eecl 11 ot b e i11tentional bt1t can also be _ 11egl1ge11t. Ancl J,,et tl1e Lts . .. e ,vorcls «b j' 1 e of. tl1 tl e tise of a11 obJect ( cJ1·05 e)

THE COM!'IION LAW ELEl\lENT

1-&J

aniroate or ina11 im�te» appeari11g _in 1\J:t. 2038 (2) ar.e striclùngly similar to the \vords «appl1ecl thro11gl1 an 1nstnune11t ' a11in1ate or 1· 11a c n1· ma t e» used by Jenlcs himself, in clefini11g battery. 17 No do11bt, tl1er e vvill be JJle11ty of 1·00 111 for s1Jectilation as to tlle in tencled mea11ing of tl1ese vvo1·cls i11 tl1e Etl1iopiru1 Civil Code • It 1·s , 110 wever, . tl1 of interest to note at wl11le tl1e traclitional A1ne1·ican clefiil ition of battery starts with tl1e vvords «one is liable to anothe1· foi· uniJermitted, un. p rivileged contacts ... ,v. ith l1is perso11», 18 tl1e United States courts reached t11e res1ùts above mentio11ed B11t all this per1r1its one to clra,v tI1e in . evitable inference t11at, in drafting tl1 e worcli11g of Art. 2038, the Codifica tion Commission did also take into acco1mt tl1e development of tl1e Iaw in tl1e Comn1on Ia,,v co1mtries. (iii) JiLStificable Grounds (Causes Jicstificatives) Art. 2039). a) Reasonableness: The seemingly l1arsl1 r11le enU11ciated in tl1e previo11s Article is im mediately relaxed by the justificable grounds (caitses jitstificat-ives, as tl1ey are called in the Frencl1 text) in tl1e subseq11ent Article 2039. A persan who has been allegeclly regarded as having committed an offence witl1in the mea.ning of Art. 2038, can fi11d a co1nplete clefence if and wl1en certain conditions exist. Tl111s, ,.vl1e1·e it is proved - tl1at clefedant cot1lcl not reasotzably have foreseen plaintiff's objection beforehancl to the physical assault (para a); or that the act was do11e in a reasonable manner, in le. gitimate defence of one's persan or of anotl1er or in the safegi1ard of pro perty of whicl1 defendant is a Ia"vf11l ovvner ( le JJossesseitr) or possessor (déterzteilr légitinie) (pa1·a b); or that tl1e act consists ip a reasorzable corporal punishment inflicted by tl1e defendant on l1is cl1ild, ward ( JJttpil le), pupil ( élève) or se1-vant (pa1·a c); or that tl1e plaintiff ,vas a dangerous lunatic wl1on1 it was 11ecessary to p1·e,,e11t f1·om doing harm and the act \Vas done in a reaso11.able manrzer (para cl); 01· in any otl1er circtimstances ju5tifying tl1e clefendant's act i11 the eyes of a reasonable person (para e) - no liablitiy will attach under Art.2038. In English law, too, the1·e ar e similar gro11nds ,vhicl1 can sei-ve as cle. · fei1ces 111 on t·he par t of tl1e consent an éfction of assault and batte1·y · t"ff Plam 1 ; self-defence against a threat or blow on t•he person of another . or On h.1s prope1·ty , a c nat1gl1ty a n o · d e r te · 1s 11 1 1n d a · «reasonable chast1se111ent» ' d le ic v ro p chi} cl on the s · ·part of e c n fe e d l gooc a pa1·ent or a teacl1er, are aII cl, Inclee that in . s».19 . a1 l these cases blenes . 11a easo I . 11pon «emphas1s _ n . 1s laid . . oft e IS ll1e C0 m1non lavv . tt o r cl' e cl s . . . it b concept eq111,,alent of tl1e FI.ench a e spressecl in tl 1e ter1 «rea n sonableness».20

CHAPTER

\1 J

t ion of rislc): p 11i su d as an ia ur j . i11 t fi rt no i it b) ca,-1serzt: (voler

as sttcb it is utilized by and bas d an t e1J nc co d oa br y -,,ei a is «Consent» torts. If a pe1·so11 bas consented to of la\1/ tl1e ï11 ' i1 catio apIJli 1 . a gen e1a . . and obta1n damages. \Vl1 en 1m cla tly t1en seq sub t 1 111o ca1 1 e ce pla wl iat toolc f. . . . ,1 . eriti 1ion ·if in;urza,� therefore, vo f o: l e enc def tl1e of ak spe s ')'er la\\ Comrnon 22 E11gla.nd, t. d of s sen kin tl1i con of ng In nki tl1i are y tl1e t tlia l)' Iik.e --y vei is it altllough it is applied alse\vl1ere in rnany instances, tl1e defence of voze1iti ,ion fit injitria is of particttlar in1po1·ta11ce in l Jersonal injury cases, \,v}1ere 23 ry ion mpt unta «vol assu of of ning mea » risk r wicle . tl1e Tlie J1a,,e it mav Jatter concept is I1ere more pertinent as i11 the U.S.A. \vhere the doctrine of vole1zti is commonly kno,vn as «assu1nption of risk».24 Sorne \Vriters2s lia,,e ti·i.ed to draw a distinction bet,1/ee11 tl1e two concepts, tbot1gl1 this is not a11 easy matte1·. At a.ny rate, it seems certain that the U.S. cottrts are not very keen to use tl1e te1·m (if not t11e co11cept) of volenti 1-io1i fit i11furia 26 tl1ougl1 again, some A1nerican of risl<:», «asstunption prefe1· instead ancl ,vriters�7 too, are not of this vie,1/. Tl1e best examples for the application of the latter rule may be found i11 cases of liability arising out of sporting acti,rities, where even a specta tor (let alone a participant) may 11ot recove1· foi· any injury caused to ltl111, say, bjr a criclcet ball, ,vl1ile l1e was amongst the watcl1ing cro\.vd.� But a n1 ere kno\.v]edge of tl1e existence of tl1e danger is not enough; it is necessary to sho\1/ tl1at tl1e risk \.vas «t1"Ltly volt1nta1·ily assumed», l1ence not vitiated by either frat1d or duress.29 This applies also to tlle participant t.'f a ga111e even tl1ougl1 l1ere there is lesser clifficttlty, as long as tl1e ru.les 01· t1sages of tl1e ga111e are observed; but tl1e me1-e fact of obse1-vance of rules alone may not even be enough, at tin1es, to serve as a cornplete defence.30 Tl1e doct1·i11e of asst1111ption of 1·isk i11 matte1·s of sport is also kno,vn in France t1nder the diction of accez1tatio11, des risques a11d obtains there , similar if not completely ide11tical, results.31 Tl1e plea of vole11ti r1.01·z fit in. juria pro1)er, 1 10\,Vever, is a goocl defence to a11 actio11 of seclt1ction and a \.von1 an ,,vho lias conse11tecl to intercot11·se l1as 110 cat1se of action; tl1otigl1 Carboniiier33 sees no objection to its a1Jplicatio11 in cases of ,vro11gfttl Ïil· terference of «JJaLrin1011y» ( attei11.te au 11atri111 oine).3� 32

Foreseeability:

Paragrapli (a) of A1·t. 2039 e11visao·es 1·easo11able «fo1-eseeability» as a defence. I t is easier t O expIau1 · \ .vJ1ere to fincl ' 1·atl1er tl1an to clef1ne, tl1is conceJ) t. This is so b ecattse Co111n1011 Ia,.v) 1e1·s clo 11ot t1st1ally clea1 ,vr'tl1 i::,

•

THE coti-Il\10N LAW ELE!'rIENT

14 5

it as a distinct topic; bt1t as pointed ot1t by RttssellJs, ,vill 1·11var.·1ably speak: . . .. vvh e11 clisct1ss111g «Negligence»,36 «P i·oxinJate of foreseeab1l1ty Cause» ,31 Re. moteness of Damage»,Js « Legal Cat1se»39 01· «Direct Co11 s,equences».4a There are times, too, when Con1mo11 la,,vye1·s talk abot1t «clti ty» insteacl of «re n1oteness», or «foreseeability» or «i11terve11 ing catise».41 There are also those42 vvbo try to sl10,-v an icle11tity betvvee11 tl1e CoiTimo11 Ja,v «foresee. abilityi> and tl1 e F1·encl1 «caiLSe>> ( ca11sa tion) of wl1icl1 1nore cletails vvill be gj,,en late1· in connectio11 ,vitl1 «faute co11in1it11». f\.ltl1ot1gl1 tl1ey tliem. selv es seen1 to clisa gree witl1 it, tl1.e same lea 1·ned at1thors I1ave indicated�l that the general fo1·eseeability test l1as eve11 been t1sed in negligence cases of tl1e so-called «11Jte1ior damages», - vvl1 e1·e a perso11 st1 ffers tvvo wrongful harms but vvhere the seco11d ,vot1ld 11ot l1 ave occt1n·ecl hacl it not been for the first, st1ch as vvl1en a man 1·11n dow11 by 011e car is again 1·11n clo\vn by another - and conclude that, except in s11ch i11 stances, tl1 e test seen1s to find fa,•011r at least in England, and rnay be tl1us 11sed «to cletermine compensation as well as culpability».� 4 The follo,ving excerpt from Catala ancl \,Veir n1ay, perl1a1Js, better illu. strate the concept as U11derstood i11 tl1 e Co1nn1011 La,v: «Tl1e foreseeability of l1a1·111 is, of course, an essential eleme11 t in dete11nining whethe1· an act is «n.eglige11t» at common law 01· not. An act fron1 ,-vluch no l1arm is foreseeable is not negligent. But the common law l1as used «foreseeability» it1 otl1er conn.ections to avoid imposing liability 011 a clefendant wl1ose c areless act bas tmde.niably caused damage to tl1e IJlaintiff».45 Whether or not reasonable foresigl1t ( or foreseeability) as t1sed in Art. 2039 (a) ,vas intended to be used in inte11tional as vvell as in negligent acts is a matter wl1ich will be clete1-mined by Etl1iopian cot11·ts and jtirists. Tl1e question to be borne in mincl l1e1·e is tl1at the concept appea rs in tl1e sec tion dealing with intentional civil wrongs. In tl1 is, it seems to be a departure from the general use of the topic at Corru11on Lavv. Nevertllless, it is grati fying to know that both the German tl1 eory of «adeqt1ate ca11se»40 ancl the · '· Englis h theory of «reasonable foresigl1t» start from tl1e sa111e po i· n t, 1'f Pro bability is seen as tl1 e «twin sister of foreseeability».47 (iv) Wro11tgfitl J11te1~/erence ·witfi the Liberty of A11otfier ctiicl Relatecl TozJics ( Art. 2040 as rectcl -i,vitti Arts. 2041, 2042 a·,icl 2043 ).

Uncler Ar·ticle 2040 , no on e is allowecl, even for a sl1o1-t period, to iiJter. • e l1 ,v g in . ·11 the l .iberty v fere \VJt 1o n 1 n o r f e . r of anoth.e r a11 d p1·eve11t the 1 att . . ttry never and whereeve1· he is entitled so to clo ( para. 1) · No boclily 111J

}46

CilAPTER

ci,,il liability to arise with · foi cl itte un con . be d nee ·son pei • ' ( attei11t. e ) ta tl1 e . _ . . Tl1 e me1e compulsion to beha ve 2). a. (pa1 le artic the of •ng in t he 1nean1 e 11g 1 · ma y be sttfficient da l rea a of t ·ea tl11 e 1 tl by er ta in a certain nJatln defendant can exculpate him . a t Bu . 3) a. ar (p e bl Iia nt da fen cle render tl1 e 1 e pe rs n concern ed; dy of t sto cu al leg ad 1 l e 1 I t tl1a a) or· � ( ing ow � self b)' sll 1 e Iaw on leg al at1thor1 ty re ce1 ved; or (c) tllat tl ng i·ci fo en s wa he (b) tl1at , l ain ,v 1). Ag t. 1 ere the defen 204 Ar ( er nn ma le ab son 1·ea a in d Ile llad acte s son es) 1·ai ieus cles ( sér son to belie ve 1·ea od go ad 1 11e J t tha w sho can dant offe11 ce (Art. 2042) or that he that tI1e plaintiff had committed a cri111inal 1· and l1 avi11 g also given assurances as to e Iatt tl1e foi· ety sur g din stan ,vas tl1e wI1ereabout of l1is residence, l1ad no,.v goocl 1·eason to believe that he v.ras pi·epai·ing to abscond fro111 bail (Art. 2043) the defenclant ,vill not incur Iiability; but wl1e1 ·e tl1e interfe1·ence takes place due to the commis sion of a c1·iminal offe11ce, l1 e mt1st see to it that the persan concerned is l1anded over to the police <<fortl1,vitl1» (A1·t. 2042). The ingredients of these p1·ovisions satisfy, on tl1e whole, the require48 . nment» impriso Tl1is tenn seems «False of tort 111eots of tl1e Corn.mon law to l1ave been pt1 rposely left ot1t by tl1e draftsmen of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code, prest11nably to avoid tl1e co1 11 plications of botl1 tl1 e term <(imprison n1e11t» - ,-vl1icl1 need 11ot necessarily be incai·ce1·ation49 - an . d the term «false», ,-vhicl1 is tl1011ght to be n1.isleanding.50 It is the liberty of tl1e person's n1 ove111e 11 t tl1 at is the main interest to be protected l1ere51 a11 cl ,-vl1e11e,,er there is any 1mlawft1l «interference» in a11y vvay ,.vitl1 this libe1-ty, tl1 ere \vill be false imprisonment. In England, s11cl1 a11 in1priso11111 ent ca11 take place even tl1 ot1gh tl1e persan conœrnecl is 1111 a\.vare of the fact tl1 at lus freedom of movement is being restrained - tl1e case of an employee st1spectecl of ste,:1ling p1-01)erty frorn l1 is empoyer, invited to tl1 e co111pany's office and tl 1ere kept a,,vaiti11g ,vl1ile an escorti11g J)olicen1a11 ,vas 11 earby, decicled u1 1920, is i11 poii1 t.52 TJ1e ,vords «ancl prevents l1 i111 fron1 1 11 0,,ing abot1t >>, in1 mediately after tl1e \1/ords «eve11 for a sl101·t tin1 e>> (Art. 2040 ( 1)) 111 ay be intendecl to en ,,isage tl1e sitt1atio11 \Vhere t11e i11 terfe1 ·e11ce n1ust be follo\ved by som e co11 1plete positi,,e action, tl1at vvotùcl i 11 actt1a l fact, preve11t tl1e f1·eedom of moveme11t.53 This asst11nptio 11 finds con fort \Vl1en 01 1e 1·eme1nebers tliat � there is a cl1ance for tl1e restrai1 1ed JJe1·s01 1 t o go freel)' in a11otl1er direc t ion wl1en I1e is J)re,,e11tecl f1·on1 tal<.i 11g 011 e 1)a1·tict1a1· cli1·ection tl1ere ca n not be a11Y false i111 1)riso11n1e11t. 5 ·' Agai11 , it 111 ay be tl1at tl1 e vvords of tlle Cocle \Vere cl1ose11 11· 1 s11c · · nct'10n - l 1 a 111anner tl1 at tl1ere ca11 be a clear dist1 betvvee . . . a · 1 1 false impi·iso11 111e11 t ancl n1al1c 0' l 1 ot1s JJrosecut1on or ab11se of Je<1 process, wlùcl1 seem to l1a ,,e been confusecl son1etimes by tl1e Co mmo n . la\\' co111·ts.55 In fact,. 1·f· tl. ·s . . 1 e 111 terfe1·e11ce vv1th tl1e 1berty of anot 11er 1

THE C01'tll\10N LA\V ELE1\1ENT

147

on a juclg1nent or otl1er jLiclicial 01·cler of a Court of J ·t· ded arou n LIS 1ce, even o . . • . jt1d1c1al 111st1'Ul11ent 1s er1·oneotis , irregtilar· 01• gi· ·ven by l.f sticJ1 a a cot1rt ,.,vithout jUI·iscliction proper, tl1e 1·e1necly i s not a11 actio11 foi· false imprison. ment but one fo r «r�alicio11s p1·osectition or otl1 er 1nalicious abtise of legal process», \.Vhe.re 111al1ce a11cl «tl1e abse11ce of a11y 1·easonable and J)robable 56 . 11 ,v 1e be s1 st cause» m u Defer zce: At Con11no11 Ia,v a good defence against an action for false imprison1nent is tl1e sl1e,,vi11g of justifiable circtm1sta11 ces, sticI1 as an ar. rest \.vit11 and at ti1nes vvit11otit a n1agistrates' vvar1·a1?,t, thottgl1 the police man's powers ai·e, in ge11e1·al, wider tl1a11 tl1ose g i ven to a J)rivate person.,1 Under Art. 51 of tl1 e Revisecl Co11stitt1tion of Etl1iopia 1955,58 except for flagrant cases or serious violation of tl1e law in force, ar1·est vvithout a ,vru·rant is not allo,ved. Tl1e periocl allo,ved for b1�ingi11g the person before a jtidicial autl1ority is, except wl1e1·e tl1 is is not feasible due to local con ditions, of forty-eigl1t l1ours. Tl1e word «fortl1with» apJ)earing in Art 2042 (2) is, the1· efor,e, to be t1.t1derstoocl i11 this sense. The contents of Ai·ticle 2043, regarding tl1e interfe1·ence with tl1e liberty of another by the persan standing bail for hlm, l1ave a strickil1g similarity with the definition given by Jenks; 59 hence tl1e stro11 g influence of Corn mon law concepts. And fi11ally, one 111ay conclucle by painting out tl1at tl1e effective judicial remedy, at Connnon law, of a persan ,v1·ongfully detainecl is the old renowned writ of I-Iabeas Co1·pus,60 wl1ereby, if granted, l1is actt1al release \.vill be orcle1·ed by the cot1rt.61 (v) Defamation ( Art. 2044 as read 1-,,ith A1'ts. 2045 to 2049 ). (a)

!11troductory:

So far the examples discussed referrecl to injury catised to the persan or, in comn1on law parlance, tres1)ass to tl1e pe1·son. Before approac�n� trespass to land or t1·espass to goods, t11e Code deals vvith tl1ose civil wrongs which, w1der th e Comn1on lavv, give 1·ise to actions i·esulting fro� ' t t l1e1r the narrower concept of «false state1nents», on t.·he grotmd tl1a 6z n». rso pe «tendency is to disparge the goocl na me or 1·eputation of a11othei· . . ·1 am . . fa e d « . . s a n \v o Artic1e 2044, conta1n n k 1g I WIO 1ng the prmc1ple of tI1e c1v1 tion», recites: s g in it r w is b s · -d 1 ' 0 , · \.\: «A perso n co1mnits an offence wl1ere bY 111s l1er t o n a e k a m o t s a y vva or by any otl1er means, be acts in sucl1 a r a p o e 3 • . · o t cl 11 a S LI 0 . le or rie · lieu1 l1v1n g person detestable, conte111pt1b tize l1is credit, I1is 1·ept1tation or l1is fttttire».

• CHAPTER Vl 1 tl1e otl1 er five i11stances that foll i1 l ratec elabo ·s 1 le o"V\', • . JJ1·1. nc1p TI11s . .z.e., Absence of Intent to I-larn1 (Art. 2045); Mat ters of Public Interest (Art. ._ . . 2048); and . n ty 1"1. n1u (� Im ; 47) 2 rt. (A ts, Justi fi. ? � 2046); Trutll of alleged fac 1s ,vl11ch part of Secti011 2109, e . Articl on additi ' · III In 2049) t r · (A cation • er 1e matte1·s comi tl un ted lis is ) ion sat en 111p Co of � t ng ten Ex (Mode and e tJ1 als u1· w1 cle as cl me an », ge of damages ma Da al o1· «M of ain 1 n do withiil tlle 63 In view of tl1e importanc tilt. Ins and tion ama Def ·e . ID li bot 'ble . s1 · m1s per . . . t, Jec 1t w1ll be necessary to ancl the vvide 1-ange of application of tl1e sub deal witl1 it at a greater length.

(b)

Defa1natiori in Gene1·al:

If tl1ere is a specific civil '"rrong in this Code that is clearly peculiar to Anglo-Ame1·ican Jaw, it is the w1·ong of defamation. It is true tl1at Roman Jaw kne,v of a specific delict l<novvn as inju.rict - the equivalent of tl1e Greek J{ybris an instùting act whicl1, on tl1 e wl1ole, is injurious to a n1a11's dignity.64 Aclmittedly too, Irijit1•icL, as a specific w1·ong, ,vas «any wilful violation of the 1igl1t of a f1·eeman to safety and 1·ept1tation» and a.s st1ch, it co,,ered situatio11s vvhich, 1mder· tl1e Common law, are known as defamation and assatùt.65 Nevertl1eless, i11 tl1e same way tl1 at n1a11y forms of tl1e Roman law regardi11g tl1e law of delict l1ave been modified beyond recognitiona1 by tl1e Co11tine11tal Ia,vyers, so the modern Frencl1 ci,,il Jaw cloes not pro,dde t11e tort of defan1ation as a s1Jecific civil wrong.67 As a 111atter of fact, A1nos and Walton68 en1 pl1atically deny tl1at there is a11y reference in the Frencl1 Ci,,il Code to «injt1ries to a pe1·son's l10110U1·, fan1e and rept1tation», 011 the grotmd tl1at tl1is is 11ot «\vitl1i11 tl1e domai11 of tl1 e civil law of torts>) but t11at «as elsewhere in tl1e Co11tinent, defamation is regarded primarily as a breacl1 of cri111inal Ia,v». \,Vl1ether or not tl1 . e victim ca11 conjoin 11in1self as a civil lJart)' to recover dan1ages i11 a penal action is beside tl1e 1Joint; and, at a11y rate, tl1e civil co11rt is not always 11 ecessarily con1petent, 11or does, for tl1at matter tlus change the penal essence of tl1e action.69 According to Salmon,'0 a stateme11t becon1es defa.matory ,vl1e11 its ten clency is <<to injure tl1e rept1tation of tl1e pe1·son to ,vho111 it refers; ,.vl1icJ, tencls, that is to say, to lower l1im in tl1e estin1ation of 1·ight-tl1u1ki11g 1nem bers of society generally a11d in pa1·tict1la1· to cause l1im to be regarded witll feelings of 1,atred, co11tem 1Jt, 1·idicttle, fe a1 ·, dislike, 01· clisesteem», tl1e test bei11g objecti,,e, in • 1s · t l 1a t · n., 1t • Jt1cl • gecl b)' tl1e stanclards of an «or dina�J . . r1ght-tl1Uù(ing me111ber of tl1 e societ)r». The Restate 111ent71 ce • • 1on · 1s · deI f·'1nes ce l f·a11 1at10 11 tl1us: «a coilllnW11cat fan1ato1,,J if i t tencls so tO 1 1a1~111 tl1e rept1tation of anotl1e1· as to lower 111· rn

THE COM1\10N LAW ELE1\1E N1'

in tlie esti111atio11 of tl1e co1nn1 t1nity 01· to cleter tlù i·cl persons from as. sociating 01· clealing ,vitl1 l1in1». Tl1e i11te1·est 1J1·otectecl, in otller words is tllat of rept1t�tio� ancl i11 tl1at se11 s.e tl1e «la\.v of clefan1 atio11 is, by its v� ry _l1m1tat1on 011 f1·ee s1Jeecl 1 an d f1·eeclon1 of tl1 e press _ 11atui·e, a a linJita. tion necessa1y to i11st1re certain l1igl1ly prized i11terests of tlle inclividtial in 11is rept1tatio.n and sta11 cli11g an1 011g bis fellow inen».72 What may consti. tute defamation, tl1e1·efo1·e, n1ay cliffe1· fr on1 place to place acl from tinle to tin1e a11 d hence tl1e worcls «rigl1t.tl1inki11 g 1nembe1·s of a society» may give 1-ise to cliffict1lties.73 It see111s clea1·, 110,.vever, tl1at 1nere insuit or abuse does not amo1u1t to defamatio11.74 As a general 1-ule, in Englisl1 Ia,.v, certain questions are asked in orcler to resolve ,vhetl1e1· or not statem.ents con stitt1te defamatio11. Tl1t1s, tl1e followi11g two questio11s have a bearing: <<( 1) are the alleged vvorcls capable of bea1·ing a meaning which is defamatory of tl1e plaintiff? (2) if so, i n t/1is case are tl1e ,vords in fact clefamatory of tl1e plaintiff?»;s Still, tl1e \.\101·ds of Lord Aitken76 «i11 tl1e estimation of right.tl1 inking members of socie ty generally» continue to be employed by the majo1·ity of at1thorities who l1 ave tried to clefine defamatio11.77 ( c)

Libel a11ct Slacler:

Tl1e essence of tlù.s civil wrong is the publicatio11 or con1mt1nication tl1ough the better tecl1nical te1·1n see1ns to be pt1blication78 - of falsel1ood to at least one persan otl1er tl1a11 the person defa1necl, ancl to tlùs end, tl1e the detennining factor - tl1e manner of publication - is very important.ï9 Through the mam1er of publication, it seems, is e. asier to see ,vl1etl1er it is libel or slande1·, tl1ougb, again, the1·e i s no practical distinction bet\veen the two concepts, except for Iù.sto1·ical r,e111i11isce11ces.30 Before 1641, slander ,.vas actionable in tl1e commo11 law cot11·ts, and it was necessary to prove clamages. Tl1is ,vas not tl1 e case vvith lib.el, \vhich was dealt witl1 by a semi-c1·iminal 1J1·ocess in tl1e so-called Cotirt of tl1e . o11 la\.V courts S tar Chamber.81 After t11 e abolition of this Cot1rt, tl 1e con1m took over the action of Iibel btrt continued t o apply p1·inciples ,.vl1icl1 had obtained in the Star Cha mb ei·. E,,en thougl1 tl1e Britisl1 Defan1ation Act, . a2 t d e s i 1952, abolishecl some clistinctions, a basic clifference I1as pers · Generally speaking, libel is «clefa1nat1. on pt1b l·1s ' 11ed 1·n son·1e per1na11e11t J . ·m» 0 i t s for , vhile slander is pt1blicatio11 of a state1ne11t i11 a ti·ansie l : � m ,, ail 1 11 . 1s . . l e b li L'b d n 1. eI can become a cr1rm , a i e ·· d an s 1 so nal offen ce bt1t not . n o ti c a · is s e c cases actionable, wl1 ile n a 1 ' ms ·ic · 'f slander, except i11 sorne speci · _ part ' nt» as able 0 nly on proof ermane 84 l i wo <<P ·c tl1e Bt1t of special clamages. , le 1p 11 a x e 0f the i· o F s 1 'e !t rcti ' 1f clescription of Iibel I1as given 1·ise to sanie d'f · . . g a . t1n 1c p e in d s e n · yoitssoilJJoff ·v. e c ss l s t • L Ci 1 res 1 ctu lvletro-Golclwir1.-111aJ er Pi

150

CllAPTER \'I

.1an p1_.111 cess callecl «Natasl1a» ,ve1·e l1 cld to be libel 1·ather tllen slan. . Russ 87 t ree St see1ns confident that r, ve we l1o , ies ttlt fic dif se tJ1e of der.86 In spite 1·ily sl10,.v the disti nction : «Îlle to ac sf ti sa n ca 1 1 io pt i·i sc re de lg tlle follov.rii 1 icated in a fo rm of a permane tu n1 m co ng hi yt an at r11 nt can be 110 doubt 1 at an yt l1i ng tempo rary tl d n , a. el lib is e ey e 1 tl to le atld sib vi cllaracter aild , rs pe pa letters and even ef. ws 11e s, ok bo s, 1u Tl . er ncl sla is le dib ati merely 1der». a1 sl e ar ds or ,.v en ok sp d an , figies are Iibel 1·t. 2044 of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code defarn ation A ler unc n, see y ead alr As 1 is ,vritings and otl1er mean s» l s, rd wo l1is y «b n rsa pe a en wh ce takes pla e rson detestable (haïssable), IJ 11g livi r tl1e ano e k . n1a to as y ,va a I1 suc in acts . le) icu (ricl At tl1is point, tlle o11s col ·idi 1 01· ) ble isa épr (111 conten,ptible Frenc l1 and tl1 e English texts differ. Tl1e Frenc.l1 text Sa)'S ou (mea11ing or «to jeopardize l1is credit», etc.), whereas tl1e Englisl1 translation uses t}1e ,vord and. Here, again, one can appreciate tl1 e 1·elevancy of acc11rate trans latio 11. The official English wording seen1s to indicate that ail of t11e enu merated cl1a1·acte1·istics must be present, ,vl1e1·eas tl1e i1nplication of the Frencl1 ,vording is quite different. Article 2044 is comprel1ensi,,e, in that it includes botl1 libel ru1d slander and, it is st1ggested, tl1e ,.vords «by any otl1er means» ( quelque aittre procéclé) ,ver.e meant to include all tl1ose areas wl1ich are sin1ply visible, permanent and audible, or merel)' audible or merely visible, and tl1us avoid the unce1·tainty of tl1 e common law rule as to ,.vl1etl1er « broadcasti11g» is libel or slander.88 d) Objecti11e Test a11cl Class of Perso1'1s:

Tl1e objective test seems to l1ave been intended il1 paragrapl1 1 of Art. 2045 v.rl1ere tl1e «inten t to i11jt11·e shall 11ot be cleemecl to be an essential re qt1iren1e11t for defamation», bt1t paragrapl1 2 of the saine A1-ticle appears to depart sligl 1tly fTom the gene1·al rule of tl1e Common la,,,_, of tl1e Arte1r1i1s Jones Case59 ,vl1ich es tablished the cloctrine tl1at a ma11 acts at l1is peril (attributecl to Lord Man sfied),90 if l1e shotùcl publish defan1ato1·y staten1 ents. 1 11 that case a news1Japer had publishecl a11 article desc1·iptive of one Arte. . IllUS Jones' l'f 1 e m n·1eppe. Tl1e naine \.vas st1ggested by tl1e JJse udonyn1 «Arte1nus Warcl» wbo was work1'11g for tl1 e sa111e 11e,vspaper as tl1e aut hor of tl1 e article. TI1e ,.vriter of tl1 e article ,vas , 110\vever' io·0norant of the • e 1stence of a11Y perso11 by tl1e � na111e of A1·te1nus J011es. U 11fortu11ately for l11m, tl1e name vvas 1ence ' tl1a ' t 0f a reaI E11gl1sl1 I · r11alist 1 jot bar1·iste and · 1 . . the act1011 for clefa'n1at10 · 1 1 Tl1e law . peri. l .15 . that a n1 ru1 lJt1bl1sl1es at 111s · ecl1oed also by La\vson . 7 0f as reflect111 la\\ g tl1e tl1e of p1·e po sen sit t ion . . at1on . defam in E11glancl.9'

THE CO!l1!110N LA W ELEl\1ENT

151

The impo1·t o f paragrapl1 2 (Art. 2045) l1as bee11 tested si i,ce itl the Etlliopian courts an.d as the n1atte1· concer11ecl a class of l)ersoi,s tlle case 92 seenls in point.I11 Enda Zerit v. Erzcla LcLgtte11 the iss11e \Vas wl,etl,ei· som e ,v statements 1nacle in ritiI1 g by 011e class of l )ersons as being the 0111Y «original» inl1abia11 ts of tl1e village of Adi Zen.1 and as 511ch ei,titled to 93 have the Cliiqa of tl1 e vi lla ge no1ni11atecl by tl1e Go,,en1 1nent from among tlieir gro11p alone, ,vas s11fficie11t to co11stit11te clefa111 ation ,vitl,in th e rneruring of parag1·apl1 2 (Art. 2045). Tl1e S111Jre1ne Imperia! Court _ con firming the I-Iigl1 Co11rt's juclg1n.ent \vl1 icl1 l1acl in t11rn q11asl1ed tl1e trial court's decision - he ld tl1at s11cl1 an allegation did 11ot co11stit11te clefama tion. Its decision see1ns to be 1nai11ly basecl 011 two points: In tl1e first place, the Court opined that if tl1e allegations con1plained of had been «of such a nature as to cause 11 a1·m \-'.ri.thin tl1e meani11g of Art. 2044, clefamation may in theory take place; but - and tl1is is tl1e seco11d poi11t - no clefama tion could hav e been committecl if the autl1or of tl1e state1nents «did not intend to refer ... to a11y pa1�ticular person».9� And by ,vay of obiter it also decided that a11 «indirect acc11sation»95 could l1ardly be regardecl as defamation. As a general rule, in Engla11cl, ,.vhere a class of l)ersons is i11volvecl, a member of that class can s11e in principle; b11t in s11cl1 a case l1e 1nust sl1ow that be hirnself is the person pointed at96 or tl1at the inniteri:clo· (i.e. \Vords baving a special mea11ing) concl11si,,ely referrecl to him.97 In this regard, at Ieast, Ethiopian law seen1s to be a departure f1·01n English la\v. It could be argued that the members of the class conce1·ned were \Vell de fined and the in,ulendoes could only have been intendecl to convey the specific meaning that tl1e other class dicl 11ot belong to tl1e pioneers of the village as it ,vere. ( e) S pecial Defences: Defences peculiar to an action of defan1ation, 11nde1· the Code, are provi·cted for 1n 0 s» · the subsequent fo11r Art1c · 1 es, f r·0111 2046 ·to 2049 · «Privileae • referr1ng ' llecl «I n1 c: e ca to parliamentary debates and lega1 p1.oceedi11gs ar ïcat·ions ob Illtin ity» ( Art. 2047).This seen1 s to b.e conso11ant ,vitl1 tl1e qtia11·r· · · · 1e t aining l . vv ul tf b u 98 o cl Iy 1 t ·g J 11 also 111 ns see i . several Arner1ca11 States, b11t eacl· agrees h ,v th. er It Ia n o 1m 11 o C 1e l T law. 99 witl1 the traditio11al Common . f o s r e tt i ng Of· «Fair a «M s ' a 6 4 0 2 e 1 ·ic Con1 me11t» is dealt ,vitl1 1111de1· A 1·t· xe to Pltbli·e Interest». lf e 1s n Iù ines r· con It is a good clefence if a person . P ress·ing matters of public interest, eve11 if s11ch· an e,xpressio11 ,.vas to 111· . 101. . a11tl fl·let (<lnJ · ury on anotl1er by b1·inging him 11ncler P 11·bi·ic Obliqtty» Tl1e

•

J 52

CllAP'fER

cl1arges \-Vl1ich to lus «certain express 11ot . . nlLtst , i· bo\.veve t , 11 . of the state111e . . . . . 1 must exp1 1 ess be 111s \-Vords, 0 1 er opinion 00 In otl . » lse fa e ar · ge l lec o\.v kn · . .. . vvl11cl1 tl1e public 1 s concer1 1e d and n i ts, fac \vn ki1o on , s · r ' ffai f a . te o true sta 0 1 .• ir fa s i t n 1e n 1 11 o c 1e tl t 1a in sL1cl1 a vv a y tl 1n1nent» was pt1blisl1ed by the Co i1· <<Fa cled l1ea icle art an , tly cen Re 02 to nt a ing reœ rd co ac ing of the , rul ars pe ap It li.• rap leg Te ily Da on Lond interest are ��ncerned riclicule, lic pub of rs tte n1a ere \.vh t tJ1a lrt, Cot High � sed by a cr1t1c «prov1ded they res exp be ely saf ld cou sn1 ·ca sai and ny iro 1t is me1 «a pillar of tl1e Ia\v com · fai1 t tha und gro the on ·l.y» faii d use were and society». In tl1at case, tl1e autbor of tl1e allegedly defamatory state . ment wrote an article on the maga.zine I-1olid<ty, in connection with a type of cJ1ampagne called «Babycl1am». In tl1e a1·ticle, tl1e autl1or, who \Vas a food a11d di·ink expert, l1ad said: «If yot1 go into a pub beware particularly of a thing called Bab)'· chan1, whicl1 looks lil(e cl1ampagne and is se1·ved in champagne glasses. If yot1 read the label careftùly, yot1 find it is ma de of pears». The contention of tl1e 1na.nt1facturing firm vvas tl1at the autbor bad bee11 1nalicious in describing Babycba1n as a «thing». The jury dec.ided that tl1e criticism \vas fai1· a11d witl1out n1alice. What is interesting to note is also tl1e fact tl1at tl1e leamed Jt1dge, in his inst1~uctions to the jury, made 110 1nention of a 1·igl1t-tl1inlçing n1en1be1· of a society in general but simply asked wl1etl1er tl1e ju1-y could agree tl1at «any honest person» could have forn1:ed the OIJinion of tl1e plaintiffs,'03 tl1ougl1 the point here was, of course, what amounts to «fair co111ment». Article 2049, tl1e last 011 tl1e subject, deals witl1 «Justification». Tl1e gist of tl1is Article is tl1e givi11g of satisfaction to tl1e offendecl pride and rept1ta tio11 of tl1e plaintiff by requiring tl1e defendant to 1nake an ope1 1 \\ri.tl1 dra \val a11d apology in the same periodical vvhere tl1e clefamatory n1atter \.Vas fi.rst publisl1ed, il that paper appears at least as f1·eqt1 ently as 011ce a vveek (paragrapl1 2); otl1envise, tl1e \Vitl1drawal a11d the ap ology are to be made in a perio dical cl1osen by tl1e plai11tiff (1Jara g1·apl1 3). Bt1t, above al_ l, the defenclant iuus. t l1ave acted botl1 \,,,. itl1ot1t in te11t to i 11jw·e and \Vitl1out gross negligence (JJaragrapl1 1). 1,here is a n1i1101· on1issio11 in tl1e E11glisl1 text of tl1:is pai·agrapll. Wl1ile tl1e F1·encl1 pointedly speaks of defa1nation conm1:it t�d by means of the JJress ( ]Jar voie cle la 11ress ), tl1e E11glisl1 tran sla t1 011 speaks o f clefa' 1na' t1'0n c · · om1n 1··tted « b · y \Va)' of pL1bl1cat10 · \.v of · 1 1». In v1e tl1e meaning of tl1e \V . t}'l.;r . . . · l1ole text of t· · he A 1·t1cle, . tl1e 1'at10 legis 1s suff'·1c1en clear. At Comm o1 1 la\.v, 1·1 111L1st b e 1·e111e1nberecl, «1Jublicatio1 1» l1as \VI·aer

THE CO�Il\lON LA ,v ELEl\fENT

153

l·mp · lications

ancl is synonymot1sly use d \.vitl1 tl1 e \.Voi·d «conm . · 1u111cat1011» 1 04 f\cctrr acy of translation \VOt1lcl JJreve11t a11 t111necessary coi1ftision llere. TI1e plea of «jt1stificatio11» at Con1111on la\v is o11e of tI1e special clefe n ces, pectùiar to an action of defan1ation, along witI1 fair con1111e111 on a m atter of public interest, pri\;ilege, an cl co11se11t of tl1e IJlaintiff to tlle pLtbblication and, to a Iesser deg1·ee, apology a11d amencls.'05 But tllis cloes not mean that tl1e otl1 er 01·cli11a1-y defences are cle11ied, for in addition to these special defences, tl1e clefe11dant ca1 1 always IJleacl tl1at tI1e vvords are not defan1ato1-y or that tl1 ey 1·efer to a11otl1er JJerson or tl1 at no pLtblication hacl, in fact, occm·1·ed.106 At Co1nmon la\v, to be a con1 plete defence i11 an actio11 for clefan1atio11 (bath in libel ai1d slmcler), the defamatory stateme11t pleadecl L1ncler justi fication must be true in actt1al fact; ,.vhether or not tl1e defenclant belie\,ecl it to be so is irrelevant. 101 Briefly, tl1e essential point is to sl1ow tl1e truth and once his has been provecl, an «incidental inaccuracy» will 11ot defeat tl1e justification.103 Tl1e positio11 has 11 ot greatly changed also in the U.S.A. 1c9 It \vill im11 1edia tely emerge tl1at a clifference bet\.\reen tl1e common la\v rule and Art. 2049 is n1anifest. Tl1 is is so becat1se tl1e clefe11 ce of tn1tl1 vvhicl1 at Comn1011 lavv is not specific bt1t part of tl1e plea of jL1stificatio11 bas been treated sepa1·ately tmder Article 2047. Tl1e1·e is also a seconcl clifference vvhich conce1·ns tl1e state of mind. 111 England, tl1e state of mincl is immaterial in jt1stification; it is most important tmder a plea of fair comment.110 In Ethiopia, the position is substantiall)' tl1 e same bt1t the ter111 seems to l1ave been inverted. Ai·ticle 2046 ( Matters of public interest) seems to be more concerned \VÎth accuracy and falsity of tl1 e state1nent, \vhile Art. 2049 (Justificatio n) specifically refers to i11tent to injt1re, tl1at is, it

mak es the state of minet a n1 ost rnaterial point.1 11 «Apology» together with retraction of the defamatory statement is, for 2 t. no is 11 it se t he purposes of assessing damages, relevant; as a defence 11er The poljcy be11incl this has be en vvell illt1stratecl in the qt1estion: «If refLtsal • • », ·t0 g1ve apology is rega1·ded as .ev1dence of ma 1·1ce •·vvl1 e1·e woulcl \Ve be? as kecl by Judge Milmo in the BcLbycha111.113 case. s em se 1is Tl . 49 20 e cl ti Ar i11 Apoloay e bas been macle part of jt1stification � 11 5 . 1 . 2 9 t0 be co11sonant with and is simila1· to th.e Br1t1s . l1 D efa' ma' tion· Act icl1 l1 . . vv ) e s a c s it ,n te Except for the uninte11tional vvrong ( s1n11 t· A e th to 1 a1· . seems obtainable at Common lavv and tl1 e 1·ea1·r. angein ent ancl entunerat1on ave I1 . . o t , le o 1 l v , , 0 f spec1al e h t 011 defences, the la\v of defamat1on seems, been incorporate cl in the Ethio1Jian Civil Cocle.

CHAPTER

ts. 2050-2051 ). r A ( s e s u o p S f o t h ig R (vi) 111j1,t1')' to tfie

ul of e gf ns on rf se r ' e te W th in in en e» er nt ei tt «a , ce of rin te h lc ei Fr le Tl 4 s. o le a1 tw e tic es It is, u.1 fact , tl1 l nc l1i be y lic JJO e tl1 s ey i1v co . . . . per 11aps, bette.r ,ed. e at 1s if re th a w he d an nd I, ba vo 1s m bt a n ee tlle whole relationsl1ip bet,.v ure an d consequent di pt ra e tl1 1t ot ab 1t gl ou br y eb er tl1 s An body ,.vJ1o J1a 1 , is l1eld ci vi lly liable. In Ethiopia, ) on r1n l1a al ci so d an sp[rgement of family e «maintenance and r tl1 fo >> ce ur so l1e «t be to ed er id ns co tlle family is c ation and social o uc sis ed ba y ar im pr e tl1 d an re pi Em e th of development 115 it is thus specialy protected b y Ja w . ; y» 11 armon 2050 ,vill be committed icle art of ing a11 n1e tl1e l1in wit ce» fen «of An o spouse to leave the other tw tl1e of e on es uc ind 11 rso pe a t tha e tim ry eve e d e sam kin Tl1 of civil 2). d an 1 s rap rag (pa ll \vi 's ter lat against the IiabiJity attaches against anyone 1·eceiving, l1arbouring or detaining, a mar riecl ,.von1an against tl1e wil l a11cl \Vitl1 tl1e k 11owledg. e of tl1e opposition of J1er l1usband (parag1·apl1 3), mùess: (a) tl1e two spouses concerned have agreecl to live apart, or (b) tl1e husband l1as been guilty of cruelty (sévice) to lus wife 01· (c) tl1e• defendant lias good 1·eason to· think so and bas received tl1e ,vorna11 out of humane reasons (Art. 2051). !11 tl1e latter cases 110 con1n1ission of an offence will .have been cleen1ed to l1ave taken place. Tl1e Con1mo11 Ia,.v bas for a long time recognized a civil '"rrong kno\vn as «E11tice111ent», wl1ereby a l1t1sba11d wl10 had been deprived by anotber of l11s ,vife's affection, society ancl services, ,vas entitled to sue tl1e persan responsible- Foi· this rea.son, tl1e actio11 is also kno,vn as «Loss of con sortit11n», fro111 tl1e Latin tern1s consortiu1n et servitiit111..116 Actuallj', enticeme11t is pa1·t of tl1e wider concept of i11te1�fere11ce ,vitl1 family relations and, along witl1 anotl1er tort known as seduction,117 it originally arase out of «.a p1·esumed prop1·ietary interest of a l1usband )); though, 11nlike seduction, tl1e l111sband's interest in l1is wife ,,,as less cancer. 11ed witl1 loss of services a11d en1pl1asized, insteacl, on tl1e loss of consortiun1 - «the sl1aring of bed ancl boarcl of !1er co11fort, society a11cl con1panion. . 1 18 T slup». l1e st1pre111acy of tl1e l1usband's inte1·ests ove1� tl1e ,vife \Vil! be evident and also Jenks"9 clefines enticement as a civil ,v1·011g agai11st tl1e 11usban d for tl1e loss of his wife's companio11ship but not 11ice-versa. Tl1e attitucle ,vell reflects tl1e patte1·ns of a11 olde1· society and a cl1ange of tllis att·t 1 LIde \Vas bot1ncl to a1·r1· ve. Trt1e to tl1e Co1111non la\v's capacity · . ne\v to adaptations in order to st11t · \.vas sai"d develo 1t pn1e11t s, tl1e1·efo re, . · a siin . tl1at 1n gra111111g · i· 1ar act.•ion to a ,.v1f . . 1,.vitl cled ext en e, tl1e Ia,v cot1ld be • out tl1e 11eecl of creat;1,,·0a a new act1011.120 At an. y 1·ate, e, , er since 1923 an Engl1sl1 ,v1fe can stie tl le \ 7oma11 \ '"'110 entices 11er l1usba11d a,,va,·1•121 M an), .on . co111n1011 Ia,v jtu·isdicti011s in t 11e U.S.A., too, grant the l1t1sba11d a11 acti . .. 1

�

•

1'11 E COl\I llION L A\,;1 ELErilENT

155

kno\ VD as «criminal conversation», arisi11g out of .. ù · 122 aclt t er y . I n E.. nglancl, . . . . .cen1ent can be co1nm1tte d 1rrespect1 ve of acltùtery , btit · enti 1n s1J1•te of· th.1 s . cliffere� ce, botl1 �re �10,:v 1·ecog111ze� as «pa1·allel remeciies», tl1ough the . ,vife's nght of act1011 1n tl11s con11ect1on 1·en1ai11s al,.vays Jess extei1sive th an UJ tl1e hu sband s. In most parts of tl1e Untecl States, legislati,,e, i 11 tervention 11as greatly cha11ge t]1e lav\'. !11 fact, by 1935, 110 Jess tl1a11 15 states (iiicluding the large and populot1s State of Nevv Yo1·k) l1ad abolisl1ecl the action of «alieoation of affection», as being against public JJolicy ancl no,v, in most States, a ,vife is jt1stified to Ieë:1ve he1· l1t1sband if he is gt1ilty of vvhat may an1otint 11� • 7 t el crt1 to seriot1s .) l

(vii) Ditty to Eclitcate a11.cl to Sitpervise (A1-t. 2052). Wl1ere, having 1·egard to to circurnsta1 1ces a11d to practice ( L-LSctges), a persan fails to take tl1e meast1res of edt1cation ancl st1p1·evision ,vl1icl1 ma_y reasonably be expectecl of hi111, i11 respect o f pe1·sons entrusted to bis change (protectio11·) or supe1·vision by Ia,,v 01· in comformity witl1 tl1e lavv, be ,vill comnùt an offence (parag1·aph 1). A11 offence vvill l1ave been con1mitted also if, as a 1·esult of l1is defat1lt, eitl1er tl1e person under l1is cl1arge (protection) suffers da111ages l1in1self (paragrapl1 2) or the p-erson st1bject to his SUJJervision ( surveillarzce) cat1ses da111age to a tl1ircl party ( para grapb 3). A fe\.v observations, l1 e1·e, are in poi.r1t. Tl1e fi1·st 1Jectùiarity that e1ner ges is tl1e placing of this tmintentional civil vvro11g among the list tl1at deals with specific pe1·s011al intentio11al vvrongs. 011e would have, indeecl, e;rpected to find it in the section deaing vvitl1 ,ricariot1s liability (A1·t. 2124 et seq.) Sorne salient cont1·asts follo,:v, Article 2124 covered the case o,f paren tal liability vis-èL-vis vv1·ongs committecl by l1is n1ino1· chilcl and Art. 2125 of the otl1er «gardieris» \Vhich ma y 1·eplace tl1e father. Art 2126 clealt with State liability committed by its ser,,ants ancl employees; wl1ile liabi lity of employers wa s treatecl t1nder A1·t. 2130. No11e of tl1ese articles spoke of clamage comnùtted, say, by a person of tmsot1ncl mind. Again, tl1ese provisions envisaged clamé1ges cat1secl t o tl1i1·cl parties ancl 11 ot to tl1e minor himself. Article 2052 refers to «educatio.n» bt1t does not SJJecifically inentioil a · . . er p 1e tl y b s ie · ·t par mrr1or cbild; d 1r t · h 1t also en,risages damage causecl to · . r · · ' 11e1t·l1e in son concernecl ancl a c: g A · Jf 1.1mse I n11nor damage caused to the A.rticle 2124 nor A.rticle 2125 mention negligei:ice; A1·ticle 2052 repeateclly sp eaks of clefatù t 01· failure ( clé/at'.lla.nce).

CHAPTER

156

''l

Code tl1e fatl1er's I iability Civil pian Ethio tl1e dei· 1 tii at 1 tJ · c n see It ,.vas • • . -·otis . He was Jiab1e sim1Jly due to 111s be1ng tl1 e fatl1er , a situa. . , ,vas not ,,1ca11 cot1lcl not exonorate l1imse lf b\, l1e as . n itio Jos liis I d eiie oi·s w 1 J t1on vv hic 1 . . n 1s1o or by pleadi ng tliat e1·v sup e 1Jlet com 01· t fatil (1 of , Jack · l n w I 1 0 s 1 6 y · 111ere e. cle A1·t1 plac 2052 < tool t wl1a make s no cl e11te pi·ev e · ha\, · t no c c be coti11 specific mention of tl1e fatl1er. 1· che -tea ool t sch tl1a s s and artisans lare dec .C. F.C 6) lié a ( a 4 138 Article eir pupils ( éléves) and by th. by sed cau ge n1a cla e 1 tl for ble nsi po res are tl1eir apprentices during tl1e tin1e that they are under tl1ei1· care - soits leitr S{;trveillarzce - <<u11less, in the case of artisai1s, tl1ey pro,,e that they could not have prevented tl1e act whicl1 ga,,e rise to tl1is responsibility (af. 7) ;'26 and in tl1e case of scl1ool-teacl1ers tl1ey cotùd p1·ove, in accordance witl1 droit con1niuri, t l1 at tl1e fatùt, imp1·t1dence or negligence complained of, ,vas not committed (al. 8). A1-ticle 2052 envisages surveillarzce at para. grapl1 3 dont 11rotectiori at pa1·agrapl1 2. U11cler F1·encl1 Ia,v, there is general agreement tl1at 11either a minor clùlcl (irifarzs) no1· a lunatic can co1n1nit a clélit. «si11 ce that st1pposes an inte11tional l1arn1».121 Tl1ere is Jess agreern.e11t, as already pointed out,128 when the1·e is a quasi-clelict, tl1 at is t o say, an unintentional civil wrong. Since tl1ere is 110 }Jrecise formal text, tl1e app1·oacl1 is a practical one. In eacl1 case tl1e po,vers of clisce1nme11t will be considered by tl1e court, as a qt1estion of fact, l1a,,i11g regard to tl1e pl1ysical and intellectual develop ment of tl1e chlld and to tl1e natt1re of the act ai1d to the n1aterial time, in tl 1e case of a11 i11sane; there being , in 11 eitl1er case, no p .resu1n1Jtion tl1at a 111 i1 1or child is incapable or «tl1at a certifiecl lunatic is irresponsible». 129 Bt1t ten1peraments do exist also t1nder F1--encl1 la\.v. Tl1us, tl1e fatl1er '\\rill be vicariously liable for tl1e clamage dt1e to the fault of l1is clilld;130 a11d so ,vill tl1e gt1ardia11 of tl1e ltmatic if l1 e fails in l1is duty of supervisio11, tl1ougl1 Îll the latter case, tl1e fat1lt is not vica1·ious as it rests not on tl1e fatilt of tl1e lunatic bt1t on tl1e fault of tl1e gua1·dian hin 1self.131 Tl1e parents ' responsibility, in principle, ceases once tl1.e chilcl is of 21 years of age, but . cotirts l1a,,e been k:.nown to l1olcl tl 1at tl1e pai·e1 1t is still vicariouslj1 liable bitt 011ly as tl1e e1nployer of bis o,.v11 cl1ilc 132 l. I t will be remembe1·ecl tl1 a t Art. 202 7 ( 1) E.C.C. contains the ge11eral }Jrinciple tl1at a person \,vl10 com111 its a civil '"'1·ong ,.vill be Iiable, ,.vitl1out regarcl to a11Y contractt1al a11gage 111ent·, ,vl1ile IJaraoo1·apl1 3 tl1ereof I1olds lu. m responsible foi· liability a1 ·ising ot1t of a11 offe11 œ or resulting from tl1e lavv, «coinn1itted by tl1 e tl 1 i1·cl pa1·ty for \vl1om l1e is responsi e». Article bl 2028, finaIlY, rein · •teia . .te s tl. 1 at vvl1oe,, er cat1ses da1nage to anotl1er bj' an o�fei1 e (Ai·t. 2029) sl1all � 1nak:.e it goocl. Article 2052 is a11 instance ,vl1ere tlle v1car1011s liabilitj, is e x1Jressly cleclared b y Ia, .v. ,is

l'HE CO!l-lMON LAW ELE�1ENT

157

Tlle pe1·u�a1 o� P1·of. Da,,id:s writing 133 indicate� tl1at am011g the specific civil vvro11gs 1nsp1red by Engl1sh Ia,v, tl1e1·e vvas o11 e callecl défaut de. sur. veillance d'urz 11iirze·ur. I t is also sig11ifica11t tl1at tI1is slloulcl have been listed immecliatel�,r afte1· loss of consortiit111 (A1·ts. 2050-2051) and imineclia tely befor e trespass to la,icl (A1·t. 2053).134 If tha t is so, one cotild argue that t11e provision co11ce1·ns a 1ni11or b11t tl1e11 , 011e will vvonder ,vhy vvas it necessarj' to distinguish tl1e t,vo cases of protectiorz and surveillance. or , v, hy ,vas not tl1e 1natte1· i11cl11ded in Arts. 2124 a11d 2125. One could clefinitely say tl1at a fathe1· l1as t11e cl11ty of ed11cati11g, protecting and supervising his cbildren. Like,vise, l1is fa11lt coulcl be dete1-i11i11ed depe11ding as to wl1e tber the cl11ty l1ad bee11 expressly laid clow11 by Ia,v 01· sin1ply tl1at it clid not conforrn to local 11sage. Tl1e cl11ty of protecti11g a member of one's ovvn family does 11ot, of co11rse, give the fatl1er tl1e legal right to commit a civil ,.vrong on tl1e1n. That l1e can use some 1·easonable clisciplinary action goes witbout saying; tl1e point will be ,.vhetl1er l1e can do so also ,vith those \vbo have attained the 1·equirecl age of legal mat111•ity ancl if so to wl1at extent. The same ca11 be saicl, 111tltatis 111iltandis, of scl1ool-teacl1ers and of artisans ,.vl10 l1a\1e tl1e duty to ed11cate and to s11pervise tl1e pupil and tl1e apprentice, respectively, ,.vl1ile tl1ese are 11ncler their care. Finalfy, 011e may be allo,.ved to ask '\\Thy \\1e1·e tl1e words «e11.fcLnt 111ineur», appearing in Article 2124, omittecl in Article 2052. In English lavv, «i11fant» is one 1mcler 21 years but old eno11gl1 to kno,v wl1at l1 e is doing. Infants in the Roman sense are «chlldren too )'Oung to ha,,e i1itellectits, to understand tl1e nat11re of tl1e act done».135 In France, ,vl1ile a tecl111ical cliffere11ce is made betvveen ((jitne enfant» and «i1ifans», the latter is often t1sed as a synonym of ,,en farzt 1nineiLr». 136 In Ethiopia, an «e11fant» can eve11 be a newly bon1 cl1ild (Art. 4 E.C.C.), while a «mi11e.ur» is one vvho l1as not yet attained the full age of 18 years (Art. 198 E.C.C.). It would appear that, in an y case, the vvords «protectio·n and SLtrveil la nce» employe d in Article 2052 we1·e meant to b. e given their teclmical rneaning. While supervision is knovvn to be normally applied in tl1e case of either minor children or persans of 1mso1mcl mind, protection is 110t so freqt iently employed eitl1 er by tl1e leg al ,vriters or the cotirts of France. Btit a restrictive interp1·etation ,vo11lcl se em appropriate, so as to excltide any person who, 1mcler no rm al circumstances ancl baving regard to (local) ttsages, wo11ld no t corne witlun tl1 e «protection» - or «cl1arge» to use tlle term employecl in the En gl ish t1·anslation - of the l1 eacl of a fa111i1)' or of the protection of either the scl100I-teacl1er 01· th e artisa11- If 011e takes tlle e bl lia be l ilc ot analogy of the F1 ch w ,v s 11 sa ti ar ol-teacl1 ers a11cl l1o sc Ia ·en ' · · m e c n o c » s e ir fo r civil la o ' · c s t 7 ·le i s ,.vrongs arising out of tl1 e so-called «accic. . . . . tl11rcl . to or 1ng· damage catLsed pttpils 1 . 1e ,, tl no t on ly by ( JJar) tl1e JJup1ls to O

CJlA P1'ER

158 1 1e or 1nore pttpils, eithe 0 ) x au. ( to catisecl age aine: d I r by a so parties bt1t 137 . s 1e t r a JJ cl ir 1 . . other IJupils o1· b y tl . . est 1 n q11 on 1 icle s Art wa 1 nspired 1at tl1e tl t fac tlle of by \,v vie . In . t1l ef us be ay · m e1 tt la 1e tl at ok lo k tic c: qt 1 l3\.V, a E11gI.JS l 138 s, can a11t be inf suecl in tort except nd, gla En in , elcl nfi Wi to According ed. Presumably owing to olv is inv t cei de as l1 st1c t 11 me ele l nta me ,.vhere a , liable but tl1ere are two excep. lly era gen t, no is n lia ai·c gu or ent par tllis, tioiJs: (a) \.vl1ere tl1e cl1ild is employed by the parent so tl1at the relation. sllip is tJ1at bet,veen master and servant; and (b) whe1·e tl1e paren t is either guilty of neglige11 t cont1·ol of the cl1ild or whe , r e l1e bas eitber au. 39 lity.' A case \\'hic11 is often liabi to rise thorized 01· ratified tl1e act giving 140 is that of Donaldso11 v. Mc. es oriti a11th ish Engl referrend to by clivers Ni1,ert.141 In that case, tl1e fathe1· had given bis 15 y.ears olu son an air-gun ,vith the warning tl1at l1e ,.vas not to use it outside the l1ouse. Tl1e boy clisobeying l1is fatl1er used it outside in tl1e ope 11, injuring the plaintiff i11 t11e case. It v.1as held, that tl1e fatl1e 1· was not liable. The converse, in stead, took place in Bebee ,,. Sales 142 wl1ere the father allo,ved his 15 year old so11 to retain a sl1ot-g1m witl1 vvhicl1 tl1 e father knew bis son had al ready broken a neigl1bo11r's window. Wl1en the boy caused an injury to tl1e eye of a11othe1 · boy with a pellet fro111 tl1e same gun, it was held that the fatl1er was liable, for failing to exercise «p1·oper contrai over bis son».H3 As a ge11eral 1·L1le, s11bstantially tl1e san1 e p1inciples apply in the case of lunatics.u4 Tl1e American position is not fa1· from tl1at of E11gland. In tl1is con nection, it is vvortl1 to mention Section 877 of tl1e Restame1 1t , ,vl1ere in causes (c) ru1d (d) tl1ereof, definition is given of vicarious liability toucltlng one who «controls, or has a duty to 11se care to control» or «l1as a duty : to provide protection for, or to l1ave ca 1 ·e used for tl1e protection of» another perso11 wl10 l1as causecl damage to tl1i1·d parties.us Both situations refer to parent-child ancl 111aster-servant 1·elations.'�6 In England, actio11s bet\.\,een s1Jouses are, i11 tl1eory, still possible, tl1ottgl1 it is tl1 e ,.vife only wl10 can sue l1e1· hL1sband for tl1e protection and secLirity of ber O\.v11 }Jre-1narital prope1·ty, but not for per·sonal injuries; conversely, a ht1sband is 110 longe1· liable for l 1is \.Vife's torts for tl1e mere fact of beii1g a l1usband, bL1t n1ay be so liable ' i11stead ' if sh e l1ad acted as lus serva 11t or agent.1 47 WI1ether or 11 ot s11cl1 or si111ila 1· 1·es1ùts' ca 11 obtai11 under Article 20SZ is a n1atter for· · the Etluop1a · · 11 cot1rts to say. Tl1e ain1 of the d'1scuss1· on . has been to draw . . . . . g to tl1e · ' attent c ion t ·o l t 1 e potent1al cliff 1c1ùt1 es relat1n • intencled Jegisat • ' i,,e 1nean 1· 11 g of tl1e JJro, ,1. sion try tl . and 1e same t1me to at to g1ve a11 inclicatio11 as to its sot1rces. 1

•

THE COl'II!IION LAW ELE!I-IENT

159

(viii) TreJJCLSS ( 1lrt. 2053, 2054): (a) Gerzeral: '

The l1eacling of Article 2053 is T1·es1Jass ( Eritrée cl1ez aittriti). 1 1 1 vie,v of the in1porta.nce played by tl1e \,vrit of t1·-espass to tl1e clevelop111e111 of the Common la,v, a fe\v ,vorcls are aJJIJropriate. It bas alreacly bee11 indicate tl1at tl1e Con1 111on Ia,v ,vrit knOW1l as • •• cctrespass» ,-vas ,,er)' conve111e11t s111 c,e it ,,vas almost al1-enco111passing.1-1s Jndeed, it had to be so si11ce it ,,vas 1u1clerstoocl to 111 ea11 «esse11tially inter 4 ference ,vith a rigl1t».' 9 T1·espass «co11trary to tl1e peace of OL1r sovereign lord tl1e king» ,vas se111i-crin1i11al i11 01·igin and as sucl1 actio11able, not in the local courts, bLtt in tl1e King's Bencl1 - tl1is allo\ved tl1e plaintiff to have his case tried witl1 tl1e partecipatio11 of the jury, \Vitl1 damages as a remedy, and vvJ1ere the clefence lrno\v11 as vvager ,vas not a,,ailable.150 By 1250 the w1·it of trespass had become very co111n1 on151 ancl the1·e are st1·ong indications that the judges, whose ren11me1·atio11 came from the fees of tl1e litigants, connivecl witl1 the plai11tiffs ,vbo, in turn, fo11nd the remedy vePj con,,enient.152 Since it cotùcl be appied in interference ,vith a 1·igl1t, it can1e to be applied to cases conce1-ning injuries to lancl or to goods or to tl1e persan, though these injuries ,vere Iiinited to dir.ect and immediate ones. Indirect or con.sequential injt1ries ancl otl1er ,vro11gs that co1ùd not be fittecl into the writ of simple ti'espass came 1mcler a vvrit lcnown as «trespass 11po11 the case». Again, a]ready by 1285, otl1 er cases not comi11g ,vitl1in tl1ese classes were covered by the «actions 11po11 tl1 e case» remedies, ,vbereby clerks of the Chancery could iss11e writs 1111cler the Statute called in co11si111ili casit; the Jatte1- actions co,,ei-ecl a wider field tl1an eitber actions on trespass or trespass upo n the case and tl1e English la,v of contract owes its origin to them. Sicle by side, tl1ese three re111 edies existed for centlll·ies ai1d covered most situatio11s coming witl1 in the p1·esent English Ia,v of civil ,vrongs. 153 But tl1ere is no dot1bt tl1at tl1e 111ost i11 1porta11t ,vrit ,vas tllat of trespass. Foi· this it deservecl the nan1e given to it by Maitlancl « the ferti le n1otl1 er of actio11s». 15'1 No,vclays, v.rl1 en ordinary pe op le speak of trespass tl1ey often n1ea11 trespass to lancl. To that topic we will now pass. (b)

Trespass to Larzcl:

îrespass to land, unde1- A1·ticle 2053, incl11cles also forcecl eiltry into anot her's hottse. v'n1osoever Lrnla\vfLùly an d against tl1e clearl)' expre�secl , 0 1 1 tl1e la11cl or 111to , «Ia,,,fL · \vil! 0 f lt1e \VclY 1l O\-Vner or possessor» forces lus llle hoL1se of an otl1cr, is liable fo r tres1Jass.

)60

CH A 1'1'ER VI

n pia hio Et Ci,,j.l Code in 1958, tl1e of . t» raf «D e tl1 on · l )tll g 1 e m 11 1 Wl1e11 co ety of tl1 e use of tl1e word «owner» in ri o1J pr im tI1e t oti ed t Di·. Rt1 sseIl po1·n· 1t l1 a,,e been an erroneo11 s transla. gl n1i it t tl1a 1t tigl tbo 11e · , t· tex 1 • 1 ◄ 11g·i1s t..11 e E . 1ss W . . . . rt het·her or not tlle pe ex 1e tl by cl se 1 t y ll 1 na g 1 · 01 cl or ,.v h ilc tion of a Fre t ren is an pa ap ere th era} inac. lit , n1e sa e tl1 lly tia tan bs su be )' ina s result here is, i fact, no e nt se e1ns corre t : tem sta the . se, 1 se1 t tlJa In curaC)'· � .� re, tai rie op the eqwvalent _ pr rd wo e tl1 of on rsi e v ch en Fr tl1e in on nti ine er». Propriété in Frencl1 Iaw iJ. «ow rd \1/0 l1 glis En e 1 t] of _ ctly exa but 11 0t is absolute, except foi· wl1at is expressly provided for in Ia,.v; «ownership» 156 g. 1in acl e -r far so t no is in Englisl1 Ia,v is li1nited and it The Fre11cl1 wo1·ds used in the Etlùopian Civil Code are «le J?ossesseitr oit cléterz.teitr légiti111.e» \1/l1ich, as aforesaid, J1a,,e been interposed in the E r1glisl1 version and translated as «la\.\1ful o,v11er or possesso1·,, . Tl1e Frencl1 «clétenteur» may be taken to be tl1 e approximate equivalent of the E11glisl1 J1olcler, c11stodian, or ,vith-l1olcler. If tl1at is tl1 e case, one can see ,vh)' it ,vas necessary to translate ((posssesi,1.r» as <<la\vft1l owner» and (<déte11tei1r lègiti11ie» as «possessor». Tl1e importance of this is that in English law, the action of trespass protects tl1e JJossession rather tl1an the owners1 1 ip perse, for tl1e1·e is no O\.\rnersh ip of la 11 d but only o,vnership of estates in land tl1at is to say, only rigl1ts of enjoyment . 1 57 In other ,vords, at Co111n1 011 la\v, it is the violation of possession a1 1d not of owi1e1·sl1ip that creates tl1e civil \.\n.·011g; tl1e interest protected is, therefo1·e, the possession taJç_e1 1 in tl1 e sense of a right to occupy a11d enjoy the land! as contrasted to O\vnership ,vllicl1 is concerned witl1 tl1e validity of tl1e title to tl1e Ia.nd 011ly. 155 It is, i11 tl1is connection, tl1 at tl1e occupier - who ca11 bt1t need not necessarily be the o\.\r11er - has t l1e right to sue; the occupier being 11sually tl1e l)Ossessor,159 but no o,.\,ner wl10 is not tl1e JJossesso1· n1ay do so. Tl1e draftsn1 en of the Etl1iopian Civil Code preferrecl tl1e \.\1ords «la\vful o,v11er» a11cl «possessor» now, but the first Englisl1 t1·aoslation i1 1 tl1 e draft spol5:e 011ly of «the la\.vftù o,.vner of tl1e JJropert)' » ,16/J of ,vllicl1 refere11ce \vill be macle i11 co11nection \.\1Îtl1 trespass to goods (Art. 2054 ). Wl1at equi,1alent terni \Vas t1sed i11 tl1e original Frencl1 Draft is no of publi domai r1. It is, t c llo\ve,,er, significant that the IJresent a1-ra11ge n1ent sl1otùd l1ave been n1ade . Literally translated, tl1e F1·encl1 words ,vo uld I1 ave becon1e « z;ossessor» :11:cl <(la, ,vfiLl 11olcler ( or citstoclia11) ». It ,, vas prest1 111abl)' felt tl1at botl1 ,vords wotrlcl have conveyecl essentiall:y tl1e saine co11cept. Never·theless, tl1e tise of tlle ,,,orcls «Ia,,VfuJ O\.v11er» se.ems to be i 11fo1-tt1nate. If it ,.vas 111 ea11 t to co11'' Y he Frei1cl1 co11cept of O\Vl1 ersl1 ip, tl1e11 on e n1ay be allo,,vecl to !Joint � � �lt �, 11 Is n1 isleaclii1g. I1 1 F1-encl1 law tl1er e is n o i11com1Jlete 0\.\1nershi p_ 1 t 1s e1 tl1e1· fL1 ll . O\.\'IlershiP 01. 11ot; . 1f • a 1Jerso11 1s an O\.vne1·, he 111ust l1ave

1'HE COà1fl10N L1\W ELEt\lENT

1 hl

1t of both enjoyme11t ancl 1na11agen1ent of \Vllac t Il,e O\Vns.161 T · tl ie rigl o say • • <(Ia,vfttl 0\\'11er» 1s tl1erefore mean1ngless. If, 011 tI1e otllei· lland it \vas nJeant to convey the Englisl1 O\vnersl1i1J, then tl1ere are two clif�ictilties. Üile is tl1e restrictive n1eaning al1·eady seen. Tl1e otI1er is tllat it is most tinusual foi· Englisl1 legal te1·minology to make use eitJ1er of the noun «o\vnersl1i1J» 01· the ve 1·b «to o,,vn», ,vl1atever may be said in cornmo11 par lance. 162 Conv ersely, F1·enchmen find difficulties to say «I own» in tlle French sense of tl1e concept and exp1·ess tl1e idea, insteacl, by saying «I possess» ( je possède).163 The Ger1na11s, too, clo not seem to be in a better position. '6-! If tbat is tl1e case, one can tak e tl1e verb «to possess» employed in both texts of, say, A1·ticle 2027 (2) to mean «to own» jn tl1e Frencl1 sense of o\vnership. By the same token, «possessitr» in Article 2053 coulcl be tm clerstoocl to mean <<O\vner» in tl1e F1·ench sense; but wl1ile it n1ay be clif fictùt to say «I ow11» by t1sing tl1e \vord «prOJJriété», it is not so difficult to employ the words «pro·p1'iétai1·e» and «possesseur» apart, in tl1eir legal sense. W11at \Vas exactly intended tl1en mt1st ultimately la)' ,vith the pttb lication of the travaux préparatoi1'es. Becat1se of the tise of the \vords «déte11teitr légitin1e» immediately after, it seems very likely that, incleed, by «possesseur» it ,vas intended to say «owner» in th.e French sense of tl1e word or, at Ieast, something which implies ownersl1ip or its fotmdation. As for the words «détenteiLr légiti111e», Fre11ch law does differe11tiate between «possession,) and «déte11tior1.». Under Franch law, too, a «posses sion» bas broad implications and is the road to O\Vnership but unlike E11gllsh la\v, it is almost absolt1te. In French la\.v, «a possessor is IJrestunecl to be the owner unless or until a better title is shown by another perso n . .»165 In English la\.v, the title, who ever I1as it, is not absolute, it is only relatively the best.'66 This is bete1· seen in a bo·na fide pt1rcl1aser. While Englisl1 lavv protects the «owner», French (and otl1er Continental laws) protect th.e bona /ide purchaser ( or borza fide possessor) except tl1at, t1nder Art. 2280 Frencl1 Civil Code, the owner can 1·ecover it, if tl1e thing had been eitl1er stolen or lost, bt1t even so there are certain conditions.'67 A «détent e·ilr précaire» ( or possesseitr précaire) is someone wl10 ex. ercises the physical control or occupation of a tl1ing 011 behalf of anotller. This by itself cloes no t constitute possession in th.e Frencl1 sense - it is 1ere bY the 1 · · \V ,it, nii clo i1s so i111. an e nec an ét nt, ssary to ha\,e a ment l elen1e al . r, 1e tl o n a f o lf a l1 ex.'erc1se e b 11 o ·t 110 e, l of control and the tise mt1st be mac r 1,t te rz . . . t he rirs te é cl « a " t a but for one's behalf.'68 It see·ms that 1t th e s 11 e s t · · 1s 1n lègit ime» was intended to be understood. Tlùs asstimption fincls SLipport o11clco1·res1J gl1ly a 1so .1n the fact iou . a\V I n that cléterttion (ct1stocly) in Roma cd to tl1e French «détention.,..'69

CilA P1'ER 162

\TI

Tlle dra ftsn1en of Article 2053, we1-e concernecl with trespass to lanct.1;o Tllis was or-iginalJy callecl ,, qua1·e clctusitni fregit» - �ariant of the tort of trespass to P erson _ initially i11tended to dete1- d1stt1rbances bet,v een ' , 171 s. e u rn a te a v barons and pr1 1 2 ï «consists in the act of (l) d. on lm Sa to g in 1-d co ac g, on wr il civ Tllis tl1e JJlaintiff, or (2) remainin g upon of on ssi sse po e tl1 i11 d lan o11 up iilg enter ial t jec te.r ab y ma an g upo11 it _ in tin jec pro 011g ci1 pla (3) or sucll land, tJ1e mere sitting upon tlie , t1s Tl1 . n» tio ica tif jus ful Iaw ut tI1o wi e cas e ach ' s l1and th1-ougl1 the ,vindow of another bave been one ng uci rod int fence or 17 3 This, like all otl1er fo11ns of trespa ss, ss. spa tre ute stit con J1 eld enough to is actionable per se a.nd tl1ere is no nee d of any proof of damage, a point ,e is irrelevant as long as the 114 ti, Mo ce. sa11 nui t11at distinguisl1es it from 75 It ,vill be tl1e11 a good defence to sl1ow tl1at tb e .1 tary vol1m is ass tresp 16 or in order to pervent a bre acl1 1,1 issio1 Jerm ,vit11 ed e11ter ]1as trespasser 1 of tl1e peace.177 In the Etl1ioJJia11 Civil Code, l1oweve1-, some flexibility to tl1e rigid Corn. 1non law rule se ems to have bee11 contemJJlated. Tl1e verb ccto force» ( sa.ns y être autorisée par la loi), for instance, appears to lend colour to this suggestion, wl1en one observes th e words c,against the clea1·Iy expressed ,vill» wl1ich follow. It wot1ld appear that t1nless the occ11pier J1as eitb.er before or at tl1e material time clear[y ma11ifestecl his objection to the de fenda.nt's e11try, defendant is not liable. As to how tl1is will is to be mani fested is a fu1iher poi11t, bt1t tl1e Commo11 law r11le tbat a n1an acts at his peri1 118 does not seen1 to have been l1ere retainecl. And to q11ote Mr. Justice Holmes again «tl1e absol11te protection of pro perty howe ver natt1ral to a primitive community more occupied in pro duction t han in cl1ange, is l1ardly consistent ,,.,itl1 tl1e 1-equiren1ents of mo dern b11siness».179 Perl1aps becat1se of tl1is, tl1e la,.v both i11 Engla11d and in the Unted States l1as undergone, and is still undergoin, some cl1ange.160 To see tl1e Alnerican positio11 t,vo examples suffice. The Restate1nent,151 finds trespass only in cases of intentional int1L1 sion or negligence or some extra -hazarclot1s activity. Trespass to la11d, acco1·ding to Prosse1·,'52 rna)' «coi1sist of any entr-y of a person or tl1i11g 11pon a11d in tl1e possession of �he IJlaintiff, or i11 re111ai11ing tlIJOn it, or allo,,vi11g a tl1i11g to remai 11 upon it, wl1ere there is a duty of 1·e1no,,al». Ar_ticle 2053, it ,vil1 be reme1nbe1·ecl, I1arcl ly fits tl1is clefinition. To start . ,v1tl1 ' 1t on·ly speaks o·f 'a <cper-s011» · · · 11ot co11cerned ,v1tl1 a11d 1s a cetIung». Seco _ rr<lly, it says notl1Ï11g abot1t 1·e1nai 11 i11g 11pon tl,e la11cl or allo\ving a . . . . th1n_0 cr to rema 'in t1 pon I • t Tl11r dly, 1t 1s 011.ly concernecl \Vitl1 c<forcecl entry» aga1nst the «cle a1·ly exP1•essecl WI » · ·11 ancl not 1nerely of c,any entry». I11 t1 115 sense' tl1e pro · io - vis · 11 brings a sligl1t in110,,ati o11.

1'HE COMl\fON LA \V ELEl\lENT

16J

(c) Tres1Jass to Goocls ( Atteinte a1.1x bier1s ) ( ;lrt. 2054). Pursuant to this article «a person co1n1nits a11 offence \Vllere, w ithotit due Iegal at1tl101·ity, l1e takes possessio11 ( s'e 11i1Jarer) of propei·ty (bien) against tl1e clearly expr.essecl \Vill of tl1e lavvft1l ow11e1· (possesseur) or pos: sessor (cléterztei1r légiti111 e ) of tl1 e pro1Jerty (bien)». Tllat this provision vvas inspired by tl1e Englisl1 «trespass to goocls» I1as been cor1firmed.•a1 Trespass to goods is sin1ila1· to tres1Jass to lan d in ma11y ways _ also 11ere, 1 ,v1· .ù interfe1·ence of tl1e «poss.ession», as 01Jposecl to «o\vi1er. 0 11gf it is the slup» (in botl1 cases in tl1e E11glisl1 sense), tl1at is the interest IJro�ected. Like trespass to la11d, tl1 e o,.v11e1· can11ot stte fo1· trespass to goocls unless l1e is also the possesso1·. 154 Tl1e \vo1·d goods» is applicable to ail tl1at is «movable» p.roperty. Since, in tl1e old days, mor e en1pl1asis was placed on the character of tlie remedies 1·atl1e1· tl1a11 on rigl1ts, tl1ere grew, beside trespass, tl1e re medies of «Detenué, «Replevin» and «Trover» (freqt1ently called «Trover and Conversion»), tl1ougl1 in p1·actice it \Vas not uncommon to plead «dete nue and conversion as alte1·natives to trespass. 185 But «Trover ( couver. sion)» corresponded to tl1e old Roman law concept of vi11.clicatio»186 vvl1ere. by one asserted l1is ovvnerslùp of lands and goods.18; These are, l1owever, relies of tl1e past a11d tl1e1·e is 110 neecl to go into details. 188 The French expressions discussed in connectio11 witl1 A1·ticle 2053 also ap1Jear l1ere. For that reason, tl1e comn1ents tl1ere 111ade are also applicable in this case. But, unlike the first case, the word «JJ1·operty» (bie1i) occurs l1ere. As already saicl, in E11glisl1 lavv, tl1e ,vord «goods» may mea11 «movable» and other tangibe assets capable of o\vnersl1ip, s11ch as clotl1ing, money, furnitu re, ancl J1ouse-hold equipment; but cloes not iI1clude anything fixed to the land, «such as l1ouses or gro,ving crops». 189 In French law, bie,i in clude s movables and irnmovables; it inclt1des both rights i,i 1·e11i ai1d «ab jects» over vvhich these may be exercised - in otl1er vvords, ail tl1at is capa ble of ownersl1ip and l1as been app1·opriatecl, is a bie,i.'90 The concept has bee11 extenclecl to include <<bie ns inco·rpo•rels», such as I1ypotl1ecs or mortgages, servitudes or easiments, eve n such abstract tlùngs as inlleritance, business concerns, copyrights or family names.'91 t1on a sl n ·a t1 1e tl e b to Tl1e \vords «talces possess1011» rt o ptirp ,..4 J 20 rt. 1• n A • ean to of the Frencl1 ecl lat ns tra en be s � worcl verb «s'en'lJJa1·e r». Tl1is l1a . t0 Jay h ancls on 192 cr 1Jossess1on». in k ta « t 011 1 0 -1 · vv1t and one can certa111ly clo so (( · · e b to 1s n e e s t c a I-Iere, as 1n ' v .J r a r ' 1 't • e ar b trespass to Iancl (A1~t. 2053) a pos1t1v • • n 1o 1s v o r JJ tl1e essence of tl t n e s e r p e tl t 1 l 1e wrong. It l1as been observecl t 1 a btit largely» covers «th e ' 011 · ersi on,, Con1min lavv action of Traver a11d• c . 19) 1n the sense sion». of «ow11.ership» and 11ot of «posses

CHAP'fER

stantially derived from th sub not s i t tl1a tem . 1s sys «no e , · If 1t . tr11e t·I1at 94 ,1 tl1en likewise it ,vo ulct ss» s1Ja tre foi· io11 act an of E11gl1. sh 1 a.\V kIJO\VS . . , . .11s noti·on is also esse11t1al t o modern soc1ety based on that of . . appear tl 95 be fasc1nat1ng to see tl1e \Vorking ed de i11 ld ou w It .1 rld ,vo tlle Western ed with Contin ental bin s, 1n lie co re w Ia 1 o1 mm Co ese th of ancl clevelopnlent s. d ee n n ia p o 1i tl E it su to l ec iz n o 1n ar law and l1 (ix) J1iterferer1ce witli Co11.t1·act (Art. 2056): en ct we tra bet con t,.vo persan s, a a of nce ste exi tl1e of are a,v ng bei If, tllii·d persan enters into another contract wit h one of tbem, thereby rencl ii1g in1possible tl1e performa11ce of tl1e fi1·st contract, be will be liable to the part tl1at suffered f1·om l1is i11terference (paragraph 1). Tl1e plaintiff, 110v.,e,,er, l1as no reason to complain and 110 1·igl1t to sue, if itself failed to take tl1e necessary measures for the effective performance of tl1e con. tract coi1ce1·necl (paragraph 2). At Cornrnon Ia,v sucl1 a civil vv1·ong is called «Maliciou.s Interference ,vitl1 Co11tract», 196 tl1011gl1 s01ne Common la\.\rye1·s simply say «Interference 97 01· «I1 1te1·ference with Business Relation.s». 198 The es,vitl1 Contract»,1 .•se11tial requiren1ents of tl1is civil wrong are that the guilty party sl1ould l1ave l1acl k.I1owledge of tl1e existence of the contract and that it sl1ould l1ave acted with the intention of interfering vvith it.199 The leading case on tl1e subject (tl1at of Litmley v. Gye)20:> is connected with the illustruous na111 e of tl1e Ge1·man composed Wagner. The manager of a Tl1eatre in Lo11don l1ad entered into a contract foi· her exclusive services over a pe1·iod, \Vith the cousin of \Vagner (011e Yohanna Wagner), a \Vell kno\vn opera singer of her days. The defendant (manager of tl1e Opera House, Convent Ga1·clen) persuaded !1er to sign at the latte1· theatre, in breach of tl1e pre,,io11s contract. He ,vas helcl liable in an action for dan1ages brougl1 t by the first n1anager.201 If tl1e interference is 1nade fo1· a «proper» case the1·e may be justifi ca· tion but then tl1e questio · n as to what const1· t11tes «proper» v.1111 not be an easy matter ·202 Again, · ,v l1ile · «lavvful acts of a tl1ird JJarty» n1ay usually constitute justification, this is a fact 11aJ situatio11.203 Article 20S6 does not specifically speak of intentio11 b11t it does so as · to 1<110,vledge by imp .• . . ·) 1·1 cat1on , ris S1nce 11tte1· clis1·ega1·d or contempt ( 111ep of an existing contrac t i11ay · • • 1rnply 1nten t1on to inte1·fere ' it ,vas pro bablY felt tl1at to ment·ion it ·. was s11perfl11011s. Tl1 e defenc·e provided for 1n · tl1 e • oned second paragr apl1 n1 ay b e com,1Ja1·able to tl1e «p1·oper» case n1ent1 201 above; still ' it \VOtlld 3 . r . . not clear to a Common lavvye » . PJJear. tl1at 1t «1s

T.HE COl\lltJON LAW ELEl\·lEN'f

!65

(x) Urifair Co1npetitio11 ( Art. 2057 ):

«A perso11 commits an offence ,vhe1·e, tl11·ot1g11 false publicatioil s ( pttblicatio11s e1-ro11:ées) or by otl1er n1ea11s contrai-y to goocl faitll , . J1e co1nprom1ses ( co1npre111.et) tl1e rept1tation of a procltict or tlle credit of a comn1 ercial establisl1n1ent». I-Iacl it not been for th e express reference205 as co1ning ,vithi rl tI1e no minate torts of Englisl1 la,.v, tl1e proper classification of tl1is civil vvrona 0 \Voulcl l1ave been Cl1apte1· VIII, «Bo1·derline Situatio11s». It I1as been placed uncler the Com1non La,v section me1·ely to a,1 oid confusio11. Tl1e gene1·al principles of Aiticles 1382 a11d 1383 Frencl1 Civil Cocle h ave enabled French la\v to develop tl1e co11cept of co1ioitrre11.ce cléloyale, \vl1ich is definitely of French origin. I11deed, long before tl1e worcls «t1nfair competition» appea1·ed in An1erican jurisp1·ucle11ce, tJ.1e concept was well establis11ed botb in France and elsewbe1·e in Europe; ancl even now unfair conpetition «is a lirnited concept» as known to Con1mon la,v.236 In France, \Vl1i1e the basis of tl1e Ia,v regtùating tl1e subject still remain Articles 1382 and 1383, the begin1ung can be traced back to a La,v of March 4, 1791 \v h ich, inter alia, abolisl1ed merchant corpo1·ations, at1tl1orizecl freeclon1 2 or tracle». in tl1ereof or of «art to engage �' business and to the exercise • In EngJand, if a persan was gt1ilty of rnisrepresentatio11 by \vord or in conduct, he could have been l1eld liable.208 Tl1at is wl1at is meant by

«passing-off» - that is to say, it was wrong for a JJerso11 to «pass-off» bis goocls or his business as tl1ose of anotl1er, so as to c1·eate a conft1sion of tl1e two thingc and so deceive the public that tl1ey a1·e tl1e sa111e. 209 A cominon illustration is \-Vhere some kind of imitation of «clistinctive feattires» of tl1 e plaintiff's goods or copying of trade marks, takes place; the trader \vl1ose good\vill and reputation is so stolen bas then a perfect rigl1t to Slte tl1e responsible persan. As long as tl1ere was «actual or potential» confusion, it 2 0 as not e neces cla111a sary to sho\-V either f.raud, n1alice, or special w g .' I11 tl1e United States , the courts have a tenclency to look for false, utl la,v tr ue, or clisl1onest al ent tin Con e lik t1n , and s; ion cat bli statements 01· pu Wlcle1· are · \Vllere both the pt1blic ves 1 e ms tl1e ong am and the business111an on s the protection ect rot l_Y t IJ Ac o11 ssi mi 11 1 of the law the Fecleral Tracle Co e Pt1blic.211 It also ap; s that tl1e old eqt1ity action of «1Jassi11g.off» h ear l les ab e11 l1a s no\v been clisc l1 1ic wl t Ac e tl1 of arded and replaced by Article 5 a plaintiff « to get speedy injt1ctive relief ».212 • • t1on, . 0 I n Conti. nental Etirope, the 1natter 1s regt1l�itec ' Jea1sla . 1 b Y special

CHAP1"Ell

166

. . especi',aJly ti·ue ii1 Gern1any, NetherJands, Belgit1n 1, S\.vitzerlan d and tl11s 1s a11d ItaJy.213 1 vention ( 1883) has had a lot 1 Co 1·is Pa l 11a tio na ter In e tJ1 at 1 It seems t1 1 ngton Inter-American shi Wa the d an s tl1i th bo 1 . tuJ ii1 , ' d An ·s 11 · tl · to dO Wl·tl1 aring on th e te1·1ninology em. be a d l1a ve ha to a1· pe ap 9) 192 ( n tio eil Conv 1 e Paris Con. of le 10 tic tl bis Ar de. Co il Civ 1 ia1 iop Eth 7 205 e icl Art ployed in 1 e colll·se of t1·a de of a nature to tl in ns tio ega all Jse «fa its I1ib pro n tio ven cliscredit tl1e establislm1e11t, tl1e goods 01· tl1 e se1-vices of a competito1·» and Art. 10 protects cases wl1icl1 ma y «falsely bear as indication of origin tl1e 11ame of a specified locality 01· contry ... » The Inter-American Conven tion 11as two articles whicl1 are pertinent. Article 20 v.1l1ich deals with «any otl1er act or deed contrary to good faitl 1 in indt1st1·ial, commercial or agr. i. cultural matters» a11d Art. 21 (b) and (c) \Vl1ich protects cases involving «the use of false desc1·iptions of goods by \-vords, sy1nbols or otl1er means te11ding to deceive the public in tl1e count1-y wl1ere the act occurs \-vitl1 2 ». 14 goods tl1e of 11tility 01· y qualit e, natw· tl1e respect to Article 2057 E.C.C. requi1·es botl1 false p11blications and otl1er means contrary to good faitri. Moreove1·, it tends to p1·otect the <<reputation of a product» or the «creclit of a co111me1·cial establisl1111ent» and not of a businessman - that is to say, it is the pitblic and not tl1e bitsi1zess111a11 l1in1sel.f \Vl10 is protected. Tl1e req11i1·e1nents of false and good faith see.m to have been inspirecl by tl1e I11ternational Convention; the exclusion of tl1e businessn1 an fron1 tl1e protection seeins. to find i11spiratio11 from the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is to be noted, 110\vever, tl1 at DerembeD' is not satisfied ,vith tl1e position taken by the America11 law and gives tl11·ee examples from tl1e Continental la\.v to sl10,v l1 ow ,vell developed the matter is under tl1 e latter legal systen. 1 215 Tl1e n1atter is of tl1e ut111ost jn1 portance evet°)'\Vhere for tl1e profound implicatio11s tl1at it wot1lcl l1ave on tl1e economic Iife of a given country. There is, in tl1e same article of Deremb.erg, and especially regarding tl1e U.S.A., a prof1.1se bibliograpl1 y whlcl1 migl1t be co1 1stùtecl v.rith profit.216 (xi)

Deceit arzd Otlier l11.ji1.rioils State111.e11.ts (Arts. 2059-2062).

Article 2059 lays dow11 tl1e general principle that ,vl1oe,,er, \vhere J1e is botm<l by the rtùes of l1 is IJrofession, to giv e co1·rect i11fo1i11atio11 (claus e (b)) gives instead false informatio11, eit l1e1· i 11tentionall)' or by 11egligence, to ai1otl1er, lmo\vii:i,g or l1avi11 g a clt1t)' to knovv, tl1at tl1e latter \\.rill rely ancl act t1po11· sucl1 info1 -1 11 at'ion · con m1·t a11c l t11e1·eb)' st1ffer dan1age, ,v1l 1 l an offence (clatise (a)). A te 111pera1ne11t is brougl1 t to tl1is Iule uncler . Article 2060 ' wl1ereby tlie IJerson . respons1ble foi· the false inforn1at1.on, un.1 ess

'fHE COl\1i'dON LA \V El.El\IE�T

167

be 11as made it in_ a signecl cloct11�1en t, \,\lill 11ot incur liabilit)' if Ile vvas rom sec111-i11g 1no11ey, c1·ec lit 01· goods ·foi· tl1at JJei to pte d · . . ·soi1 anc1 ·tJ1e 111 ' P correct inforn1atio11 concer11ed tl1e qtialities ( qi,alités), tlle concluct, the solvency 01· co1npetency of tl1e sa.me. No vvit11ess \Vllose statements bear on the realization 01· no11-realization or on tl1e existe11ce 01- iilexistence of a given eve11t vvill be held liable (A1·t. 2061 (1)), u11less sucl1 statern.er1ts arc inacc111·ate ancl ,vhere the thi1·d parties ha,,e actecl 011 tl1e faitI1 of tl1e same. (parag rapl1 2); but in case a11d ,vl1e1·e tl1ey tl1e1nselves I1a,,e actecl on good faith, they ,vi11 l1a ve a rigl1t to b1·i11g a case against the persan wJ10 J1act led them into e1·1·01· (parag1·apl1 3). Tl1e last Article on tl1e 1natter (2062) empl1atic al1)' denies tl1at a simple advice or recornmendation co11stittites a civil ,-vro11g. Before proceecling fi1rtl1er, thre e inaccuracies of translatio11 must be pointed out. Tl1e F1·encl1 ,,e1·sion of A1·ticle 2059 (a) does not provide only, like tl1e English cot1nterpart, tl1at the person sl1ould kn.o·vv of tl1e falsity of bis information but also tbat l1e oug/1t to kno\v (on cloit sc1voir). Tl1e relevance of tl1is omission, in 011e case, and its inclusion, in tl1e other, can be seen vvl1en emphasis is placed on tl1e conditional requireme11ts of tl1e t\iTong, \Vl1Ïch ai·e irzte11tiori or neglige11ce. Tl1e English versio11 vvot1ld con fine the matter only to inte11tion. Im1necliately after cla11se (a) a11cl im• rnecliately b.efore clause (b) of tl1e same a1·t1cle, tl1e Englisl1 text contains «ori> meaning that eitl1er of tl1e t,vo clat1ses is st1fficie11t; the French version contains no corresponding ou. A111011g that n1atters tl1at \VOttld serve as exceptions (Art. 2060), foi· the general principle (Art. 2059), the English text contains «or unde rta.king» irnmecliately after tl1e te1-n1 ccco111pet ence» (competenc:y). The Frencl1 version lists only four 1�equire1nents - les qiia lités, la conclitite, la solvabilité oit la co111.petence.

Professo r David bas \vritten211 tl1at the non1inate tort kno,.vn as <<Deceit » ander Englisl1 la\\, has served as inspiration for tl1ese articles. Tl1e fol Iowin g clefi 11ition of «deceit» gi,,e11 by Jenks in Section 1002 is thei·efore pertine nt: ' represe11tatio11 «A JJerson wl10 fraudt1lently makes · to anothei- a ta en es pr re ch su on t1p ts ac 1· false in fact' witl1 intent th at such otl1e . . . t e1 ec D . r fo n io ct a n ' ' a . o t · e b 1a 1· t1on, whereby sucl1 otl1er 1s dece1v ed , 1s 1e tl s a 1· . 1e tl o l1 c t1 s b d e er Y to recover clamages foi- any Joss st1 ff clirect consequence of so acti11g».218 n . o ti . c e S 1 i1 cl . 11 ' a l ia ' r te ina In Section 1004 Je11ks states tl1at n1ot1ve 1s 1in 1003 he enumerates the essentials o f tl1e action of Deceit.219 All ki11cls of tl1e r t111de . corne e tl . .. • d l'b 1 erate a11cl reckless false 1 ·ep1-ese11tat1ons f t-aqtie . n Y

CHAl'l'ETT

16Il

otl1e1· 11a111e of «Deceit» se"' tl1e ly cal l1ru tec bt1t • - 111 s t e c 11 1J o c • broad er «Sc1e11ter» of \Vhich 1d cl u1 s. sc tts di o als is 1· te at 111 1e � TJ 0 . to be JJrefei·able.22 2 1 thougl1 rt 1s usually co11ce1 -11ect \ se ca � Vith cleceit is tlle typical D e pr re 1t» i le1 at dt1 nt se au «fr of e s, ok o11 ks en SJJ eceit ca tt]e-trespass. 222 Even jf J ent, provided tbat tli e in tem sta ss» ele a1· «c or ss kle 1·ec y an to no\v extencls tation is tl1at tl1e ot]Jer en es pr re lse fa e tl1 g kin n1a n i·so pe e tl1 teiltion of 223 ·s e1 y ff e eb su ag er m tJ1 d . da n a it 1 o1 . IJerson sI1ouJd 1·ely and act t1p Tltis ci\ril \.\'rong originally formed pa1·t or abu se of legal process (or 22� m de its by n1o n . ow rne kn na en be s l1a 9 178 Under ce sin t bu ) ure of proced e uir req to ary ess nec guaranteed pro. s \va it 7 167 of t1ds Fra of e tut Sta tl1e inises to be signed in ,v1·iting before being actionable, bttt cleceit came to be a good evation, since e,,ery oral statement ,vas not a promise. It was in 01·der to 1·en1edy this sitt1ation and fill this gap tl1at tl1e Statute of Frauds Amendme11t Act., 1828 - otl1en.\TÏse known as Lord Tenclerden's Aci - ,.vas enacted.225 A1tl1ot1gl1 it a1Jplied only to frat1dulent representations, it ,.vas 11ar1·0,.ver tl1an t11e Statute of Frauds, in that it provided tl1at misre presentations as to credit a1·e actionable only if they are in writing signed by tl.1e defenclant l1i111self, so tl1at an agent would be excltided.216 " ud» ' Of .c< Fi·a

No ,vander, tl1en, tl1at Dr. Russell, vvhen com1nenting on Article 2060 (2) sl1ould I1ave ren1arked tl1at the provision appea1-ed to be «a translatio11 i11to Fre11cl1 of Lord Tendercle11's Act, a11cl a 1·e-translation from French into the present E11glisl1 version».221 In fact, \vl1ile Continental lavv may k.no,.v the concept, it does not recognize it as a separate ci,,il ,.vrong.228 Ne,,erthe less, it n1ust be pointed out tl1at even the Common lavv is fa1· fron1 being happy abot1t tl1ese so-called «bt1siness torts» which a1·e «con1plex ,vithout bei11g clear».219 B. STRICT LIABILITY: ( i)

Da11gerot�s Acti,,ities (Arts. 2069-2070):

Article 2069 lays clo,vn the str ict iule tl1at anyone '"'J:10, tl11·ougl1 l1is clangerous activities exposes ànotl1e1· to «abno1· 111al risks» n1ust be l1eld liable for the restilt (paragrapl1 1); ancl th is is t1�t1e eve.n ,.vl1ere tl1e autl1or . is tl1e State o1- someone who 1as . . 1 at1t 1 1or1ty f1·0111 «public autl1or1ty» (1Jar agrapl1 2). A 11eigl1bot11· \-vhose prope · · cle1Jrec1ated rty 1s as a result of· tI1e abnormal risk . · create d 1· s not,. l1ke,v .1se, e11t1tl . ed to a11)' damage except. ,.vl1ere there is fatilt on t..11e part of tl1e clefanclant (Art. 2070). Tl1ere are .fottr . . · s1tt1at1ons contenlJJ1 ate . d by Article . 2069 as ex1Josing anotl,er to ab· 11ormal risk:s:

THE C0:\-11\lON LAW ELE�lEN'f

Using or stori 11g explosive or IJoisonous (t· ox iqile) st1bsta11ces· (b) E 1 ·ecting J1 jg l1-te11sion elect 1ic t1·asn1issio11 Jines·' · (c) Modifyin g the lie of the la11cl ( co,ifigitratio·rz 1ictlitrell e clit terrain); (d) Engaging in ru1 exceJJtionally cla11gero11s industrial activi ty. (a)

The abnormal risk s o createcl, 110\,vever, 11111st materialize ai,cl catise clamage to a11othe1· person. Tl1at the Commo11 la\.v as exposecl i11 tl1e leading cases of Ryla,icls v. Fletcher1" and Dorzoghue 1,. Steve11so11.231 wa s taken i11 to account ancl that it sen1ed as inspir ation i11 tl1e preparation of tl1ese provisions is beyond cloubt.2..1� 011t of tl1e two, tl1e oldest and to son1e extent the rnost impor tant in the area of strict liability, is tl1e case of R)1la11.ds v. Fletcfzer. TI1is \Vas a case of a reservoir of \,vate1· \Vl1ich IJlaintiff l1ad the defe11da11t co11struct on the for111e1·'s land. Undiscoverecl by the contracto1 · \vere some disused mining sl1afts filled up \A.1itl1 rubbisl1, \Vitl1ot1t the owner's kno\,v ledge or negligence. When the reservoir \,vas filled \,Vith water, tl1e shafts caused it to flood and escape into the neigl1bouring mine. The Hot1se of Lords held the defandant liable foi· tl1e da1nages so causecl. Tl1e judgment \vas delivered by Lord Blackbtrrn \Vl1ose follo,ving \VOrds made lùstory: <cTl1e persan \.Vl10 for l1is O\.Vll purposes brings on l1is lancl and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at lùs peril, and if be does not do so is prirna facie ans\verable for all tl1e damage tl1 at is the natt1ral conseqt1ence of its escape». It is from this rule that tl1e Com111011 lavv of strict liability \vas evol ved2·u - a man acts at bis peril and is responsible for accidentai harin, in dipendently of the existence of either \.Vrongful intent or negligence. En glish jurists hav e elaborated a ntrmber of exceptions, five of \vl1icl1 ai·e liste d i11 Salmo ncl's standa1-d book o n the law of civil wro11gs.234 In Englancl, tl1e nile bas been stretched in the years since its pronouncen1ent. Tlltls, it has been extended to cl1emicals, fire, electricity and water, trees, cllimney sta cks, motor-cars; and eve n unloacled gtms somewhat 1·eluctantly, have made been held to corne n bee also l1as tion ges sug The e.2Js rul witlùn this • d . · n a that tl1e pr1·nc1ple ts ec ll o c as n ri b anyone O , 11c applies to anytb1ng w 1 · h of e us keeps upo n his land, ary n i 0rd e 1 tl . of se ur otl1erwise tl1an in th e co u11tl1e land, whic an 1se cat to ely lik is e cas h in the circumstances of tl1e d e d clue ns 11 e t x e · k or mischi t e y t o 11 6 1ave 1 . d ges . Jll ef to others·2J but Engl1sl1 . ' it t 0 cove r • .· 1 13s ca 11eirz - l1bot1r1ng vict1n1 persona! injury cases «un1ess the Pro perty inter est». 2J7

liO

CI-lAP'fEll

s v. Fletclier l1as 11ot been fully c,rzd Ryl of 1·ule e 1 t1 tes Sta d e , ·t 1 11 J11 tl1e U bro ad enough to be developed to ,.vas 1t1la forn the , less ·the e 1 ev N . 1 . c acœpte . . ts, s ur 1 1 1 develop1ng the 1 1s. Tl1e U11ited State co tio tia sit 1er otl ny ma r ve co 1 e English acl1ieve1nents to arrive tl ed us , ore ref tl1e , it)' bil lia la\v of strict 238 whereby a pe1 ·so1 1 is , strictly liable e rttl » ies ivit act at tlle «ttltraJ1azardous sed age cau by da1n for any ultra- 11a. ce igen 1egl 1 of of pro t lloti \vit i.e. _ 23 9 But e,,e11 so, a limited adop ed. zai·clous operations i11 \.vhicl1 I1e is e 11gag 240 t men tl1e tate Res in 1 fot ncl and even be 1 tion of R)1larlds 11. Fletc/1.er ca1 111ose jtirisclictio11s tl1at reject the 171.le bave accepted its underlying priu 24 1 . es» o1i tJ1e er 1 ciple «unde1 · tl1e cloalc of various otl TJ1e Ameiica.n doct1·ine of «t1ltra-hazarclous acti,,ities» l1as also been f11sed \.Vitl1 tl1e 1·ttle in R)1lc111.ds 11. Fletclzer i 11 tl1e elaboration of the pro 242 . Code Civil pian visio11s of Article 2069 Etlùo

(ii) Mc,rzitfactitred Goocis ( Art. 2085): A rnanufactt1rer-selle1 · of goods in liable foi· any da.mage to another resulting fron1 the nor1nal 11se of s11cl1 goods to the pt1blic (paragraph 1); except ,vhere tl1e defect co11ld 11ave been discovered by a. n exainination of tl1e goods, acco1·cling to 1Jractice (itsage) (parag-i·apJ1 2). A st1ggestio 1 1 l1as been 1nacle tl1at tl1 is 1J1·ovisio 11 e11 visages a situation equivale11t to the Com1 11on la\v concept of «products liabilit)'».243 Reference to tl1e cas e of Do11ogl1.ite v. Steverisorz bas already been 111 ade in connec tion ,vitl1 A 1 ·ticles 2069-2070. In that case, tl1e plaintiff claimed tl1at an opa que bottle of gi 1 1ge1·bee1· \-vas fo1u1d to l1ave contai11 ed tl1 e clecomposed re n1 ai1 1s of a snai1, ,,vl1icl1 she discove1·ecl wl1en sl1e l1ad almost consu.med the contents. Pa1·tly as a 1·est1lt of \vl1at she sa\v ancl lJartly because of tl1e drink, she beca111e seriously ill. She sued t11e 111 a111lfactttrer of the ginger bee1·. It ,.vas J1eld tl1at tl1e defendant owed ,1 dt1t)' of care to tl1e ultimate constuner to take reasonable precautio11 s so as to ensu1·e tl1e safet)1 of l1is IJrodt1cts. Tl1e case enabled tl1e Englisl1 co11rts to fo1"11 1ulate a generalized criterion foi· dete1-rnining liability tmcler tl1 e specific tort of negligence ,.vhicl1, until then, l1acl been vaguely visualizecl ttnder an «actio 1 upo11 tl1e 1 case for negligence».244 Tl1e doctrine of «duty of ca1 ·e» of Lord Atki1 1 can1e to be well-evol,,ed as a rest1lt245 ancl tl1 e sta1 1darcl of a 1 ·easonable 111an, use<..l as a meas1t1ing rod by tl1e juclges, \\'ell fo rtified.216 TI1e doctri11e of «proclucts liability» i 11 tl1 e U 11 itecl States is illt1strated in tl1e leadii1g case of A1c J)J1.erso11. ,,. Bilick lvlotor Co. 2• 1 \.vl1ere Judge (later Justice) cardozo 11elcl tl1at a ca1· negligently co1 1st�·t1cted becomes «iro minently da11gerat1s».2"8 Tl1e IJ1·esent JJositi.011 is to l1old tl1e n1anufact1irer strictly liable if 011ly tl1e injt1riot1s proclt1ct vvas 11ot reaso11ably fit».2'9

1".UE C0�11\:ION l.1\ \V ELE1\1EN'l' ----- ------------ ------ - -

- �1� 71

In England, the ma1111fact11.rer is 11ot liable if tl1 e clefect cotilcl 11ave be en clisco,,erecl by a reaso11able ins1Jectioi1.25ù It ,vo11ld appea1· tl1at A1·ticle 2085 Etl1iopian Civil Cor...te· was , conce1,, · ed 251 1 1 tio era y co1 1 lic sicl s. po e sam n e o tl1 C. MODE fu'JD EXTENT 01� COMPENSATION: Jt bas been mentioned tl1at tl1 e Commo11 law 1(110\vs of no 11eat di,,ision bet,veen mate1·ial and 111oral cla1nages. It is settlecl, 110\vever, t11at in En. g lan d, \vilf11l ,vrongs s11cl1 as assa11lt, secl11ctio11 libel, etc., entitle tl1e plain tiff to «exemplary 01· vindicti, re» <lainages wl1icl1 n1ay, practically, amount to compensation for mo1·al tJre-j11dice.252 Tl111s, tl1e provisions tl1at follo\v l1a,;e been placed 1111cle1· tl1e category of tl1e Common La,v not because they are pectùiar to tl1at syste111 alo11e b11t beca11se they l1ave a beari11g 011 some Cam.mon Ia,-v specific ci,,il vvrongs. (a) Nloral DcL1nctges - ( Arts. 2107-2112, 2114-2115):

Persuant to tl1e provisions of Articles 21.05 ancl 2106, 111oral da1nages under the notion of «inde1,1znité eqilitable», tra11slated as «fair co111pensa tion», may be a,-vardecl in tl1e follo,\1i11g cases: (i) Pl1ysical Assa11lt (Art. 2107 as reacl vvitl1 Arts. 2038-2039); (ii) Unla\vf11l Restraint of 011e's Liberty (Art. 2108 as reacl vvitl1 A1·ts. 204- 0-2043);

(iii) Ins111t or Defarnation (Art. 2109 as read \-vitl1 Arts. 2044-2049); 50 20 . ts A1 1 itl vv ad re as 10 21 . rt (A s se ou (i,,) Injury to Rigl1ts of Sp 2051);

(v) Abd11ction of Chilcl (Al·t. 2111 as 1·eacl with Arts. 2124-2125); as 12 21 rt (A ·) 11s e L' (B t er ro p ·· 1J Y • 11 (vi) \iVrongful Interfe1·ence w1t read witl1 Arts. 2053-2054-2055);

); 51 -20 50 20 . rt A 1 itl vv l ac 1·e as (vii) Indecent Assat1lt (Art. 2114 (vii) Indecen t Assault (Art. 2114 as 1·ead witl1 Art. 2050-ZOSl); . l) 0S -2 50 20 s. rt A h it w l ac (viii) Inj111·y to Wife (A1·t. 2115 as re f o e · it JJ S n I . 1t i1 o p 1 ir For t· he sake of clarity, a fe,.v obser·vat1ons see111 . . cl. 1 «111cl1v t11e · · ence its Ins1st cts e · fl re a,v fo1· mate1�ial damage, tl1e Commo11 1 be to . cl te exJJec t1al'is1·ism» of e ' b the Anglo-Ame1ican society. Deal1 iigs inay . . le J J1,nc11 l . except. 10 fair' b Lit «the a ge11er 1 Tlie • llcl,. 1· dL1ty to protect otl1e1�s 1s

172

CEIAP1'Ell VI

3 By tl1e saine toke11, there is a11 25 . self» l1im ect prot t mus n �ma . tl· 1at eve1J 1s ill �e p1·�t�cted agai11 st e\,er y. y iet so tl1 of ion sit p e tI1 at 1 tJ l � exiJ.ectatiol � � � als . clu on 1v1 at1 Ind are also \1ery fam de of law the 1n ith tn for ept exc tbÎllg is clualism of belon ging Tl1 gs. lin fee eir th d an l1ts rig ir tl1e to as le stisceptib some rt1Ies of cornmon con. to ing ·m fo1 con ly ab \1it ine d an ( )' iet soc tlle to cluct) on tI1e one sicle, ancl tl1e desire to be fre e, on the otl1er, has createcl ted it; Uni the b wit States, instea d, g blin furo l stil is land Eng . blem JJro a seems to J 1a,,e found a solutio11, by de,,elopu1g a separate civil wrong 5 Tl1c essence of this civil \1.rrong is tl1e ». acy 25 priv of n asio known as «inv invasion to the right «to be let alone» so as to er1jO)' life - to deter. mine 011e's o,v11 mode of life; to order one's own Iife; to n1 anage one's own affairs in a desired manner - of course, ,vitb clue regard to 256 lic. e 1 tl pub or rs otl1e of t rigl1 tl1e for aocl consicleration Tl1is is a typical case of «judge-made» Ia,v. In fact, before its inceplion 257 in tl1e famot1s Wa1·1·en-Bra11deis la,..., re,,ie,v a1-ticle, tl1ere ,vas 110 express recognition of tl1e right of privacy as st1cl1 , in the Common law \vorlcl. Blackstone, Kent and othe1· co1nn1e11tators of tl1e Comn1 on La,.v ancl Equity n1 acle no rnention of it. No reference is n1ade of it in Just.ice Holme's T/1e Co,11.111-011 Lciw. It dicl not appear in tl1e sta11da1·d Tort text-books of tl1at periocl. Nor did the fiery protectors of l1 uman liberties and funda.rnental freecloms - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseat1, Montesqt1ieu, Spence1·, Pai11e expressly refer to it.256 P1·ior to 1890, therefore, every adjt1clicated case, botl1 in England and in tl1e U11ited States of America, \Vl1 icl1 might be said to l1ave involved a 1igl1t of privacy, was not basecl upon in.clipendet1t existence of sttcl1 right bL1t ,vas found upon a st1 pposecl 1·igl1t of prope1·ty or breacl1 of trust or of conficlence. Si11ce tl1 e inflt1 ential Warren-B.rancleis article, 110,vever, tl1e right of privacy has made long strictes in various An1,e1·ican jt1risdictions, eitl1er as Common law or statt1tory la\v.259 No,v, if one was to argue fro111 tl1is point of vie\v, it ,.vould seem to follow that any ,vrongful interfere11ce witl 1 tl1 is broad 1·ight of being «let alone» would entitle the plaintiff to damages. Since offensi,,e co11duct many a time l1urst one's feelings, tl1e avvard of n1 01·al da.mages, so a.s to assuage tl1ese feelings, seems to be i 11 orde1�. Ir1 tl1at lig l1 t, 011e can, perl1 aps, better aJJJJreciate tl1e positio11 taken b)' tlie framers of th e Etl1iopia11 Civil Co de in tl1e elaboratio11 of tl1e sectio n tl1at deals vvitl1 Moral Damages, tl1e p1 ·ovisions of ,vl1 icl1 seem, at times, to be ovei·Iapping. Tl1t1s, ,vl1 ile so1ne of tl1ese p1·0,,îsions a1·e clearly i11te11ded to refer to some specific civil ,vro11g s (st1cl1 as A1·ts. 2107, 2108, 2109 or 2110), tlJere m·e others wl1icl1 caru1ot be so easily fitted. 011e exan11Jle is tlie clifference (if any) bet,veen artic les 2114 a11d 2115. Wl1 e1·e tl1e1·e l1as beeii a criminal con,1ict10 • ' 11 e· ·1 tl1er• for ra1Je or for 111clece 11t assault ( atte1.·1it a' la

TfIJ; CO;'illtlON L.-\\V ELEà-fE N1'

17 .l

160 itr) J?tLde ' tl1e l1t1sband of th e ,vo1na11 01· tl1e fatI1er of tlle g11 • .1 co11cernecl, . as tlle case n1ay be, n1a)' be ent1tlecl to m or al cla111ages {i)aragrapll 2); tll is 111 or 1 al clamages ,vl1 ich 1 na y be avvarclecl iil adclitio11 to tl e to tlle victinl 11erself (paragraph l). Uncle1· A1·ticle 2115, tl1 e I1 usbai1d 11as equally ail inclepenclent 1 ·igl1t to n1oral satisfaction ( paragra1)ll 2) '"'llere bodil:y inju ry ( clo,rzrnage pl1.)1si qtte) has bee11 inflictecl on l1is vvife, as a resttlt of vvllicll · become less usefttl (11 1.oirts ittile) or less her companio11sl1ip has acceJ)table (11zoi11s agrécible) {parag 1 ·apl1 2). W11y, foi· instance, is th e criminaJ convictio11 111e11tionecl on Jy in Article 2114 ? Is it not possible that a crin1inal offence could be com mitted t111cle1· tl1e situatio11 envisaged by Art. 2115 ? While Article 2113 (mention of wl1icl1 will be made bereafter) speaks of l)hysical inj1iries (lésioris corporelles); A1·ticle 211 5 is conce1·ned with do111.1nage physi qiie. Whether tl1e cl1oice of t11ese vvo1·cls vvas deliberate or vvl1ether it was dtie to a.n oversigl1t, is a matte1 · tl1at may be clea1·ed 11p vvhen, l1opefully, mo1 ·e light ,�ill be sl1ed on tl1e t1..axaux préJJa1•atoires. It is t1"L1e tl1at 1111d�r Article 2113 it is tl1e «fa111ily», · as contrastecl to Article 2115 where it is the {(ht1sband>), tl1at is entitlecl to tl1e 111 01·al damages, but conft1sion may still

OCCLIT.

Where there is a cri111inal convictio11 for tl1e abdt1ctio11 ( e ·nlé11en1.erit) of a cl1ild (Art. 2111) ,vl10 l1 ad been in tl1e Ia,vfuJ custocly (garcle) of an otber (Arts. 2124 and 2125), moral dan1ages n1ay be awarded to tl1e latter. Since ti1e Table AlpJ,zabétiqi1e des Matiè1·es lists Articles 2111 ancl 2125 as those containing t11e concept of tl1e French «garcle d'uri e11.fa11.t», it seems dot1btful \vhetl1er a person wl10 l1ad tl1e san1e cl1ilcl t1nder l1is « JJrotectio1'l» or «supen,ision» (Art. 2052) is entitled to n1oral da1nages. Article 2112 seen1s to co,,er cases ,vhich 1nay corne within tl1e A111e1·ican . · · · civ11 wrong of «1nvas1on · t o p11vacy». No one sl1ot1ld be di st tirbe- d, unless l1e permits it, in tl1e e11joyment of lus land or his l1011se (Art. 2053); or of property (bien) ,vluch 11 e retai11s either by JJOssessio,i or clétentio1'i légiti777e

(Art. 2054); or in l1is contractual relations ( A1·t. 2055) · s Finally, it migh.t be pointed ou t tl1at Article 2109 (clefamation) co111bine _ . s le . 1c rt insult ( zn7i A 1 i1 1· a e p p a t c: o n · · t,e) w1t oes c h clefamation, ,vl11Ie tl1e worcl 1 261 1 . . · a in 4 iin cr 204 -204 9. At Comm on law li bel ( as opposed to slander) is also · · not so foi· insult - thus Wl1ile 1n · clefam ation pt1blication is necessa.ry, 1t 1s ne, . lo a Where one calls e r a y e l1 t n e l1 vv · e t anotl1e r \Vitl1 an offensive epyt·b , d e . n io tl1e re 15 · no t n e . . m e r o f e b s clefamat1on but there n11ght be 1nsti1 t.. 262 A . . ,· 263 ta. LI t int; . both of ·· ce clelict l f ama t1on ,v l a ancl insult cle1·ive from the Roman · ,. · l i,,Un cler arti• tl1at 1ns se <t 1 . ' cle 583 of tl1 e Etl1 opian Penal Cocle, l1 o,ve,,ei 0

CHAP1'ER

174

si,lte is 311 offe11ce com111itted by SJJoken word, wl1ereas l'injitre is coinmit tecl by gestt1res (gestes) only.261

(b) Qt/1.er 1\llocles of Co11111erisation (2120-2122). terial (A1·ts. 2090-2091) and ma to 1 io1 dit ad in , on ati fam de of rs tte ma In rt can 01·de1· IJUblication as cou tl1e ·, pe1 pro ges ma da 9) 210 ·t. (Ai ral ino te be l Jria wil ro1 is app Th . ant end def where e 1 tl of e ens exp the at pitblicité t tl1 e honottr and ins aga ed ect dir are ) nts 111e sse cLgi ( ngs doi 's ant end def tlle the reputation of one 01· more pe1·sons, so as <<to cot1nte1· tl1e effects of tl1e cLgisse111e11.ts» (Art. 2120). Also in tl1e case of unfai1· competition (Al·t. 2057), tl1e court can put a11 end to tl1e clishonest practices (111a11.oeitvres) e111 ployed b)' tl1e defendant by ordering I1in1 to clesist from st1ch practice (Art. 2122). D. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTION OF OTI1ERS (OR VICA RIONS LIABILITY):

Defar11atio1i: Article 2135 pro,,ides tl1at tl1e «managing editor of tl1e ne,.vs-

1�ape1·, tl1e IJri11ter of tl1e pamplùet, or tl1e publisl1er of tl1e book, shall be liable u11der tl1e Ia,.v, for tl1e defan1ation co11.1 1nittecl by tl1e autbor of a printed text». 111 tl1e Arte,niLs Case,265 along with tl1e jour11alist, tl1e editor of the ne-.v SJJaper, too, had bee11 held jointly liable.2(,6 Tl1at \Vas clt1e to the objective test of tl1e Con1 mon la,.v tl1at 011 e \Vl1 0 pt1blishes cloes so at l1is peril. Tl1e same rule seems to l1ave been incorporated for tl1e pu11Jos,es of Article 2135. Tl1e fact tl1at tl1e eclitor \Vas held liable in Arte111.zts did not relieve tl1e at1tl1or of tl1e article from liabilit)'. Likewise l1ere, tl1e editor, printer or pL1blisl1er will vica1·iously a11swer for tl1e at1tl101· of tl1 e text bt1t it cloes not mea11 that tl1e latter ,vill be 1·elieved f:ron1 liability. Tl1 at a differe11t ap1Jroacl1 seen1 s to ha \re bee11 take11 i11 tl1e Etl1iopia11 Penal Code l1as bee11 al1·eady re1narked.261 Chapte1· J\l, Title II, Bool< I, deal s ,.vitl1 crimes arising ot1t of pt1blication (Arts. 41.47). Article 42 refers to tl1e autl1or of tl1e text ,vl10 J1as tl1e JJrincipal 1·espo11sibilit)', \\ l1ile seco11da1-y 1·espoi1sibility is prescribecl for tl1e 111a11ager 01· edito1·, 1Jublisl1er or prin ter, or distribt1tor (Art. 43). But Article 46 exclL1d es t l1e JJtmisl1n1ent of tl1e 0thers, if tl1e n1ain res1Jo11sible 1Jerso11 in the order fixed by Ia,v l1as been JJtLDisl1ed. Since tl1is article speal<:s of «JJtu 1isl1 n1.e11t» as opposed to «co1l'vic tioi1», it see 111s likel)' tl1at, i11 Jrinci1J le, tl1e objecti,,e test seen1 s to l1a,,e I been retained. 111 tl1is connctio11, tl1 e polie)' bel1incl tl1e 1Jro,,isio11s of Article 2135 Etl1iopia11 Ci,,il Cocle 111.igl1t be be_tte1· t1nderstoocl. 1

TIIE CO!\'ll\lO:-. LA \V ELE illENT

175

E. ACTION FOR DflMflGES.

Effect of Crirrzirial

011

Civil Jlctio11: ( flrt. 2149 ).

\Vl1ile it is trt 1.e that one a11cl tl1e saine act n1ay give rise to botll a civil \vrong a11d a crin1i11al offe11ce, i11 dete1111ini11g \vl1 etl1 er or not a civil \Vro11 g l1as been cor11n1ittecl, tl1e cï,,il cot1rt co11cer11ecl \vill not be bouncl by eitl1e1· an acquittai or ,1 cliscl1arge 1nacle by a criininal court in coilnec tion ,vith the defenclant (A1·t. 2149). Tltis provisio11 cliffers fro111 the practice obtainecl u11cler Frencl1 Iavv. In Fra.nce, ,,vl1ere tl1e act of tl1e defe11 cla11t creates botl1 a civil ancl a criminal liability, tl1e victin1 l1as a cl1oice as to \vl1icl1 co11rt to apply for con1pensatio11 due to tl1e civil \\1 1·011g. He may simply instit11te lus case before a civil cot1rt, b11t in st1cl1 a case tl1e civil suit must be kept pending - but not 11ice liersa - to avvait the 1·esults of the criminal trial. If, 011 tl1e other hand, l1avi11g ,veighecl all the advantages and clisaclvantages,268 tl1e victim elects to l1ave 1·ecourse to tl1 e crin1 i11 al court and brings his civil clain1 tl1 ere, he can do so by givi11g 11 otice of tl1 is to the co11rt and by in dicating that l1e ,vants to take l )art in tl1e c1·i111 inal cot1rt as a pcirtie civile. ln such a case, botl1 tl1 e crin1i11al l)roceeclings and tl1e civil action \\1ill be decided at the san1e tune, b)' tl1e sa.me court, wl1icl1 l1as povv.e1· to ptmisl1 tl1e accused in accor·clance witl1 tl1 e criminal law ancl award clamages (botl1 mate.rial and 1noral) i n accordance vvith tl1e ci,1il law.269 Once this takes place, it migl1 t be tl1e end of tl1e matter. Bt1t v\rl1 ere tl1e victim l1as chosed to subnut l1is civil actio11 in tl1e ci,;il cot11·t, tl1 e latter co11rt, as a general rule, will be bound « to follow tl1e clecision of tl1 e c1·in1inal co11rt». 2;0 1--Ience, tl1e importance of p1io1·ity to tl1e c1·i111i11al proceedings. Identical resL1lts are reacl1ed t111der Italia11 law. Also tl1ere, criminal proceedings have prio1·ity over tl1e civil st1it; tl1e civil court cannot, on tl1e san1e facts , reacl1 different results ancl clerive diff.erent consequences from tl1ose of tl1e crim i11al cot11·t.2;1 vVI1ere tl1ere bas not been a conviction, hovvever, tl1e civil cot1rt is e111po,,verecl to consider the reaso1 1s belund the criininal cot1rt's decision a11d Iool< foi· s0111e clisti11 guishii1 g factoi·s. Tl1tis, if there is an ,,acquittai» on tl1e gro1111cl tl1at eitl1er 110 offence l1 ad take place or that it l1as 11ot bee11 co111 mittecl by tl1e defe11dai1t, tlus determii1a tion will be bincling but not so if tl1ere is a «cliscl1arge».2;2 . It l1as been remarkecl that tl1e s111111Ita11eot1s c u·sposa1 0f both tl1e cr1· 1n·1nal JJ11n1·sl1111e11t ancl tl1e compensa•t10n · for c1·,,1·1 dan1a Oaes b'.J-' •tl1e · l a . • · 1n 1m cr 1 cl cr1· n1·1nal cot 1 rt is n re F f o s tire t ea f «011e of tl1e mo st cl1st111ct1 ve . Pt-ocedt1re \.Vhen com.pa1-ed \.Vitl1 tl1at of Engla11cl or Nor·tl1 i-\01erica» 213 Tl1. 1s . · v1ct1111 is so because, 1 1i t tl1e l)ei-i no t . oes c 1 a\.\' 1 as a general nùe, Co111 111011

176

CflAP1'ER

. 1 in1self in the criminal proceedings as a l oin J to nce offe , al · , 1n • n of a cr11 there. A civil st1it is indipe11ctent . . pal-tY and ages dam civil in obta tl1us ' C!Vl 1 injured JJarty must bri11g a se1Jarat e tl1e ly, ent qu nse Co al. ti·i al llin crù 1 a 11 fro 274 . es ag am d f O civil actio11 for the a,.var d 1-Iistorical 1-easons may l1elp one to find an explanation. In England, ted a of vic con s ,va n «felony» capita J ma if a 1·y, 1tu ce1 l1 e11t hte eig the il unt re we ds forfeited to the King. goo his and d ose imp ally usu s wa en.t punisllm If the victim of the offence was to be allowed to bring a civil �u.it for damages, it \vould have bee11 detrimental to the pecuniary interests of t11e Kii1g275 _ hence, the indipendence of the proceedings in the two courts and tI1e need foi· a separate civil action. Ad.mittedly, too, tl1e weigl1t and the natt1re of tl1e evicle11ce ,,aries i11 tl1e two cot1rts and so is its probative value. !11 a cri1ninal trial, the evidence must be such as to vvarrant the guilt of fhe accused «beyoncl any reso11able doubt»; in a civil action, the 1·equireroent is tl1at it sl1ottlcl be «preponderant and credible».276 A1110s and \,Valton, do not empl1atically deny tl1at in EngJand a,n in jurecl party can obtain an a,vard of damages on compensaton for the civil ,-vrong. Wl1at tl1ey say is that «it is seldom possible to recover damages for the c ï,,il \vrong in tl1e course of criminal proceedings ... »2n Tl1e)1 im pliedl)' adn1it tl1at there may be son1e exceptions. Indeed, in England, tl1e cot1rt tl1at t1·ies an «indictable offence» is some time empowered by «statute to a\vard con1pensation to persans injured by it.»2;8 It would also appear tl1at the United States cot1rts with their doctrine of negligence per se are more prepared tl1an tl1e English cours to allow tl1e victim greater cl1.ances of recover)', ,,vl1ere tl1is is allowed by statute.279 Tl1e general rule, however, seems still to prevail bath in America and E11gland, tho11gl1 also there tl1e c1·irnina1 proceedings corne before the civil.280 It is also significant tbat tl1 e State of Lot1isia11 a wl1ich l1as a civil Ia,v system J1as, since 1950, opted for tl1e Co1111non law n1Ie.281 In tl1e case of Etl1 iopia, tl1e position cloes 11ot see111 so clearly eut. TI1e Per1al Code en1 powers tl1e c1·imi11al juclge to a,. •.rard co1npensation in tl1e course of tl1e c1imi11 al J)roceedings wl1ere th e offence l1as also ci:111sed con siclerable ( 11otable) 282 cla1nage, tbougl1 n1 atters of stancli 110other co11di0 an d • tions are to be regulated in accordan ce ,,vitl1 the pri11ciples of ci\ril la\V (Art. IOO (1) ). It expressly pro,,icles tl1at, an1ong otl1er tl1ings, tl1e injured party can take part in tl1e crimi11 al proceedings as a partie civile (A1·t. 100 (2)) and gi\res tl1e co1u·t d1'scret·· · · ion t o · 01· d er, 111 appropr1ate cases, that par·t of· . the fine o1· J)roceeds of tlle . . . saIe o f· tl1e .. se1zecl prope1-ty be pa1cl as «1nde m-

THE COMMON LAW ELEi\I ENl'

177

nity» to the victim (AI·t. 100 (1 )) . It is also provicled tllat '- ·th.e const·1tt1t.1on as , a partie civile is to be regulatecl by tl1e Code of cr1· 1111n • a1 proceclt1re (100 (3)). Tl1is 1 ·eq11i1·ement is i1npli111ented by Articles 154--159 E.C.P.C. bttt even so it l1as bee11 1·emarked tl1at the Iattei· Code sti"ll «be111g · lilCOlU· » , it vvould l1ave been m or e logical to follo,.v the EnglisJ1 system.2s) let e p

Tl1at English practice played a part in the elaboration of Article 2149 Ethiopian Civil Code is beyoncl cloubt, as affirmed by tI1e exiJert 11imself.2a� Tl1is means that tl1e injured party is free to start a ci,,il action and there pt1rst1e tl1e matte1· fu.rther. Hovvever, tl1e question l1as been raisecl ai1d ans,vered in tl1e negati,,e, ,.vl1ether tl1e provisions of Article 2143 (2) _ period of limitation - may be a bar.255 111 France, in a civil action wl1icl1 flows from a civil act prope1· (where the civil vvrong does not co11stitt1te also a crin1inal offence) tl1e lapse of time is thirty years. Wl1ere a criminal offence is involved, this time-limit is reduced usually to ten years, to three years a11d to one year, depending on the seriousness of the criminal offence.286 Tl1ougl1 there is stro11g critic. ism on the part of French legal writers a.s to tl1ese limitations, tl1e la1vv is that «the civil action prescribes witl1in the time-limits of tl1e penal ac. t1on» .,.<ll'

Art. 2143 (2) Ethiopian Civil Code provides tl1at in st1cl1 cases it is the time-limi t im.posed by tl1e Penal Code fhat prevails - where tl1e Penal Code prescribes a longe1· period of limitation, it is tl1e latter tl1at ,vould apply in an action for damages. Bt1t A1-ticle 232 of tl1 e Etl1iopian Penal Code expressly lays do"vn that the period of limitation in similai· cases is regtùated b)' tl1e provisio11 s of the civil law. Mo1·eover, wl1ere tl1e prescription of tl1e penal actio11 l1as alread)' taken place befor.e that fixed for the civil action the malter n1ust be take11 before tl1e civil court, as tl1e criminal court ,.vould no longer have jurisd.iction (Art. 232 (ètl. 2). Since the latter provision vvas enactecl before tl1e Civil Code it seems likely that it merely intendecl, as it we1�e, to leave the doo1· open. Except for tlle provision s of Article 2143 (2) and for the 1·ecovery of property ,vhere th e provisions relatino to unlawful enricl1ment (AI·ts. 2162.2178) ,vould a1Jply, 0 the time-limit for actions for damages is tvvo years (Art. 2143 (l) and · 1 e ·limit · e 011ly wI1ere tl1 e t111 (3)). Thus, a conflict (i f an)') woulcl seen1 to aris for tl1e criminal action îs less th an two yea1·s. Tlus remote possibility see111 s 1e n ti 1e tl to a d 1 1 to 11ave been e b . Sl mti ing tl1at recourse vid bed pro cur by • · e 1·imi·t is st11Je1ior tha11 · ·t 1irni fixed for the crimi11al action onl)1, if thi s tim . tl1ervv1se O ). (2 43 20 l\vo years. T I1at le ic 1·t A of seen1s, at least, th e import

178

CEIA P'fEit

tlle ci·iminal cotirt wottld be cleba1·recl fron1 accepti11g tl1e ci,,il suit, wher e there l1as been a conviction (AI-t. 158 E.C.P.C.). So, if tJ1ere is no bar to a ci,,il action being bro11ght by the victim as a 1-esttlt of tI1e acquittai 01· cliscl1a1·ge in tl1e crirninal JJrocedings, tllis ,.vould seem to be dt1e - not to tl1e fact tl1at people cottld «110 longer properly speak of a clai1n arising fro111 a cri1ni11al offe11ce»233 but to tl1e fact tbat there is no co11.flict between tl1e two actions for two main reasons: (a) that tl1e ci,,il cot1rt is not bou11d by tl1e decision of tl1 e. criminal cour t (Art. 2149); and (b) tl1at eve11 if a remote possibility of conflict would have existed, the provisions of tl1e t\vo Codes l1ave been sincronized, so as to prevent this conflict. In tllÏs sense, too, the1·e i s a departt11·e from the hold ing of tl1e Frencl1 Cot11·t of Cassatio11.239

NOTE C H A P T E R VI

· ln this Chapter the writer will l:>e d rav-11ng 11eavi 1 y fro,11 his unpublished paper at Yale Law School, see supra no te l O ( Chapter 1). But 111ore specifically see David, R., Un Projet de Code sur la Responsabilité Civile, at 237: «Les disp ositions générales, ainsi posées (Arts. 2027 to 2037), auraient pu à la rigueur être jugées suffisantes. L'exernple du droit anglais nous a con vai ncu qu'il était utile, pour la

securité

du droit, d'envisager à coté de ces

règles générales certains cas particuliers, pour mieux diriger le juge e t ,

evrter, autant que faire

peut, des procés. Nous avons envisagé parmi les

cas particuliers, la plupart des déli t s speciaux du droit anglais ( assault et battery, séquestration arbitraire, dlffan,ation, lo ss

consortium, dè faut de

survellance d'un mineur, trespass to land et trespass to goods, concurrence délo yale, cleceit) . . . ». 2-

Ibid., at 237-238: «En règlementant ëlvec un certain détail cette n1atiére ( liability basecl on intentional fault), nous avon s pu paraître nous écarter du modèle continental, et nous rapprocher du modele anglais . En realité, il n'est ainsi qu'en ap parance. La jurisprudence française de la Cour de Cassa tion marque bien que la matière de la faute dél i c t uelle pose non sequlen1ent des questions · · de fal· t mars J d ror·t ; ,,ous avons pensé que résoundre aussi des questi on s ce ces questions dro i t était la tache du legislateur, et que le juge aurait dejà suffisamment de travail en avant à règler les ques t ions de fait. Ces disposi tions du projet . . . constituent un épancuisse111ent du sys teme continental,

N01'ES . Cl:IAl''f.EB

180

fondé sur la distinction du droit et du fait, telle qu'elle est adn1ise par les Cours Suprén1es des pays de droit écrit». 3_

See supra note 1, where the words «assault» and «bettery» are expressly referred to by Prof. David.

ary, Part 1, ed. 1939, p. 62 . on cti Di sh gli En d an ch en Fr rd da an 4. Health, St o, to the question «what is the exact (or v,h », «B n atio nic mu Com e vat Pri 5. David, word «atteinte» • • . , replies: «Atteinte nearest) English equivalent of the French ul interference, à l'art. 2038». Cfr. ngf wro par t dui tra é êtr te dou s san it rra pou t, at 508. Table Alphabetique des Matières, of the French tex

Note that the same kind of translation appears in Art. 240 ( 2).

Presser, W. L., Handbook of Law of Torts, Vol. 1 2nd. ed. Handbook ( 1955) at Sec. 10 ( p. 37): «The difference between assault and battery is that between physical contact and mere apprehension. Whe may exist without the other».

Salmond, J., The Law of Torts, 13th ed., by Heuston, London (1961), at 302.

Presser, op. cit. supra note 7, at 3 7

l O.

Id.

11. Salmon, op. cit. supra note 8, at 303. 12.

Ibid., at 302; Presser op. cit. supra note 7, at 36.

13.

Saln,ond, op. cit. supra note 8, at 304:

«Ta shake one's fist in a man's face is an

assault». 14.

Presser, op. cit. supra note 7, at 30 (sec. 9).

15.

Salmond, op. cit. supra note 8, at 302.

16.

Jenk5, E., English Civil Law, Vol. 1, 4th ed. by Winfield et al., London ( 1947) Sec. 885 ( p. 373): «An action for assault lies when the defendant has, by an ove rt act, 111enaced or attempted ta touch the body of the pla intiff, without the plaintiff's con sent, in such a way that the pta·1 nt"1 ff ha d reasonable ground for believing that the defendant was able t·o eff ect t,,·s purpose. An action far battery lies

when

there

has

been

actual

and

direct

application

of force

( however si ight) , whether •1 nten . t 1 onal or negligent, on the part of the defendant, to the body of the plaintif f, without the latter's consent ... ». 17. Id.: «Such force may be applied through an instru111ent, anim ale or inanimatell. 18. Presser, op . cit. supra no te 7, at 30,

NOTES

CH.A PTEll V I

131

19.

Hamish R. Grey, The Law of Civil Injuries, Hutc hinson's University Library, London (1955) at 23-24.

20.

22.

Cfr. Catala and Weir (Il) Delict an d Torts, 3 8 Tul. L. Rev. 221,25 8, 269, 276 19 ( 64). Roughly translated,it n1eans: «No act is · act'iona) 1 1e as a tort at the suit of any person who has expressly or in1pliedly assented to it» (Russel,Lectures, at 219). Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 161.

22.

1d .

24.

Catala and Weir (IV),Delict and Tort, 39 Tul. L. Rev. 701,771 (1965).

25.

Id.

26.

Ibid., at 771-772.

27.

Ibid., at 771 no. 217: «Except for express assumption of risk . . . the term and

21.

concept should be abolished. lt adds nothing to modern law except confusioni,, citing Jan,es, Assumption of Risk, 61 Yale L. J. 141,169 (1952). Cfr. also other authorities cited in the same note. 28.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19,at 161.

29.

Ibid.,at 162.

30.

Cfr. the following except from the Restatement, Vol. 1, at p. 97: «C. Assumption of Risk: Taklng part in a game n1anifests a willingness ta submit to such bodily contacts or restrictions on liberty as are permittecl by its rules or usages. Participating in such a game cloes not manifest consent to contacts which are probihibited by rules or usages of the garne if such rules or usages are clesigned to protect the participants and not merely secure the better playing of the game as a test of skill. This is so althcugh the player knows that those with or against whom he is playing are habituai violators of the rules»,cited by Russel, Lectures, supra, at 208.

31.

Carbonnier, Théorie des Obligations, at 369 (§ 178).

32.

Amos and Walton

33.

Carbonnier,op. cit. supra note 30.

Introduction to French Law, at 226. •

•

oine», For the wide implications,in French law, as to the meaning of the term «patrim See Amos and Walton,op. cit. supra note 32,at 19-20.

35.

Russe l, Lectures, supra, at 21 5.

36.

following: e th ys sa , ty ili ab Li of es Negligence - Pollock,in his chapter on Principl ustratec!, ill y rl ea cl t os m is es nc t:The doctrine of natural an d probable conseque • · · the harm se ca r lü u ic rt · pa a · in 1 f ho\vever, in the law of negligence . .

NOTES . cnAP1'ER "VI

132

able man in on as re a as ch su t ,,o . 1s , cornplainec1 or

t he

defenclant' s place

d) as likely to happen, there i s no v,rong lie pp su s ic al t ( 1 en ss re fo should have

Lectures, lbicl.); Cfr. also /-/\iller V.X ·, ll Russe by ted · c, ( y» t 1 b·1· , '. and no I a and Co., Inc., Buffalo ( 1960) at 37, v-,here nis Den ·ts, Tol on ys sa Es ed ct Sele he asked whether foreseeability ( 1 talies supplied) can l:,e the test for neg. l igence. 37.

Proxin,ate Cause _ Miller points out that this concept is a substantial factor in the sequence betv,een cause and effect and that the elen1ents of foreseeability ( ltalics supplied) remote consequences, and the reasonably prudent man, have to be ta ken all in accoun t . ( Ibid., at 4). There is

now a tendency in Englancl to ca!I damages

as «t oo ren1ate», while in the U.S.A. one \.voulcl say that the defendant's behaviour is not the 'proxirnate cause' of the darnage ( See Catala and Weir, supra no te 24, at 719, aise for the definition of a «proxin1a te cause»). 38.

Remoteness of Damage. (a) Fisher, J., The La\'/ of Torts, Nutshel I Series, Sweet and Maxwel 1. London (1958) at l O l : « ( l ) A persan is liable for the clan1age which a reasonable n,an would have foreseen ( l t alics supplied) as likely to follow from his act».... ; (b) Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 152: «The rule is that a person is liable for

t he

irnmecliate physical consequences

of his wrongful act or omission and for such other consequences as a reas.)rt•

able man would have foreseen as likely to follow». (ltalics supplied). 39.

Legal Cause - Compare Keeton's co1111nents ( R. E., Legat Case in the La,v of Torts, Ohio State Un. Press, Colurnbus ( 1963) at 30 that the U.S. cour t 's recent attitude is to consider as «independent interve.ning forc es as unforeseeabl forces, and e concurrent forces as foreseeable ones»

(lta lics supplied);

and again a t 119:

«Juclge Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island RR _ 248 N. Y. 339, 162 N. E. 99 ( 1928) v;hich will be referrecl to aise at a later stège) - is the 111ost renov,ned exposition of the theory that a negligent defendant is not liable to per sans outside of reasonable foreseeable harrn» ( ltalics supplied). 40.

Direct Consequences - Keeton, Ibid., at 30: «A negligent actor is legally responsible for all the consequences clirectly traceable to the negligent ac", t w11et 1 1 1 er or not they couId he fori:saen ( l t a 1·cs supplie d).

NOTES , CllAPl'ER V I

41.

Miller, op. cit. supra note 36, at 50.

42.

Catala .ind Weir, supra note 24, passinl.

43.

Ibid., at 725.

44.

Ibid., at 727:

lUJ

«Subject to doubt about ulterior da111 age · · · rt appears that the test of foreseeablity is to be usecl in England to det ermr· ne compensatron as well as culpability. lt has a single and apparent charrn; it reclucecl ta one the questions one must ask in a negI"rgence surt: «Was this harm ta this person foreseeable as a result of that act?». 45.

Ibid., at 722.

46. See belo\'I note 47. 47.

Catala and Weir, supra note 24, at 719: a:Probability is the twin sister of foreseeability; what is foreseeable is what is probable, the future being envisaged more or less in ternis of lessons ,,.,hich can be drawn from the past. By this token we see that the German theory of adequate cause is derived from the same starting FOint as the English theory of reasonable foresight, slightly objectified» ( Author's italics). Th2 learnecl authors then proceedecl to enumerate the common-law theories equivalent to the theory of «aclequate cause», as follows: proximate cause, foreseeability and the risk theory.

48.

Cfr. Jenks, op. cit. supra note 16, at 379 ( §892):

icWhere the defendant, by his own act, or by the agency of others, and without legal justification, has, no matter for how short a time, restrained the liberty of the plaintiff in every direction, the clefenclant \'lill be liable to an action for false imprisonment, without proof of actual harm suffered by the plaintiff». 49. 5o.

Salmond, op. cit. supra note 8, at 305; Presser, op. cil. supra note 7, at 48· Salmoncl, Sec. 112 and Wienfield, ( 5th ed.) at 219, cited by Russell, Lectures supra, at 230.

51•

52·

See Art. 46 of the Revised Constitution of Ethiopia, 1 955.

ay, Gr by ed cit , 44 T. L. 2 12 ) 20 19 Meering v. Grahame - White Aviation Co. Ltd., ( op. cit. supra note 19, at 24, n. 9.

53.

Salmond, op. cit. supra note 8, at 306:

. .ron «To constitute imprisonment the cleprrvat

°f

th e plaintiff's liberty rnust

NOTES • CJiA 1'1'ER VI -- -----------1tt0� 1--- ----

----

be complete _ that is to say, there must be on every sicle of hirn a boundary clrav-111 beyoncl \Vhich he cannot pass». 54.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 25.

55.

Presser, op. cit. supra note 7, at 53; Saln1ond, cp. cit. supra note 8, at 308.

56.

Wienfield, op. cit. supra note 50, at 222, 372, cited by Russell, Lectures supra at

.231. See also subsequent pages for clifference betv✓een the act of a judicial and a ministerial officer. 57.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 25.

58.

Article

51,

Revised Constitution of Ethiopia:

«No one may be arrestecl without a warrant issued by a court, except in case of flagrant or serious violation of the law in force. Every arrested person shall be brought before the judicial authority within forty-eight hours of his arrest. Ha\vever, if the arrest takes place in a locality v,hich is removed from the court by a distance which can be traversed only on foot in not lass than forty-eight hours, the court shall hone discretion to extend the pe riocl of forty-eight hours. The period of detention shall be reckoned as a part of the terni of imprisonment imposed by sentence. No one shall be held in prison awaiting trial on a criminal charge the sole penalty for which is a fine». 59.

Jenks, op. cit. supra note 16, at 381 ( §896): «A bail ( surety) is entitled to arrest the persan for whom he has gone bail; if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such person is about to escape, or otherwise cause forfeiture of the security».

60.

Cfr. the following excerpt fron1 Wade, Administrative Law, at 80:

«Rights depend upon remedies. Our legal history is rich in exan,ples of general rules of la\•1 which have been extendecl and adaptecl fron, one class of case to another. There is no better example than habeas corpus. This ren1edy, since the sixteenth century the chief cornerstone of persona! liberty, grew out of a rnedieval writ which at first played an inconspicouns part in the law of procedure: it v,as usecl to secure the appearance of a party, in particular

where he was in detentlon by the King or by the Council and finally it be came the standard procedure by \'lhich legality o f any imprisonment could be testecl. The rig · 11 t to persona! freeclom was aln,ost a by-product of the proceclural rules». Gray, op. cit. supra not e 19, at 26.

NU1'ES · CllAP1'ER V I

lll5

62.

O ' Sullivan, R. and Bro-..vn, R., The La w of Defan,ation, Sweet and Maxv-1ell, London (1958) at 3. See also subsequent pages of Sùrne for ù long list of clefinition s of the subject.

63.

Lectures, supra at 254.

64.

1 d.

65.

Leage, R. W., Roman Priva te La w (3rd ed. by Pricharcl), Mac Millan and Co. Ltd., London (1961) at 416-417: «The essence of the delict appears ta be a conternptous disregard of nnother's dignity tending to cause loss of repute and deliberately intended to produce the result»; note the list of examples of iniuria found in the Institutes, such as beating or wounding with a fist or a club and even taking a n,an's goods in execution of a debt, thus implying his insolvency (Id.).

66.

La\vson, F. H ., A Com1no11 Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law, Thomas M. Cooley Lectures University of Michigan, Ann Arbour (1953), at 152.

6ï.

David, «Communication (<A»: «Non, il n'existe pas de dalits non11nes clans le systeme du droit français. La diffamation ne fnit pas exception». Notice also supra note 1, where Prof. David lists defan1ation arnongts the specific civil wrongs in nccor dance with English law.

68.

Amos and Wallon, op cit. supra note 32, at 202.

69.

Ibid., at 203. The point will be elaborated further in connection v,ith the effects of of criminal on civil action (art. 2149).

70.

Salmond, op. cit. supra note 8, at 334.

71.

The Restatement of Torts, A.L.I., Vol. 111 (1959) Sec. 559•

72.

Haper, F.Vv., and James, F., The Law of Torts, Little Brown and Co., Boston, Vol. 1 (1956), at 350.

73.

Id. a, at 255. ecl.) at 423, cited in Lectures supr

74.

Salmond, op. cit. supra note 81

75.

• ' Gray, op. c1t. supra note 19 , at 86 (Author s italic).

76. 77.

(11t,1

on (1958)' at 46· nd Lo , ell xw �/ia d an t ee Sw , ell Fisher, J. The Law of Torts, Nutsh 418 (§963): at , 16 te no a pr su . cit . op Cornpare the following definition by Jenks, words en ok sp by er th ei , se cu ex l «A persan who, without just Cause or lawfu ns («libel»), ea · , ·1 n ar 1 m s1 or , es gi fi ef , («slander») or by writing, paint, pictures . nveying an in1co t en em at st a n a rs ' publishes concerning ano t1,er 1•1v1ng pe ion of rrght • at m ti es e th in , in h v,er putaticn upon suc h other calculated to lo

NO'fl�S • CffJ-\l'TER

186

thinking n1en1bers

O·f

''1

the society generally, or which tends to make them

shun or avoid him 1-5 1·,atJ le . .. to un action for da,nages by the person con • - nt is publishecl, and, if necessary, to an ; 11• g w 1,om suc1, a stateme rn rn ce

. junct,on

restraining

the

repetition or continuation

such

statement>J.

(ltalics suppliecl}. 78.

Harper and James, op. cit. supra note 72, at 390.

79.

Grey, op. cit. supra note 19, at 83-8tL

80.

Id.

81.

Ibid., at 85 et seq.

82.

Ll,· for a cletailë!cl stucly of the subject, see O' Sullivan and 1 d ., Lectures supra, at 25.

Brov;1n, op. cit. supra not 62, passim. 83.

Grey, op. cit. supra note 19, at 85, et seq.

84.

Id.

85.

50 î.L.R. 581 (C.A.) (1934}.

86.

Street, H., The Law of Torts, 3rd. ed., London ( 1963}, at 288-290.

87.

Id.

88.

Id., Cornpare also the following frorn the British Defan,ation Act, 1952: ((

. . . for the purposes of the !av, of libel and slander, the broadcasting of

worcls by n,eans of \olti reless telegraphy shu 11, be treated as publication in pern1anent from .. . >> words embracing television, «piciures, visual images, gestures and other rnethocls of signifying meaning». 89.

E. �lulton and Co. v. Jiln1es, A. C . 20 (19 l O); Se0 also Lectures supra, at 257 and 268.

90. Lectures, supra, at 257. 91.

Lawson, F.1-1., The Rational Strength of English Loiw, Stevens and Sons Ltd., London ( 1951 ), at 123: «As the lavv stands at present, a persan is strictly liable for any untre de· famatory statement which he publishes about another persan. He publishes at his peril». Neither ignorance not reasonable steps of ascertain,nent are goocl clcfences but there are also exceptions which Lawson illustrates

(Id.}.

92.

Supreme I mperial Court . ( Asrnara Division) C ivi I AppeaI Fi le no. 7 5 /57 of 2310- l 957 E. C.

93.

Known also as «Ch1qàs hu1n>i ( Local 1-teacln,an) - See D. Levine, «Wax and Gold», University of Chicügo Press, Chicaço ( 1965} Glossary, at 306, (Whose system

N01ï�S · CUA Pl'ER

94.

18ï

of transliteration is used fo r the pu r 1r:>osos 0F.' t lli · ·!; 0·ff'1c.1 al's title). The court's actuol worcls \,vere V✓ ritten by the ltalian men,ber of the court V✓ho presiclecl the bench. They arc reproduccd here onl,y· for the sake of accuracy: «Teorican13nte sarebbe ipnotizzabile un'azicne di responsabilità per danni contra colui ch e si L)sse reso colpevolc di cliffamazione, quanclo le allegazicni agli scritti da lui cornpilati fossc r o di t.--1 natu:-n da danneggiare la vittin1a ne1 modi p r evisti della stesso Art.

2044;

ma tale diffamazione non si puà

ritcnere consun1ata ove l'autori3 non ë:vcssc l'intenzione di riferirsi, nelle sue allegazioni o nei suoi scritti, a un;:i d�tcrrninnta persona (A rt. 95.

2045 _

2) :).

Ibid.: «/v\a a prescindere dal fatto che si trattErebbe in cgni caso di una accusa in

diretta e che il fatto stesso difficiln1cr.te p;;à consiclera r si una diffamazione ncl senso volute clall'Art.

96.

2044; . . .

Gray, op. cit. supra, note 19, at

».

88:

crWhere a class of persans is clefan,ecl a rnember of tha, class n,ay only sue if he can sno,v that he hi 111s0lf is the persan point2cl at

by the defan,ato ry

statement. Thus if the staten,ent is «ail solicito r s are sharks» no inclividual s-:ilicitor may sue upon it. If, ho't1evcr, the derendant said «ail the solicitors in town X ilre sharks», üncl in the town of X there are only two solicitors, then üssuming that it is defamatory of a solicit�r to describa hiin as a shark, bath solicitors would be entitled to suc». ( ltalics supplied).

76,

48-49.

97.

Fisher, op. cit. supra note

98.

Lectures, supra, at

99.

Salmoncl, op. cit. supra, note 8, at 356-357.

100.

268.

guar antees freeedon1 Compare Art. 41 of the Revised Constitution of Ethiopia v✓hich l>. of speech an d of the press, «in accordance with the lùW

101. 102. 103.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at

90-91.

co l. 7. 17 p. , 65 19 4, er 11b e1 ov N , Th e D ai Iy Telegraph, Lond on and Manc I1ester inference may be le ab on as re a t ha v1 s 1 · r « You rnay think that the crux O r.., tl1e n1atte · and society. w la of r lla Pi a s ,,va clrawn fro m the aclvertising . . . Faiï con1n1ent however ly ng ro st em th s es pr ex d Everyone v1as entitlcd to express his viev1s - an p r ovicled the st re te in c li b u p f o r te "' rnat d.1 statcf u I they n1ight be to otl,ers - o n '"' views v,1ere honestly held.

thor). u a e th ( » te a g a st o P « The issue i s not v✓hether you agree wi'th ''AA r · obstinate, or ecl prejudic r • (< Tl1e question is couic! any I 1onest Persol, , 110"/eve

•

NOTES . CJ·IAPTER

188

». have formed this opinion?

l 04.

word «pub!ication» as appearing in th� the f o se u Il ,e . I so f a r. C See supra note 78; ted 88. no a pr su , 52 19 t, Ac n io at m Defa

105.

89-97. Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at

106

Ibid., at 89.

l 07.

o·

108.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 90.

109.

For An,erican law on the subject see MiI Ier, V.X. Selected Essays in Tort!i, Buffalo

62, at 53. Sullivan und Brov-1n, op. cit. supra, note

( 1960) at 191 11 O.

et seq.

O' Sullivan and Brown, op. cit. supra note 62, at 113: <,Under ël plea of justification, the state of rnind of the defcndant at the tin1e v.•hen he publishecl the defamatory words is immaterial. The presence of actual ,rialice is irrelevant to the defence of justification. Under a plea 0f fair comment, the state of 111incl o-f the clefendant when he published the clefa,riatory words j5 ,nost n1aterial. Proof of actual malice on the part of the defendant clefeats the clefence of fair comment».

111.

But. Cfr., the following differencc given in Jenk5, op. cit. supra, note 16, at 425, 427: Fair Comn1ent:

«Section 970: - a fair cornrnent upon n1atter5 of public interest is not defamatory; even if it tends to prejuclice, or i111pute, blan1e, to the plaintiff. But ... an untrue 5tatement ... 1nay not be fair»; 50 malice is material. Justification:

«Section 973: - «A defendëlnt n1ay justify the publication of a defan,atory staternent by proof that such stnten,ent wa5 true in substance and in fact. The technical nan1e of thi5 clëfence is <<justification>> which does not usually apply in criminal libel.

Proof of Truth: «Section 974: - ln order to 5Uceecl in a plea of justification, the defe ndant must prove, not only that the facts we re truly stated, but that every injuri ous • • imputatio n ( innuendo) in the stat en1ent was aise 5ubstantially true».

1 1 2.

Gray, op. cit. supra n ote 19, 96.

1 13.

See supra, note 102. T he same learnecl .ucge a1so a5ked «would anyone c1are express 1 1 an opinion about anyt hing? .-..

1 14.

Lectures' at ?67'·

see

a 150 the sun1111ing up and conclucling con1111ent5 made by Dr.

N01'ES • Cl:l,\P'l'ER

189

Russell as to sln1ilarities and differences l:ict•,vveen • Etl11· 0pia · n anc1 A ng 1 o-An1erlcan

lav, of defamation ( Ibid., at 268). 115.

Revised Constitution of Ethiopia, 1955, Article 48 reacls: «The Ethiopian fa1nily, as the source of the 111aintenance and development of the En,pire and the primc:ry basis of eclucation and social learning, is uncler the special protection of the law)),

l 16.

Lectures, at 270.

117.

This tort originally arose out of interference betyveen master and servant but after 1653 it becan,e principally an injury to fan,ily relationship and presently it is an «action of a parent against his daughter's seclucer» (Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, c:t i 26.). 1 ts essence is therefore the loss of services.

118.

Ibid., at 126-127.

119.

Jenks, op. cit. supra note 16, at 397 ( § 926): «A person who. without lawful excuse, knowingly and wilfully persuades or procures a \VCn1an to leave her husband against the latter's v,ill, whereby the husband is deprived of the society and confort of his v;ife, is liable to an action for damages by the husband>>.

120.

Lectures, at 269.

121.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 128.

122.

Lectures, at 270.

123.

Gray, op. cil. supra, note 19, at 128-129.

124.

Lectures, at 270.

125.

See supra note 214 ( Chapter V).

126.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 32, at 228.

127.

Ibid., at 221.

128.

See supra notes 42 to 5 3 ( Chzipter V)·

129.

22 1· Amos and Vv'alton, op. cit. supra, note 32 , at

130.

Ibid., at 227-228.

131.

Ibid., at 222.

132.

Ibid., at 228.

l33.

David, R., supra note 1, at 237.

134.

See note 1 supra for text.

135.

136·

), a t 3.:19. 5 6 9 1 { . d e d n 2 , w n La Bucklancl and Mc Nair, Roman Law and Commo Carbonnier, op. cil. supra note 31, at 365 {§ 177

>·

NOTES . CHAl'l.ER VI

190

137.

Ibid., at 383 (§ 182).

138.

Wienfield, op. cit. supra note 49' at 96-97.

139.

Ibid., at 98.

140.

• op. cit. supra note 76, at 11, n. 12,· Id., Gray, op. c1t. supra note 18, at 138,· Fisher, Sal,nond, at 73, citecl in Lectures, at 271.

Ali E. R.

141.

( 1952) 2

142.

(1916) 32 «The Times» L. R. 413; (1916) 32 T.L.R. 413.

143.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 138; Fisher, op. cit. supra note 76 at 11, n. 12.

144.

Winfield, op. cit. supra, note 50, at 108-109.

145.

As cited by Russell, Lectures, at 272:

691.

«For harm resulting to a third person from the fortious conduct O'f another, a person is liable if he: « (c) controis, or has a duty to use care to contrai, the conduct of another who is likely to do harm if not controlled, and fails to exercise care in such control, or; <<

(cl) has a duty to provide protection for, or to have care used for the protection of, third persons or their property and confides the perfor mance of such duty to the other who causes or fails to avert the harm by failing to perform the cluty».

146.

Id., See the illustration under the heading of «Ccn1n1ent:1.

147.

Fisher, op. cit. supra note 76, at 12-13; Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 139-140.

148.

See supra, passim.

149.

See supra not 90, at 131.

150.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 12.

151.

V✓infielcl, The Law of Tort (6th ecl. by Lewis, 1954) 2-5, quoted by Von Mehren, The Civil Law System, at 348.

152.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 12-13.

153.

Wienfiald, op. cit. supra note 151, at 2-5, in Von Mehren's op . cit. supra note 151 at 348-349.

154.

Cited by Buckland and M c N air, op. cit. supra, note 135, at 34 0. Lectures, at 273:

155.

« The word ·owner ' 15 · an rrnportant variance from the Comrnon Law . Tresspass at conimon law, is a violation of possession, no t ownershi p. Perhaps the worcl «owner» is an erroneous translation of the Fr ench word of Profess or Davicl's original clraft ».

•

156.

NOTES • CHAl'TEn VI

191

See Claude Léwy, The C o de and Property, in Shawartz's The Code Napo!eon and the Common Law W orld, at 165-167.

157.

Gray, op. cil. supra, note 19, at 57 ( author's italic).

158.

Id.

159.

Salmond, op. cit. supra, note 8, at 171.

160.

Draft Article 27: Trespass. A person commits an offence if, without due legal authority, he forces his way on the lands or into the house of another, against the clearly expressed will of the lawfu) owner of the property ( ltalics supplied)

Text in Lectures, at 273.

cit. supra note 32, at 99.

161.

An,os and Wal ton,

162.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 158, at 99:

op.

«What is very odd is that English legal terminology hardly makes use of the noun «ownership» or the verb « to own», though bath words are very com monly on the lips of laymen ... ». 163.

«lt is still odder to find that although French law makes full use of the con

Id:

cept o f ownership, and has indeed a word for it, propriété, a Frenchman cannot say 'I own': he can only say 'je possèdé'». 164.

Id., n. 27.

165.

Amos and Walton,

op.

cit. supra, note 32, at 100; as to the Roman «possessio» see

Leage, Roman Private Law, at 164 et seq.; Buckland and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra ncte 155, at 352 et seq. 166. La\vson, op. cit. supra, note 149, at 100 «But the best title, whoever has it, is only relatively the best; it is not absolute». 167.

The owner must act within three years, and W·, 11 not have tl1e r1·ght of recovery if

Ibid., at 101) · the bona fide purchaser obtained it at a public auction ( 168.

preca,re» ur nte éte «d re me a t Bu 0. 10 at Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra, note 32, ossesseur» ( Ibid., at «p a e m co be s, on iti nd of a property may, under certain co 101,

n. 4 ) .

169.

Bucklancl and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra note 135, at 358-359.

170.

David, supra, note 1.

17 l

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 57.

172.

Salmond, op. ctt. · supra, note 8, at 16 2

173.

Id.

17,i. .

Id., See also Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 60.

NOTES • CBAPTER

1 !12

175.

\TI

Ibid., at 58.

and Torts, 37 Tul. L. R., 573 ( 1962-63 ) at 612: 176. See Catala and Weir, ( 1) Delict «There is no point in talking of trespass, for example, as a breach of duty, since all that has to be shown in such a case is that the defendant walked without permission on land in the possession of the plaintiff .... » 177. Gray, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 59. 178.

Holrnes, O.W., The Common Law, Paperback ed. De Wolf Howe, { 1963), at 66.

179. Ibid., at 80. 180.

Prosser, op. cit. supra note 7, at 54-55 { Ses. 13).

181. Cited by Presser, at Id. 182.

Id.

183.

David, supra, note 1.

184.

Gray, op. cit. supra, note 19, at 73.

185.

Id.

186.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 91 at 125; for Roman law see Leage, op. cit. supra note 165, at 161-63; 475-76.

l 87. Ibid., at 134. 188.

Roughly speaking, they can be sun11narizecl as follows: (a) Detenue - an unjust detention of one's good entitled a possessor to have recourse to this remedy. { b) Replevin - woulcl occur as a result of an unlawful di stress of the goods. { c) Trover and Conversion - 1 f the use or benefit of some goods or absolute deprivation of the same, even if not physically, were converted by another, the persan so entitled could bring the remedy of trover. { See Winfield, Chapter XII 1, at 345 et seq. cited by Russell, Lectures, at 275276 ).

189.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 73.

190.

An,os and Walton, op. cit. supra, note 32, at 87.

191.

Ibid., at 77-78.

192.

Heath, op. cit. supra note 4, at 306.

193. Lectures, at 276. 194.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 91 , at 133; see also same author wh o speaking of con,parisons in necessity and property, says: «But in English lav, the probleni is complicated by thc existence of a law of trespass, which is not known to 0111er

•

NOTES · CIIAPTER

193

systerns ». ( Lawson, t-Jegligence in the Civil Law, Ox for d (1958), at 20-21).

195.

Ibid., a t 135.

196.

Lectures, at 278.

197.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 123; Fisher: op. cit. supra note 76, at 94_

198.

Lectures, at 278, rep roducing Division 9

199.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 124.

200.

(1853) 2 E. anci BI. 216.

201.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 123-124: see also Lectures, a t 278 for a rich biblio-

the Restament of Torts.

graphy.

202.

Ibid., at 125.

203.

Fisher, op. cit. supra note 76, at 95.

204.

Lectures, at 278.

205.

Davi d , supra note 1.

206.

Derenberg, W.J., The Code and Unfair Competition, in The Code Napoleon and Com-

mon Law World, op. cit. supra note 156, at 178, 185 n. 30. 207.

Ibid., at 178.

208.

Ibid., at 184, n. 28.

209.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, a t 100.

210.

Id.:

«The essence of the tort is the actual or potential confusion of the two articles or businesses in necessary for

t he

the

mincis of

plaintiff

t he

pu blic, and if this is p robable it is

prove f raud or malice,

u n

special damage, or

even tha t any member o f the pu blic has in fact been deceive d ».

211.

Deremberg, op. cit. supra note 206 at 194.

2 12.

Ibid., at 202.

213.

Ibid., a t 189-191, 207-208.

214-

Ibid., at 189-200.

21 S.

follows: Ibid., at 186, 20 2. The three examples ca n be summarizecl as ms (a) Comm ercial Disparagement - where one clai

thas

his p roduct is be tter

of u nfair com w la e th n hi it w lls fa than t he ot he r's. ln Con tinent al la w this el and slan der lib of w la e th of n io is iv petion; in the United States, ·,t ·1s a subd ( «slander of titles»}.

•

NOTES . CHAPTER

19:i

( b) False Advertising and False Oesignation of Origin - If someone used the name of «Cognac or Roquefort» he would be guilty of a community right, whereby all those who live within a reasonable distance of the location may bring an action. This is not so easy in Common law which emphasises on proprietary and net on collective right. ( c) Misappropriation, Free Ride and «Slavish Imitation» - This concerns specific protection of models, designs or works of art. Here the U.S.A. seems to have made a more inroad than France who still clings to the liberal ideas of the Revolution.

216.

To list but a few: Haines, Efforts to Define Unfair Competition, 29 Yale L.J. 1 ( 1929); Handler, False and Misleading Advertising, 39 Yale L.J. 22 ( 1929); Wolff, Unfair Competition by Truthful Disparagement, 47 Yale L.J. 1304

( 1938); See ilso «Note» - The Law of Commercial Disparagement: Business Defama tion's Impotent Ally, 63 Yale L.J. 65 ( 1953). For Belgian law, see: Fredericq, La Concurrence Déloyale, GENT, ( 1935). For English law see: Winfield's and Salmond's standard books, pp. 609-6121 and pp. 703-717, respectively ( Lectures, at 278-279).

217.

David, supra note 1.

218.

Jenks, op. cit. supra, note 16, at 455.

219.

Ibid., at 457-458: «ln order to succeed in an action of deceit, the plaintiff must prove with regard to the representation i)

that it was as to a matter of fact, and was rnade by the defendant or his agent;

ii )

· was made to the plaintiff, or to a third persan with the intention and t hat 1t consequence that it should be and was co1nn1unicated to the plaintiff;

iii}

that the defendant intended that the plaintiff shou ld act upon lt in the n1an ner in which h e did it·,

iv)

that it was untrue to the knowledge of the defendant, or that the defendant had no belief in its truth· '

that it was believed by the plaintiff to be trua;

vi)

that it was in fact acted on l:>y th e plaintiff in th e manner in ,vhich it was intended by the defendant th at he should ac t upon it;

NOTES • CHAPTER VI

vii )

195

that the plaintiff has suffered loss as to t he d irect consequence of acting on it ».

220.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 19, at 102.

221.

La\vson, op. cit. supra note 91, at 119. Note t 11e adverb 'sciem ment' appearing in Art. 2059 of the French text.

222.

See Wienfielcl, op. cit. supra note 50, at 528-529 ( § 152).

223.

Ibid., at 102, 105-106.

224.

Ibid., at 102; see also Wienfield, cited in Lectures, at 290.

225.

Lectures, Ibid.

2 _o ?' .

Id.; Fisher, op. cit. supra note 76, at 61.

227.

Lectures, at 290.

228.

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 91, at 119: « l t is not recognized as a separate kind of liability in civil law systems,

though I suspect that it exists as such».

229.

Catala and Weir, (Ill) Delict and Torts, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 663 (1964), at 677: «The other business torts - conspiracy, intimadation, malicious falsehood and passing off - which are con1plex without being clear - suggest what we must have already noted, that con1mon law judges are uneasy in pro tecting intangible material interests by means of the law of torts:i,.

230.

( 1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

231.

( 1932) A.C. 562.

232.

See David, supra note 1, at 239: «Une responsabilité sans faute est en troisîeme lieu admise par des disposi tions inspirées de la common law, dans des hypothèses tirées des affaires Ryland v. Fletcher et Donoghue v. Stevenson, toutes deux judgées par la Chambre des Lords:i,.

233.

at 473 (§ 1021) which 8, te no a pr su . cit . op s, nk Je in on See for instance the definiti reproduced this rule almost verbatim.

23 4.

See reproductions of these exceptions, appearing at

PP· 627-637

of Salmond' in Lee•

tures, at 304-306.

235.

ver been apne s ha it n, so w La te g in rd Salmond, op. cit. supra note 8, 582; but acco

7-119). 11 at 1 9 te . ' no a pr su • 't c1 op. plied to railv,ays and motorcars (

236.

Id.

2",., 7 .

Catala and Weir, (1), supra note 176, at 591, n. 77.

238.

Ibid., at 591.

Nf>TES • CHAP1'ER V I

196

239.

te 91, at 119. no a pr su t. ci . op n, so w La

240.

335-336, 5 9 . at 7, te no a pr su t. ci . op Prosser,

241.

Id.

242.

David, supra note 232: Art. 20 69 ) son t d'u ne part la doctrin e «Les doctrines ainsi consacrés (in aniericaine des «ultra hazardous activities» - une personne est responsable si elle crée des risques particuliers pour autrui, dans certaines conditions ou de certaine manière que le projet s'efforce de préciser ( stockage de sub stances dangereuses, établissement de lignes électriques à haute tension, etc.. .. )»; for a detailed discussion of this topic see materials reproduced in Lectures, at 308-321.

243.

Russell, F.F., The New Ethiopian Civil Code, 29 Broklyn, L. Rev. 237, 241 (1963).

244.

Jenks, op. cit. supra 16, at 463-464 (§ 1012); see also Catala and Weir (1) supra note 177, at 591, n. 73, 74.

245.

See Lawson «Excursus ...Duty of Care», in Buckland and Mc Nair op. cit. supra note 136, at 367-370; for

full

treatment

see

Lawson, The

Duty of Care in

Negligence, 22 Tul. L. Rev. 113 (1956). 246.

Jenks, op. cit. supra note 16, at 464.

247.

217 N.Y. 383, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).

248.

Catala and Weir (1), supra note 176, at 591, n. 74; for a full transcription of the case, see materials in Lectures, at 366-369.

249.

Catala and Weir (1), supra note 176, at 596.

250.

Fisher, op. cit. supra note 76, at 83.

251.

David, supra note 232: «Le projet consacre par ailleurs la responsibilité du fabricant de produits alin1entaires ou autres lorsque ces produits sont offerts au public dans des I

conditions telles qu'un exan,en de leurs qualités ne puisse être raisonnable rnent envisagé». 252.

Pollock, Torts, 11th ed., at 193, cited by Russell, Lectures at 392.

253.

Harper and James, op . cit. supra no te 72, at xxvii-xxxi.

254.

Catala and Weir (111) Delict and To rts, 38 Tu l. L. Rev. 663 (1964), at 684. Id.

255. 256.

1 have here drav,n heavily from n,y unpublished paper at Yale La w School «How Much Power to the Courts? », New Haven, (Sp ri ng , 1965).

NOTES · CEIAPTEn· VI

257.

197

4 Harv. L. Rev. 19 3 (1890). The tw o learnecl autl'\ors began their influential law review \\lith the following words: «That the inclividual shall have full protecti on ·1n person ancl in property is a principle as old as the comn1on law; but it has been founcl necessary from tin,e to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only to physical interference with life and property, for trespass vit et armis. ... Later, there came a re cognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadenecl, and now the right to life has con,e to mean the right to enjoy life - the right to be let alone .... » They concluded therefore that any injury to the feeling except for certain limita tions coulcl constitute the tort of right of privacy.

258.

The Right of Privacy - A Half Century Developn1ent, 39 ,\,\ich. L. Rev 526 ( 1941 ).

259.

Gregory and Kalvin, Torts, Chicago ( 1959), at 888. lt is now recognized in the courts of twenty-t-.vo States

and in the

District of Columbia

and

m<1ny others have

enacted statutes (Ibid.).

260.

See aise discussion of this concept in Krzeczunowicz, Civil Code Article

758: 761:

Side Issues, 2 JEL, 158, 186 (1965).

26 l.

Salmond ( 11 th ed.) at 420, cited l:>y Russell, lectures, at 254.

262.

Ibid., at 419.

263.

Id., Cfr. the French «injure» appearing in Article 2109 E.C.C. and Articles 310, 583 and 798 of E.P.C. ( French text).

264.

Le Code Pénal de l'Empire D'Ethiopie, Centre �rançais de Droit Comparé, Paris ( 1959) ·

265.

See supra notes 89, 90 and 91.

266.

Lectures, at 257.

267.

Ibid., at 47 8.

268.

efficient justice and re mo d an r pe ea ch r, clie ee sp ·be Sorne of th e advantages wi ll psyechological satisfaction in seeing the offencler humilated. Sorne of the disadvantages will be the risk l·nvolved for .tl,e victim - if his case cloes not succeed, pa y damages; to cl re cle or d an d te • ie nv co he may in certain cases be prosecutec1, rs ( See te at m l vi ci in ce en ri pe ex nt also the criminal judges ma y not 11ave sufficie l L. ure, 39 Tu. cd oc Pr al in ,n ri C 1 1 c en Fr Larguier , The Civil Action for Damages in Rev. 687, 688 ( 1965), also passim)•

269-

An,os and Walton, op. cit. supra note 32, at 200, 11• 1 ·

NOl'ES . CfiAPTER

198

270.

8 , at 699. Larguier, supra note 2 6

271.

e, at 1 9 3 . D'Orsi, Responsabilità Civil

272.

at times use the same wo rd «prosc iogli mento» s yer law lian lta _ 99 4_1 19 Ibid., at (discharge) also for acquittai instead of «assoluzione», but in that case, they distinguish between «prosciogliniento» (discharge) wich takes place because there are no sufficient grounds to convict ( insufficienza di prove) or «proscioglimento» due to non-commission of offence or simply that it was not committed by the accused: (a) perchè il fatto non costituisce reato or ( non sussiste il fatto); or ( b) perchè l'imputato non l'ha commesso).

273.

Larguier, supra note 268, at 687.

274.

Lawson, op. cit. supra, note 91, at 23; see aise Catala and Weir ( 1) supra note 176, at 587: « .... The Corn mon Law does not know The partie civile».

275.

Kenny, Outlines of Criminai Law, ( 17th ed. by Turner 1958), at 95-96, cited in Lectures, at 504; see also 3 Holdsworth, History of English Law, ( 3rd ed. 1922)

at 329, cited by Catala and Weir ( 1) supra note 177, at 587, n.53. 276.

Id.

277.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 32, at 200.

278.

Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 32nd ed., at 281, cited by Graven, P., Joinder of Criminal and Civil Proceedings, 1 JEL 135, 142, n. 15 (1964).

279.

Catala and Weir (1) supra note 176, at 588.

280.

Ibid., at 587.

281.

Ibid., at 589, n. 68, 69.

282.

Though Graven seems to be un happy w·, th th e \-Vord «considerable» ( Ibid, at l35, n. 1)' it would appear that the cases where such a joinder rnay take place have been fairly indicated ( « · · · notamment en cas de mort, d'a tteinte au corps ou a la santè, d'atteinte à l' hon11eur , d e prejudice patrimonial o u de destruction de

283.

destination de biens • · · · » Art. 100 ( l) o f Fren ch text).

•

Graven, supra note 278, at 142 ' n. 16- The auth or of the article { Dr. Philippe Graven} being the son of Prof · Jean Graven, his views, by reflection, are pertinent.

NOTES • CBAPTER

284.

llJIJ

ation «All: David., Con1munic «J'ai écarté ici une règle du droit françëlis, c1ui me paraissait con1porter un risque en Ethiopie. Le civil est inclipendant du criminal clans le cas d'acquitten1ent et de non-lieu. C'est lë1 règle anglë1ise)l. ( ltalics supplied).

285.

2 86

146, n. 22. Graven, suprël note 278, at 8, at 699-700. Larguier, supra note 26

287

op. cit. supra note 32, at 223. n, to al vV d an os Am

288.

5. Gr aven, suprë1 note 28

289.

raven, Id. G by to ed rr fe re se ca e See th

. ... ..; 'Â·

CI-IAPTER "\'II

LAW [1ltrocli,ctorv .,,

Wl1ateve1· system 01· plùlosopl1y of life a community elects to adopt, or. derly living is a 11ecessity. Tl1at society sl101tld be protected fron1 trans. gressors of its accepted mores and usages is an elementary iule of the thumb. Without ,visl1ing to enter into tl1e argirment as to wl1etl1er the main ain1 of African law is 01·ie1 1ted to,,va1·cls obtaining compensation to tl1 e injt1red party, as opposed to tl1at of E1u·ope ,,vl1icl1 ce11ters on sanctio11s against the at1thor of an offe11ce,1 it seen1s safe to say tl1at i1 1 every African territory a general lavv of to1·ts l1as existecl for s0111e time.2 Agai11, vvlule 011e should be (.;areful not to gene1·alize too 11111cl1 on tl1e wo1·ds «African lavv»,3 it is well to bear in mincl tha t tl1 e1·e a1·e ce1·tain comn1on feat11res in Af1�ican communities, upon ,vlùcl1 it is «possible to co1 1stn1ct a tyJJOlogy of AfriccL1i la1,v)>.� Likewise, the1·e are certain common values 11pon vvluch African civilizations are founcled, such as, for iI1sta11ce, con1n1 tmity spirit, respect for the old ancl, to a certai11 extent, absence of antagonistic classes. 5 Necessarily, tl1 erefo1·e, ct1ston1ary Iaw in Etluopia, too, reflects tl1ese featttres. 111 addition, tl1e Iaw of civil w1·ongs has bee1 1 strongly irrfluenced by the dictates of tl1e Fetl1a Negctst. In tl1e pages that follovv ru1 attempt ,-vill be macle to sho vv ill11strations of tl1ese. Apart fro111 the obvio11s cases in which the expei·t of the Con1mission has l1imself inclicated, insta.11ces corresponding, in s11bstance, to tl10s.e of tl1e present law of civil wrongs in Ethio1)ia vvill be referrecl to. For 1·easons alreacly given, tl1e relevant Cocle s of Custo1na1-y Law in tl1 is Chapte1· a1 ·e tl1ose tl1at vvere in !0 1-ce_ iI1 Eritr ea. But w l1ether on e speaks of Fethcc Negast alo11e or i11 conJunct1�n \Vith tl1ese Codes, the r.esult is tl1e same; for tl1e latter are, i11 n1any in r_ , ,, b y, n1a stan ces, a i·eplica of ecl 1lat mL for 1·e the � as Iaw e 1 tl1e fo1·1ner. Tl _ 1 1� l110 Et ever, fair ly show tJ1e of lk btt tl1e of � � ce» sti 1 th e <<sentiments of jt Populatjon. It is ith tl1 vie,� in mind tl1at tl1e followi11g st1perf1c1a1 vv . is cam·panson is m acle.

CHA PT'Eil \'Il

202

A. GENERAL: (i)

Jr1le11.tior1.al c11lcl U11i11ter1.tiorial Wrongs:

a11d tl1e Codes of lar cu rti pa in ,a zii Cl o gg Lo of de Co e th. Chapter VII of. . . . a11 nt 1 clo co . pro,,1 s1 ons gene1·al, n i lgà Me a e,n cli At d an a b, e z 1 1.e eg T Adg/1.eria ngs. ro w l na io nt te in un d an l na io nt te in 1 l it w g dealin (ii) Justifications: There are very fe,v complete defences but en,,isage situations v.1l1 i.cl1 may fairly corne ,vitl1in the meaning of tl1 e te1·m «justification>, in its legal sense. Thus, provision is made for self.defence, (necessity) sporting activi. ties, minor age (Cl1.apter VII Loggo Cl1iita) a11d insanity (CJ,zapter VI of Aclcl-ze1 1 1e Melgct}. (iii) liierarcJ1icctl Order:

Cl1apter 47 of tl1e Fetha Negasi makes a distinction bet\veen intentional and· 1tni11 tentional \,\.rrongs and the consequent sub.division of JJrae1·i11tentio11al offence in tl1e one case, and negligence, imp1· 11dence or force 11ia. jeure in tl1e other.6 Also tl1ere, provision is made for justificatio11 due to 11ecessity, self.d efence or one's oivn l 1onour.7 A situation similar to wl1at A rticle 2036 calls «Hierarchical Ortler» can, like,v-ise, be fo1md: «\vl1oever kills because fo1·cecl to do so by tl1e O\\rner of l1 is pe1·son ( i.e. tl1e slave o,\rner) is not responsible and the punisl1ment shall be assessed against tl1e 011e that commands. If tl1e latter· had no a11tho1·it)' ove1� hi111 or did not tlu·eaten l1i111 so as to b e taken by fear, tl1e punishment goes agai11st tl1e one \.\1110 had obeyed».8 B. NOMINATE TORTS: D1·. Abelo,v9 has observed tl1at tl1e Aclgl1e1-1à Te g/rielebà Code is «closer to tl1e Com1110n LétW and Ron1an La,v co ncept of liability for specific un Ia,vftù acts, tl1an tl1e Ci,1il Cocle prin ciple of a ge11era1 1·es1Jo11sibility for 11rJa,v-ful l1arm». Tl1e same is true of tl1e contents of tl1e otl1er Codes of ctistomary la,.v referrecl to above. Tl1 ey ail deal \Vitl1 specific w1·011gful acts Slich as Tllefi, Assa1ùt ancl Battery , Trespass (botl1 to land a11d to goods), �obber)', Homicid e, Doi11ages arising 011t of dangerous A 11in1als and Bttild. 111g 11 nder one's contrai, Rap .e, I11s11lt, Aclulte1-y, etc. - all as �eparate

•

------------

CUSTOl\l ,\ltY

LA w

203

actions. And so does tl1e Fetfza NegcLst. 1 11 tllis sense, one 1n 1gl1t speak, as . . _ . of Eth1op1an c11stomary la\v, of a Law of Torts 1-a ' tl1er.. tl1an of a La,v of Tort. (i)

Assai,lt ancl Batlery:

One co11ld, tl1e1·efore, easily fi11cl instances of assault arlcl batte y in r Article 137 of tl1e La,.v of Adgfzel'zà Teg1zelebà ,vl1icl1 fixes con1pensation to be paicl, ,,vher-e 01 1e «strikes ,vith 11is l1 ancl ,vithout causing Joss of blood».10 The vvords «\vitho11t ca11sing los s of blood» n1ay well be coinpared witll the broad concept of <econtact» appearing in Article 2038 of the Etl1 iopian Civil Code. ( ij)

Defa1rzat io11:

Comparable provisions to A1·ticles 2044.2049 can be fow1cl in ail tl1e custon1ary Codes, us11ally unde1· tl1 e l1 eading of «Insult».11 Cl1apter 41 of the Loggo Cl1iita Code regarcls any false statement directecl against the rep1Ltation of a pe1·son as giving rise to liability. Sim.ilar provisions in· tl1e Adghenà Tegftzelebà Code and in that of Atche11'l'e Melgà l1ave been tl1e sub. ject of commentaries by Ostini and the Rassegna di Stilcli EtioJYici, ré. spectively.12 Tl1e clefences tl1at Article 41 of tl1e Loggo Chiita law provides are strickingly reminiscent of Articles 2046 (Matters of PL1blic I11terest) and 2047 (Tn1th of Allegecl Facts). If for instance, a person 11ses st1cl1 epithets as <<thief» 01· «lier» and ca11 p1·ove the truth of st1ch allegations, h.e ,�ould have a con1plete defence. And if, as a n1atter of fact, foi· three times the person who is called a lier is proven to be so, l1e is interclicted from ever becoming a witness at some fut11re litigation; tl1e same is also tr11e of the tl1.ief for, it is said, «he wh o is notorious for his ability to re. move otl1er people's property is also capable of perjury >). 13 Al·ticle 129 of the ;1clgfzenà Teghelebà law provides compensation for so1neone wl10 lias been tl1e subjec t of «indirect» ins11lts, th e details of ,vhlcl1 are tl1ere entt· mera tecl. Also he re , on e need not have great imaginatio11 to see cases of tl1e Comrnon Ia,v i11:11itenclo·es.

(iii) Lass of Co11sortiu111.: AU tl1 ree Codes have provisions tending to protect tl1e family aild pre. tl1e rs ve co t. bl le ,ze gJ erve con j11gal l1 Te à en gh Ad t _ a1·mony. Article 108 of he s Article . a11cl ma11 . case of· a 1na1·r1. . r· anoth e 1 ·· t l w1 ed \Voman l1av1ng 1·e1at1ons

CHAP1'E.R

VJJ

20·1

Also l1ere tl1e contents o d. ban l111s f1tl aitl1 11nf . ail c f o f . 109 covers t h e case . • . te1 43 of the A.tcfzenie Cl1ap . n11nd to e co111 Code . le 2050 E t·h·101J1a Civil . 11 · . Artic n1ng 11e1· abocle and re • do an ab m f1·o 11 na 1 \,\,o ed rl·i c 111a 1 s a 1 ·t MelgèL proh·b . tl1e d by ate l111sba11d a11cl even t1·e ly 11st t1nj . . to is s11e if . 1y • · 1 1 n a 1: . 11e1 t11r111ng . . . . !1er. lier 1·e1nedy lies 1n seeing 1st a11 ag e rc fo e in so es tis . e1 t t· , .vh ere t·he 1a . of l1er b1:o tl1e1·.111.Iaw or of the f roo tl1e r de w1 ce t1· no e i L l c er L f a protection, ges to I1e1· 1·elatives. TJ1e sa es 1n i11g ncl se e er tl1 111 fro d ar1 e lag vil ]Jeacl of tlJe es that may even1 ttally 11s ab t en ev p1· to se, 1u· co of is, le rti is th cl lun IJolicy be disrupt the mar1-ied Iife.

Articles 163-164 of tJ1e Aclg/1.erzè1. Teg/✓lelebiL provide tl1at anyone \vho re1110,,es tl1e p1·operty of anotl1e1· sucl1 as cattle, crops, or agrjcultural tools, from a l1ouse, from a fielcl 01· from cattle.stall will pay, as con1pe11sation, tl1e double.val11e of ,vl1at l1e l1acl 1·.emovecl; in co11sideration, also, of his l1aving e11terecl i11to a11otl1er's p1·01Jerty. U11cler Cl1apter 17 of tl1e Loggo C/1itlCL no 011e is alJowecl to enter an . otl1er's la11d foi· tl1e p11rpose of falling trees a11cl c11tting pla.nts \VÏthout ex1Jress autl101·ity fro1n tl1e O\.v11e1·; conversely, the o,vner of tl1e land is 1Jrol1ibitecl fro1n 1·endering 11seless tl1e tr11nks of these trees 11.n der tl1e pretext tl1at tl1e)' belong to him a11yway. I-Iis d11ty is to l1ave 1·ecou�se to j11stice so tl1at, 011ce tl1e facts l1ave been ascertained, tl1e tnulk:s 1nay be sold ancl tl1e _proc.eecls of the sale n1ay be gi,,en to the village or 11tilized, i11 s01ne otl1er ,,vay, to tl1e benefit of tl1e comm1111ity. The pro,,isions of Articles 2053 and 2054 ( trespass to Ia11d. and trespass to goocls) of tl1e Etltiopian Civil Code clo 11ot, in substa1.1ce, differ fro111 tl1ese c11sto1nary Ja,v provisio11s. C. STRICT LIABILITY: It seerns safe to say tl1at, ,vith a fe\\r exceptio11s, aJl tl1e c11ston1ary civil \.vrong s give rise to strict liabilit:)1• Tl1is is \vell ill11str·atecl by tl1e n11n1erous Iegal 111axin1s 01· «prove1·bs» as M r. J11stice Osti11i 14 defines tl1e1n. Tl1us - in connection ,vitl1 tl1e lac ,,..., 0f . . 11• ne d fa111at1011: «Let 110 to111n .1e sla11der» 1s � 111ecliatel)' follo,vecl by tl1e o . tl 1e1. JJart of tl1e san 1e n1axi1n, \\rl1icl1 refers to assa11lt a11cl battery (o1. l.1 . 1s es1 Jas s to . . . tl1 ». e 1Je1·s011), «11or a11y l1ancl st1.ke . I11 co11nect1011 wi111 tre S}Ja • , ss 111 general, bu t b:)' a11alogy stretcl1ecl to cav er rnany otl1er situatio 11s• << I-Iac l :)'OLI 1101 JJ11sl1ed 111e I ,vo11ld no t l1ave fallen». I11 tl1eor)', tI1erefor e 1· t , . le to JJlace all tl1e non1111ate ' '"' ou 1c 1 11a,,e bee11 IJOss1b

CUS1'0l\1ARY

LA \V

205

torts under strict liability ancl classify them cas s·t1.·1ct c1• v1.1 ,v rongs. Tl1e • • order follo\,vecl rs 1n acco1·da11ce \vith tl1e pJca11 of t111s · book� vv 111• c11, as al• • reacl)' po111ted 01 1t, ba s t11ed to follo\-v tl1e Etl1ioiJia11 Civil Cocle . (i)

Bodil}' Flar111. (1-trt. 2067):

Under 1-\1·ticle 2067 of tl1e Etl1iopia11 Ci,,il Cocle, except wI1ere it can be s110,vn that tl1e act ( a) was orde1·ecl by Jaw, (b) was in self.defence or (c) ,vas due to tl1e .fa11lt of tl1e ,,ictin1 , a persan is Iiable wl1ere J1e inflicts bo. clily 11arm by lus act. Under traditional Etl1iopia11 Ia,.v, a person is helcl strictly Iiable for a11y boclily injury or deatl1 res11lting f1·om l1is act. Tl1is ki11cl of strict Iiability is one of t.L1e fo11r instances ,vl1ich corne under Section II of tl1e la\v of civil ,vrongs (Liability Witl1011t Fa11lt).17 Again, ,.vl1en speaking of tl1e In corporation of C1 1stomary lav,, i11 tl1e Code, reference \Vas macle to Prof. David's comments tl1at, in s11cl1 ki11d of sit11ations, the autl1or of tl1e civil ,vrong ,vas liable to tl1e victirn or to l1is family, «a sit11ation inexistent in any Western Codes b11t conso11ant to Etltiopian» traditional Ia,.v. 18 Ali the tbree Codes of custornary law envisage cases of strict liability arising 011t eitl1er of cleath or of persona! inj1 1ries. Articles 139 a11cl 140 of tl1e Aclgl1.e11à Tegfzelebà la\v provide compensa. tion for bodily injuries received. Unlike the otl1er articles wluch envisage cases of sorneone «st1·iking» (A1·ts 137, 141) or «n1altreating» (Art. 138) another, these provisions sirnply state ·tl1at liability attacl1ed to «\vl1oever causes» tl1e bodily injw-ies. Wl1ile Article 159 of tl1e same la\v speaks of «attempt» and renders Iiable even the one ,.vho as a res1tlt acts, catising, in turn, bodily harm to the gttilty party.' 9 'fhe law of Lo gg o Chiua presc1·ibes strict liability for sorneone causing tl1e deatl1 of anothe1· in sporting activities, tl1ough the sa11ctio11 is red11cecl to tl1e sole payment of bloocl.mo11ey ( Cl1apte1· VII). The same Cl1a1Jt-er co,,ers the t1nintentional deatl1 of a person res1 1lting fro m accidents tl1at take · tl1e constntction of bouses or otl1e1· btu'ldings. C hapter XI renders I e 1n Pac an insane st1·ictly liable fo r the deatl1 of anotl1er, tlnless lJai·doned by tl1e victim . gà el M e ,n ié cl At 1e tl of 74 · e1 pt 1a An iclentical provision ca n be founcl in Cl 1 tl ea d l . ta · 11 le ic c c a r fo la w. iv le 11,1oreover, \.vl1ile a surgeon ,v1Il b 18 not b e l1e Id 1 ses t1 a c , . ly cl te r e v cl a in caused to a patient during an operat1on 0 , 1 1 w , a persan . . J. t1ry ll1e fall of stone wl1 ile ,.vorking 011 a ,vall, tl1ereby causing bodily 111 Lo ai1o tl1er, is, instead, l1elcl st1·ictly liable.

Cl:IAP1'ER

206

VI l

. ·s expe1·ience i11 Court, recounts of an · J11 from 1.n. Ostii,i,2 speak111g as a J1ybrid bet,,vee11 st1·ict and ed sifi . clas be , J1t micr cli ' hi ,, o terest1ng case "" unsound m1nd, wl1ose familv f o . b'I n ·so pe1 . ot1s 11a a ns . cer con It • y t i' 1 · v1car1 ief, so that t11e lunatic migl,t be Ch t ric st Di e tl1 to er ov n, I,i I,acl liaiJcled ged to esca1Je and kill two na ma ic 1at lt11 1e Tl cl)' sto cu i· de tu, · tl,ere l(-ept mo11ey was instituted, odof blo nt 1ne pay tl1e for ion act tl,e . en W]l . personS . d t, un tha gr·o at tl1e mate rial tl1e on ed ist res ic 1at ltu the of ,,es tlle relati l1 bot ,ver the ss, lo, ele ·tl1 ve1 and higl1er Ne e. car ir the der un not s ,va time, 1,e ilit 1sib as far po1 as 1·es t, tl1a y for corn. eed agr y usl mo ani un a tre Eri in courts pensation of blood-n1oney ,vas concemed, tl1e fa111ily was bound to pay 21 . e1·s mb n1e its of for tl1e crimes ( clelitti) of one CI,apte1· 47 of tl1e Fetha Negast covers, in addition to intentional a.nd w,intentional I1on1icide, all cases that concern a person's safety - assaults a11d bruises, bodily and traumatic injtrry, poisoning; in the latter case, the lJerson ,vbo uses poison on others and the one wl10 detains or sells it for tl1e san1e pt11·pose, are ail punished \.\1Ïth tl1e same kind of punisbment.;:z Pro,,ision is 1nade for tl1e negligent deatl1 of a pe1·son, cat1sed either during htu1ti11g or wl1ere it ,vas intended to hit an animal - in botl1 cas�s there is strict JiabiJit)', tl1ot1gh tl1ere a1·e extent1ating circu111stances.23 Tl1e same l(i11cl of treatment is made \vl1e1·e a dangerous wall falls injuring sorneone or ,,vl1ere a perso11 cligs a ,vell in a (public) roacl and fails to cover it or ,vl1ere one bt1ilcls balcons or external laclders a11cl fails to take safety me 0

asures.24 If a sto11e or a stick is tl1rown «\vith no bad i11te11tion», but ac. cicle11tally bits a lJerson causing l1is cleatl1, the autl1or of tl1e act is equalJy liable, e,,en ,vl1ere it l1as been ascertained tl1at tl1e1·e was no enemity bet. ,vee11 tl1e t,vo IJersons; in st1ch a case, it is tl1e jt1dge's duty to order the exile of tl1e responsible IJerson, so as to save l1i 1n fron1 deatl1, for· if a re. lati,,e of tl1e deceasecl sl1ot1ld find a11d kill l1i111, l1e \Vill not be l1eld re. sponsible.25 Fii,ally, Chapte1· 50, iriter alia, envisages cases of i11te11tio11al -and 1111inte �tional arso11 with consequent clamag e an d. responsibility for tlurcl part1-es 26· Tl1at Eth'iopian · .· 011al Ia, .v l1as · tr.ac11t1 bee11 stro11gly i11flt1e1 1ced by tJ,e old Mosaic Ia,"' 5 ancl by tl1e Fet11a Neg·cist is ,vell-stated in tl1e follo,,ving {Jassages: «Tl1e la,v of Etl,ioJJia . , za. . . · 11atural 111 · is, · as 1s an t111cleveloped c1v1l1 .tio . · n, largely ba secl on JJrececle11t a11d t1·aditio11. Tl1e1 are, 110,v. ever, ·e t ,,vo cocles greatly va'ryin . . · g 111 · 01· 1 g111 a11d a11tiqt1it)' fro1n '"'l1ich tl1e se . . 1011s ..tracl1t • ed . . l1ave beei1 cleriv . . tl1 e ol cl Mosa1c la ,v ' a11d the fet/1. a • 1Vegclst. It is tl1e forn1 er, . . . .· . ". ev1cle 1 1c 1 11g aga111 tl1e stro11g]), Sen11tic

CUSTOllARY

LA \V

207

c!1arac�e1· �f tl1eir original ct1ltt1re, tl1at is res1Jon sible for the old _ v1nd1ct1ve Jt1dge1nents ....The Fet/1 a Negast . , tI 0 1 1 1 e ot .1 1e r b a n d, 1s . . . co a11 a11c1e11t cle,· co111p1lecl . .. fro111 tl1e olcl R 0111a11 Canon Iaw of tl1e days of Constanti11e, and greatly i11fltiencecl b y tl1e dec1s · 1o · ns of 27 th-e Cotu1cil of Nicaea».

(ii) A11i11zals a11d Ot/1er PrOJJerty ( Arts. 2071.2076). Cl1apter 47 of tl1 e Fetha Negast provides that he \vl1o IJOssesses a dangerot1s ,vall or a da11 gerot1s slave is liable ancl punisl1ed severely; Jike. ,vise sim.ilar liability attacl1es to tl1 e owner of dang;rous a11imals that cat1se dan1age by kiclcing ( sucl1 as 1ntùes 01· camels), or ox-en that are obnoxous v\1ith their l1orns.28 Uncler Cl1 a1Jter 45, it is laicl do,.vn that if t,vo oxen one of wl1icl1 i s kno\vn for l1is dangerous propensities, are figh ting and as a result one of tl1 em is killed, tl1 e owner who had failed to guarcl him sl1a11 replace tl1e dead by a live one as compensation ancl get tl1e meat of the dead ox foi· l1imself.A rule of the same Chapter provides tl1at a dangerous ox shall be stoned if tl1e owner, kno,ving tl1e dangerous character of his ox, l1a d failed to keep it under control.29 Dr.Abelo,v,3° \vl1 0 has made a study of tl1e Code of Adg11e11à Teghelebà, bas a full Cbapte1· on «Liability foi· Damage Done by or to An.imals and for depriving Ovvner of tise of Farm Animais».He quotes from Exodus 21:28: «If an ox gore a 1nan 01· a \,V0111 an, tl1at they die, the ox sl1all be surely ston ed, and 11.is flesh sl1all not be eate11, but tl1 e o,vner of tl1e ox sl1all be quit»; and he clraws from tlùs the notion of «noxal su1T.ender of tl1e of. fencling anin1al». Exodus 21 :35: «And if one man's ox l1urt anotl1 er's, that he dies; they sl1 all sell tl1e live ox ancl clivide money of it; and tl1e dead ox also they sl1all divicle».I-Ie then goes on to compare tl1 ese \.Vith tl1e pro. visions of Articles 293 to 295 of tl1e Aclgl1e11à Tegl1elebà Code and places emphasis on Article 302 of tl1e same wl1icl1 1·eads: «The o,vner of a «restless» donkey whicl1 kills or mt1tilates anotl1er clonkey, compensates its O\vner accord.ing to th e clecision of tl1 1·ee eiders ( sl1it,nagalle) ai1d takes the dead or mt1tilated clonkey l1in1self». Althot1gl1 with minor variations, Cl1apter 76 of tl1e Loggo Cl1 iita and Chap ter 78 of tl1e Atchen1e Melgà Iaw botl1 contain, substantially, tl1e same pro visions. . . . 1 in 11 ti a rb e v s t 0 11 J1 ' a ear NO\,V, 1t app happens tl1 at these 1Jrov1s1ons cl a e l1 e th t a 1 tl t n a ic if n g e si Can ,,ari' s ,,ersion of tl1e Fetl1a Negast,31 a n d it is 1e Ne,v Testa i11g of Cl1apte tl cl an d Ol e 1 tl r 45 is «of Salient Points from es c r t1 o s s it a 1 1 rner1t ». 1 t 1s o m a 5 a 1 0 I t as . also significant that the Fel/1cl Neg w e r b e I Ie l1 t e s Provisi · ·ons origin,1t r tr o c f · l1, 0 ing in tl1 e Pentatet1cl1 on vv1uc

CHA PTER

208

VII

.1s f ot1nded .3z Even if tI1e notion of no xa l sui·render .did. obtai n Utlder Jaw ern Ethiop1an law of civil od m e th at tl1 e se to g in v ifat srr l l i" J • • Roman law, 1•t 1•s st e, • m 1on fro dit t tra ren ffe al i cl so ctistoin t no is 6) 207 to 1 207 1 es · 1c t · r (A wro 11 crs , al e im tl1 of an y it bi wbich neces. Iia ct re di e tl1 , � nd ba r be ot e th ary i:w. On ary law has been om st n cu pa 1o th E r cle un i· fo ed id ov pr , sitated its killiilg 33 rise, b e Ta ve el . Tw \ e ke tl1 Li of .\ e» ri 1e t,tz � JJ{l it « de � conipai·ed to tlle · actio, 1l of w crv la n ongs came a. m wr Ro as y wa e m sa e th in at th ed nr se ob bas been ian op m hi sto Et cu so , lia y ui ar Aq x Le Iaw e th by ed ifi od m lly ua ad gr be to tich, in essence, is not wl lpa cu of t ep nc co rn de mo re n1o a to d un gro gave 34 . \V la an m Ro ed ifi od so different from m ls ma ani under one's con. of t ou g sin ari y ilit liab t tha say to ess edl Ne trol is not Iimited to oxen, but includes dogs, donkeys and mules. Provision 35 of s. arm svv bee a by sed cau age dam a11d i-y is also made for inju (iii) Machi1'zes arzcl Motor Veliicles (Art. 2081 (2)): Paragrapl1 2 (Art. 2081) creates a defence for tl1e O\vner of a machine or vellicle wl1ich l1as caused damage, if he can prove that at tl1e material time it l1ad been stolen fi·om him. In view of its age, it woulcl be fruitless to look foi· a similar pi·o\1ision in the Fetha Negast. Its «etl1iopian» charac. ter, l10\Ve\1er, still remains true. Tl1e reasons wl1ich nll1itated against im. posing strict liability even in case of theft l1ave already been explained.36 It is only to draw the attention of the reader on the «interesting» legislative hlstory of this provision that reference is now being made.37 D. MODE AND EXTENT OF COMPENSATION: (a.)

Material Damages ( Arts. 2095.2096):

The n1atter l1as already been clealt witl1 in Cl1apter V.38 F1·on1 l1is pe1·. sonal exp�rience, this writer knows of the question being raised as to tl1e _ policy wluch dictated tl1e enactment of paragrap h 2 (Ai·t. 2095) '"'l1ereby compensation due to fatal accide11t is to be mad e «in tl1e form of a 111ain ten ance allowance». For a better 3PJJreciation of thls qu estion it n1igl1t be \VOrtI1 ,vl1ile to _ . cligress a l1ttle a11d see tl1e backgro uncl. . . Tl1e erzda of Nortl1ern Etl1io p1a has bee11 co1n1Jai·ed to the Ro111.an gen.s, .the G . erman vzcits' the ce1tIc · c zct1i, tl1e Pers an d e ion vil vi e, lag In dia tl1 e 11 . tl1e Russan mzrl9 _ in ther. . ety. . . . . wor_ds, 1t . 1s st1bstant1ally, a }Jat1-iarcal soc1 Thoug 11 tl1e powers o f t h • e · R 0111 .. tl1e an JJa ter te, f abs a111. olu 1l1a . s we re . . 11op1an l1ead of tlle Etl fami1Y a1so st1ll retai11s great pow For this reason e1·.

CUSTOMATIY

LAW

209

tlJe re is a st1·ong familial b ond in tl1 e Etl1i opian family wll icll, as befoi·e saicl, is en1phasised in the Revised Constitt1tio11. A fe\v examples vvill llelp. Under Article 5 of tl1e AclgtLerzc), Tegl1elebc1. la\,v J)a1·ents must provicle foi· the edtication, betbrotl1al ru1 cl ma1·riage of tl1eir chilcl1·en. TJ1e cliildrerl, in tunl, O\•Ve them obedience. Under A1·ticle 4, ail the earnings of tJ1e cllilcl.J.·en go to the parents, \V110, in tu1·n, ar e 1·esponsible f or the actio11 of .lleir children, inclucling any «debts contracted by tl1en1». Whe11 the pare·nt dies all lùs debts are paid by l1is children (AI·t. 117). If a marriecl claughter becon1 es a \Vido\v she cru1 pe1·manently liv e in tl1e l1ot1se of !1er father, shot1lcl s11e decide not t o remarry (Art. 121), a fortiori if she is a spinster; b11t even if married, unless ancl until her husband takes ber away (Art. 55). If a son Iivi11g v\1itb bis n1 otl1e1· dies, leaving some property bel1ind, the motl1er n111st s.hare it vvitl1 the «descendants of tl1e deceased on the 111ale li11e» (Ai·t. 126). Like\vise, aged parents n1ust be fed ancl clotl1ed by their clùldren and can even cl1oose which of thei1· cl1ildren they prefer (Art. 57). In the case of chlldless aged persons, the burden of tl1eir maintenance falls on «tl1eir nearest relatives» (Art. 58) and the same is true of young orphans (1-\rt. 59). Conversely, where a persan dies as a result of l101nicide (be it inten. tional or unintentional) it is lus family group as a whole tl1at suffers ancl \vhere bloodmoney is paid, the family group has a sl1are (Arts. 156.162).40 That there sl1ould be blood.money is, of co1irse, no surprise if one recalls, for insta11ce, the 'Vvergild of the Anglo-Saxon period.41 Tl1is «blood fe11cl, ,vitl1 \Vlùcl1 reade1·s of Maine, Pollock, Maitland and Vi11ograclof art fa miliar»,4 2 is the same as the /aida of Medie,,al lavv.43 The pro\1isions of the Adghenà Teglielebà law can also be fo11ncl, in essence, in tl1e other two Codes of customa1-y law. Under· Chàpter 52 o f AtcfLeme Melgà, ,vl1en one of tl1e spo11ses clies, lhe other spouse is entitled to half of the property left, \Vhile the otl1er I1alf go es to his children. In case of homicide, l1alf of tl1e blood.rnon.ey is paid by the direct responsible, wl1 ile the other half is paid by I1is family · ecl by tl1e grotip up to the seve11th gene1·ation. Compensati· on receiv defe ndan ts is clivided also into t\VO parts - l1 alf to tl1 e cl1ilclI·en of tlie victim a11d half t o the o ther relatives.44 Simila rly, blood.money is provided for under Cl1apter I of tl1e Lo�go Clziita law. Two thirds of it g o es to tl1e children of tl1e victi1n ancl o11e tl11rcl to l1is brothers «on whom it is incumbent to car1·y out the ve11geance» riecl ar 111 11n (Chapter II). If an is e er 1 tl ed as ce cle e among the cl1ildren of tl1 ro. p re fo be e, daughter, the brotl1 s ar sl1 r !1e e id as er have a duty to put ood-m o11ey bl cee ctin gs to the as l ec iv ce re n division of tl1 e c ompensatio (CI1ap ter IV).

CIJA 1'1'Ell

:ZJO

\111

(b) Moral Da111ages: Cf 1aritable Boclies ( Arts. 2106-2111). ) i (

ere cl l wh su ga 1 a system rtu Po by ed J)ir ins · re · \Ve ns o s1· ,,1 ro p se 1e 1 t That 45 . 1ow eve 1·, wa s not tl1e 011ty ! is, Tlt t. ott ecl int po e11 be d,, J a · 1e I a obta111s 11as 1iop ian Civil Code. It ,vas also found Etl the i11 n tio ora ' orp c · 1n s · t 1 f or reason . . by the platnt1ff fre. ere wh e, tic ac p1· n pia l1io Et nt ese pi· to n1s for con tbat it 46 e 1 S. tl Re ros to id p On the be d kin �� quently asks that damages of this otller hand, the intentio11 ,vas to give tl1e cl101ce to the plarnt1fi \vl10, alone, 47 It is, therefore, in that ligl1t tha t the vvords «tl1e court . tion cre dis tlle llad may» appearing in tl1ese provisions n1ust be unclerstood. (ii) Cilsto111 ( Art. 2116): T11is pro,,ision is one instance ,,vbere exp1·ess 1·efere11 ce is made to custom ( coi1lit111.e). Article 2116 reacls: «(1) In fixing the amotmt of the fair compensation pro,1ided for in

tl1e preceding articles, and in establislti11g wl1 0 is qualifiecl to act as representative of tl1e family, tl1e court shall have rega.rd to local usages.

«(2) Tl1e court n1ay 11ot disrega1·d st1ch usages t1nless they are an. acl1ronistic 01· n1anifestly contray to reason or n1ora]s. « ( 3)

The compe11sation awarded fo1· mo1·al injury may in 110 case exceed one tl1ot1sand Etl1iopian Dollars».

Tl1ere are two obse1·vations to be mad,e befo1·e proceecling ft1rtl1,er; botl1 of tl1en1 conce1·n bad translation. I 11 tl1e first place tl1e vvords t<local 11sages>) (paragrapl1. 1 and 2) wbicl1 appear in tl1e Englisl1 text ai.-e n1ea11t to be a translation of tl1e French «couti1.n1es locales » . No,1/, it is elen1entary tl1at strictly speaking there is a sig11 ificant difference bet\vee11 «custon1s» a11d «usages)). \\1l1ile it is tn1e tl1at a ct1sto1n is tl1e proclt1ct of usage, tl1e con trary is not admittecl.48 In tl1e first case, tl1e «11sages>) l1ave acquired tl1e force of la,v and are tl1erefore of obligator1 11att1re; in tl1e seco11d, tl1ey l1a,,e not, tl1ougl1 tl1ey 1nay be i11 the p1·ocess of acqt1iri11g it.49 Secoi1dly, tl1e French tern1 of <<lcL 111.orale» l1as been tra11slated as «morals» (Art. 2116 (2) ). It is tl1e sa111e te1·n1 tl1at i 11 A1·ticle 2030 l1as beeil translated as «1norality>). Tllis 111ay l1elp to clistinguisl1 it f1·01n «les bo7 ti7 es moeitrs« which have been tra11slated as «l)t1blic n1orality» ,,vltile, accordii1g to a recent suggestion, 011ght to l1ave been translatecl as «good 1 1101· als».5ll 1

CUSTOl\l1\RY •

LAW

211

On tlle other band, \vhen speaking of tl1e « règles dit droL·t » 1n • the R0111a110 · s of «eqtti'ty » L111c1er · Gerinanic ]egal systen1, or of tl1e 1·eqL1ire111e11t tl1e Con1. . mo n La\V, Prof.essor Dav1cl speaks 11ot of «bo11r1es 111.oe1,trs» bu ·t of « 1a mo. 52 51 Engli ,,vr ite to o, require tl1at ct1sto111ary law be rs , sh rale». «not repugnant to natt1ral jt1stice 01· n1oraJity». It ,.vot1lcl appear tllen that it is in this tecl1n ical sense of tl1e \-Vo1·cl tl1at <<la 11101-ale» ,.vas e111ployed in Article 2116 a11cl the Englisl1 translation ot1gl1t to l1ave bee11 «nlorality» and not «mora1s ». The qt1estion may also a1·ise as to tl1e intended n1eaning of «local» customs. Wl1en speaki11g of customary la,v, tl1is te1·m cai1 be unde - rstood' grosso 11·ioclo, to co11vey t,vo 1neanings. First tl1e ordinary t1sage . of tl,e term \Vhicl1 connotes tl1e «local» as opposecl to tl1e «general» Ia,v. Seconclly, be. longingness to a particular location, as contrasted to tl1e «otl1er local» Iaws. Etbiopia has botl1 a «national» (an . d l1ence «general») law an.cl a «local» (or «cL1ston1ary») la,v. As alreacly see11, there are different and numerot1s customs but tl1e Etl1io1Jiai1 C1'ril Code i11corpo1·atecl 011ly the s11itable ones. Nevertheless, f1·om among tl1e suitable ones - tl1at i s to say, satisfying tl1e requirements intencled by the Codification Co1nmission - tl1ere can be a difference of application in p1·actice depe11cling as to «local» exigencies. It seems reasonable to infer that it is to tl1e latter that tl1e reference made in Article 2116 was in tendecl. The same article specifies tl1e limit of the amount to be awa1·clecl as not exœeding Eth. $ 1000 ($ 400 US). Professor David does not thlnk that this determination \-vas influe11ced by «local» custom, si11ce tl1e members of the Commission ,vere generally l1ostile to the incorporation of c11stom.s 53 This notwith s». itie plex. and did not knw the customs «in ail their corn standing , l1owever, tl1e learned legal scholar could not help observi11g that be found i t «interesting» tl1at tl1e Co1nmission sl1ould have inserted 54 nc. bla i11 ce the figure of $. 1000 ' in l1is draft , wl1e1·e l1e l1ad left tl1 e spa The '"'riter, sp.eaking I1ere ou t o f persona! expe1·ie11ce, at least as far as Eritrea is concerned, can state tl1at tl1e 111oclern tre11d before the coming into force of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code l1acl incleed establisl1ed tllat blood. money foi· the murder of anotl1e1· wa s to be paicl iI1 tl1e su m of Eth·

$. lOOO. == Thls is well illustrated in Article 158 of tl1e Adghenà Teghelebà la\v, \·Vhich fixes the amount in tl1e same st1m of 1000 Maria Theresa dollarS, Wlùle 500 M.T.D. ar e fxed fo r neglige11t homicide. The same is true of Cl1ap ter I of the Loggo Chiua law wl1icl1, hovvever, envisages only the case · · t ead 500 15 in s 0f mtircle1·. ey on m cl. oo bl e tl1 de Co à Under the Atche1ne Melg d te r e v 11 o c n e e b . . e v a h c: MT · ·D · Aga.rn here, experience sh ow s tl1at these s111ns . in to th.e prese11 t Etl1i.opia11 legal cur1·e11cy.

!!12

C II AP1'ER VII

, rds wo it is diffic ult to id's Dav . · sai fes Pro on n ctio efle r y n W1tbout a at bath an1ounts _ ce th en cid ïn co e er . m a · to e du ly on as bel1eve t11at 1 t \V,. • . . • th1op1an C1 v1l Code - sho uld E e tl1 of e os tl1 d an · m sto cu b tl1ose f.1xec1 Y . . . l ng fu k1 sh 1n wi th e er m r, an fo th e or m is after n sio lu rlc co le Tl . d 1e . 11. l1ave ta s of rt e e pa l th th al d O J)Ïat1 te hi en Et es pr re t �n am rli Pa of rs be em nl all the r parts of the in he ion ot at i1·m nf co ds fin n tio mp su as r's ·ite ,vi lis E�!)ire. Tl C.C., wl1ere expre ss re. E. (3) 3 le 57 tic Ar in as cl1 st1 , de Co il Civ i1 Ethiopia = . 00 10 $. l1. Et of t un 11o a1 t ac ex e th to e ad m fer-enœ is (iii) Pl1ysical Injilries or Deat/1 ( Art. 2113): Wl1ere tl1e victim has suffered bodily injury he is entitled to a fair compensation. Where, as a result of his injuries, the victim dies, then the compe11sation is paid to his family (Art. 2113). (iv) I11decent Assault ( atteinte à la piideur) and Injury (Do1nn1a.ge) ta

Wife - (Arts. 2114-2115): Mentio11 of tl1e contents of tl1e precedù1g Article as \Vell as those of A1·ticles 2114.2115, l1as already been 1nade in the section dealing with the Commo11 Law. It was tl1ere pointed out tl1at while Article 2113 speaks of lésio1is corporelles, Article 2115 speaks of domniage physique. Tl1e reference to Article 2113 now is made with ct1stomary law in mind, since it speaks of fa1nily. In view of tl1e broad concept of «family» in the Ethiopian context, tl1e question ,.vill arise as who is to be the legal representative for tl1e p11rposes of obtaining moral injury within tl1e meaning of this Ai·ticle. It is vvitl1 this question tl1at the next topic is co11cerned. Before passing to Ai·ticle 2117, however, it mgl1t be noted tl1at botl1 the Aclg/1.erzà Teg/1.elebà law (Arts. 105-116) and the Code of Loggo C!-iiua (Cl1ap. ter LXIX) expressly provide for compensation to famiJ 1, in one case and to tl1e l1usba11d in the otl1er, for rape and inclice11t assattlt, res1)ecti\1el11• In tllis, Articles 2114 a11d 2115 are also in acco1·d witl1 custom. ( v) Rez1rese11tcttive of t/1.e Fa111ily (Art. 2117 ):

Article 2117 recites: «In tl1e absence of any applicab le local t1sages ( coi.,tiL1nes) · g sI1aIl alone tl1e f oilowin be conside1·ed as qualfied to 1·e. present the family: a) tl1e victin1's l1 u sband o r wife; or

•,

CUSTO�lARY

LA \V

213

b) failing sucl1, or ,,,11ere l1e or she is inca ,pa , ble (1n · capa. citatecl?) tl1e victim's elclest cl1ilcl, ,vl1o is ca pable tinder the law; or c) faili11g s11ch, or ,vl1ere l1e or sl1e 1·s 1n · capa ble, ( ?) tl1e victim's fathe1·; or cl) failing s11cl1, 01· wl1e1·e h e is incapable, ( ?) tI1e victim's mothe1·; or e) failing such, or ,vf1ere sl1e is incapable, ( ?) the elclest of tl1e victi111's brotl1e1·s or sisters, ,vl10 has capacity to act ( ayarzt capacité pour agir) 11nde1· the la,.v». As to tJ1e meaning of «11sage» and «custo1n» what vvas said ï 11 con. nection vvith Article 2116 is equally applicable here. It would follow fron1 the contents of Article 2117 tl1at if there are any applicable local customs tmder whicl1 the representative of tl1e family is clete1·minecl, tl1e present provisions would not apply. Here is tl1en an instance of a clear ancl express recognition of local c11ston1, v.1l1ich is to be applied not as secitndit111 lege,n but as tfze la,v, tho11gb this is qualified by tl1e condition that the local custom should be «applicable» (AJ:t. 2117). In tl1at sense alone it would become p1·aeter legeni, that is to say, «not inconsistent with the Code's • • proV1s1ons».-,•• (c) Otfier A1.odes of Compercsatio·n:

Restitution and Co111.pe1isation i1i Kiricl (Arts. 2118.2119 ): In tl1e case of theft, acco1·cling to Article 163 of tl1e Adghenèi Teghelebà law, relief in given in two vvays _ (a) tl1e pa)rn1ent of double value of the stolen item ancl (b) com pen sat ion for tl1e trespass to goods. In the case of cattle, sheep or horses, the tl1ief must pay fivefold their ,,al11e (Art. 164) - no cloubt, emphasising tl1e impo1-tance of farm animais in a soc!ety \.Vhich is still mainly agricultural. Law in the Middle-Ages, too, empl1asised on tl1e increase in value of tl1e stolen property.56 Uncler Article 224 of the Aclghenc). Teglielebà law, a l1erdsman ,vl10 loses cattle of I1is enlpoyer muSt inform l1is master on tl1e same day. In case of failure to do so, he n1ust «compensate the owner by handing over an equal 11umber of cattle of the same qt1ality as that lost». es ov m re ho ,v n so er p a , vv Uncle r Chapter 73 of tl1e Atche11ze 1\1.elgèt la cattle belong1• ng to anotl1e1· must retun1 t·I1e111 in · do11ble. We k. navv that, ly r e p o r p 1m « f o n o ti accordi ng to u t 1· · t s · 1l· cocle, re . . lost. or. Article 2118 Ethiopian C1v 1t 1s e r e l1 ta' k en» prope rty vv d an ) 1 h 1n11st be macle (paragrap

CHAPTEll

VII

. . ,,a1LIe, iri·espective of the loss being clt1e to force n1.ajiire destroyed, its • . ecl proper . . r•oy st de cl or ty can also ate r o 1 " te1 de of t en cem pla Re • 2) 1 1 p ra g (para . . . . ·J . . . . ty e1 1e 01J t t p1 tl1a er be ord can «p 11·t co1 ut in • a. dcli"ti·on· , tJ1e be 01·de1·ed; ID order» (Art. 2119). r ovi de s tha t wh ere 011e on his o,v n p , too v, la\ à leb ghe Te erzà 1 g/ Ad . Tlle _ • . . . 1v r om tl1e shuniagalle btulds a I1ouse 11 e f J it'", hor atit ' out 1 1 t wi· d an e 1n1t1at ,.,.. l1in six montl1s, he l1as bee11 o rdered to do so. 1nus t demo1.1s11 1·t , 1·f, ,,,;t rs on wl1 0 des troy s a house, must pay pe a , Iaw lgà Me e 1 e,n tcJ tlle A Under compensation and, in addition, repair tl1e house an d put it in the stcLti,s quo c..nte, 57 This is not to say that relevant p rovision s of tl1e Ethiopian Civil Code are an exact replica of customary laws. Tl1e inte11tion here is merely to show the existence of simila1· provision s before the enactmen t of tb.e present legislation. D. ACTION FOR DAMAGES: (i) Collecti-ve Liability w/1en Aittlior is Urzkn·oVi,n ( Art. 2142).

The q11estion58 l1as already been dealt witl1 in detail in Cl1apter V. Corn. ments in connection with a related n1atter, that of solidaritè,59 can also be fou11d under the same Cl1apter. Nothing would l1ave been necessary to add had it not been tbat collective liabi1ity is admitted under Etluopian custo. n1ary la,v. A fe,v \vo1·ds, therefore, must l1ere be said. When dealing with the ancient characteris tic s of the Bantous, Professor Dekkers bas, among other things, remarked tl1at tl1e «inhabitants of a give11 district were ob1iged to account for the clelicts co111mitted in tl1eir territory, ,vl1en the autho1· ( of such delicts ) remained unlmo\vn».&:1 D r. Elias61 l1as ai·gued tl1at tbis characteris tic better illust1·ates tl1e so. called «unîty of clan» wl1ereby the indi,,idt1al being confused ,.vitl1 l1is gro11p, the latter is collectively res ponsible for dan1ages ca11.sed by a member to an outsider. That tl1e same 1·esttlt obtains ù1 Ethiopia and its i1npo1·tance tl1ere, have been explained by P1·of.ess or Da,,id, a s follows : «It appeared to us that such a provis ion (the pr· ovision tl1at l1olds all participants of a htmting expeditio11 co llecti,,el)' liable) can play a u seful role, and to a large 1neasu re, ù1 ce1-tai1 1 cases \-Vl1ere equity requires it, the n1aintaini11g of tl1e pri11ciple of a certain f � r1ns of collective resJJonsibility , be it of the family 01· of tl1e village, wl1icl1 is presently adn1 itted by cttsto111. It is kno,.vn in cert in cases tl1at dan1age l1a � s bee11 caused by a men1ber of a fanuly, of a village, or of a give11 t1·ibe, bt1t it is i111possible to cletermine• \-Vitl1 cer·ta1'nty, wl 11c · l1 111 · a·1,,1d · respons1b · le».6'· 11al 1s

CUSTO�IARY

LA w

215

Again, in a paper63 pr es entecl at tl 1e Uni,,ersity of Dak a1., .t11e learnecl . . . author 1nform ec l lus auclie11ce tl1at «collecti,,e r-"�'spons'b 1 1•i·1·.ty o f· a gro11p . . ,vhicl1 . certa1nly 1nclucled tl1 e at1tl101·» of a civil ,vr · ong ,vas a1nong the . . . . «solutions» env1saged 111 l11s �roJ ec t ancl it \Nas i11 tl1at seilse, tllougll in a _ • ve:ry loose n1anne1·, tl1at «Eth1op1a11 custom • • • 1,ac d bee11 tak·en 111 to consideration and sanctior!.ed bj' tl1e Code».6 ' Collecti,re responsibility is «sa11ctioned» by tJ1e cttsto111ary codes, too. In fact, under tl1e Atcl1e11·1e 1\llelgc'1. la\v, \\1l1e1·e tl1e bocly of a persan sllottld be found lying i11 a land ,vl1icl1 is «cliessa»,65 a11cl wl1ere t11e author is Lln kno,vn, the btu·den is on tl1e «collectivity» to eitl1er trace the pei )etrator or 1 to pay blood-money (Cl1ape1· 74 ). The la'"' of Loggo Chii,a di·a,vs a clistinc. tion as to ,vhetl1e1· the place is an inl1abited center or othervvise. J11 t11e first case tl1e village ,vot1ld be automatically l1elcl collectively liable, in tl1e second case some relaxation to the rigicl rule is made, as wl1ere seven selected villagers should take the oath, a step tl1at \VOL1ld bri11g the matter closer to an amicable settlement (Cl1apte1· V). That is enougl1 to dispose of the matter exce1)t to adcl, erz. passar1.t, tl1at the draft of the Penal Code had also retained collecetive responsibility, i11 recognition of established custom. Since Article 54 of the Revised Con. stitution guarantees «persona!» responsibility, it \.vas droppecl from tl1e final draft.66

(ii) Con1.pro1nise (Tra11scictiorz) (A-rticle 2148): Where damage bas been cat1sed, tl1e parties are free to make an agre. ement - they may either agree (a) tl1at the damage vvill not entail any compensation or (b) tl1 at such compensation sl1all be n1ade in accordance with the conditions stipulated (Art. 2148) - subject to the conditions of Article 3316. ✓i \,Vo1·d tra11sc1ction l1as been cJ e11 Fr t e tl1 is, at 1 tl s, ate ap tun rh pe unfor I tran slated as «compromise». Tecl111ically speaking, a «com11 ro1 1'1.is», Linder French la,v, is the contract under whicl1 two parties subinit tl1eir disptite to an arbitrator.67 Such arbitration l1as its own special formality and pro cedure and is different fro m a mere «transaction». Tl1e same is tru e tID<ler the Etl1iopian Ci vil Cocle. Wlule «transactio11 is a contract ,.vhereby tlle or te t1 p . is d a n ti s i· ex an 6 t ·e P art1es, · through mutual concessions, tern11na Prevent a dispute from arising i.I1 tl1e futt1re» (Art. 3307), ail arbitrator \vho • · n, Illtt st clo so undertak es to settle th e dispute under an arbitral conventio . ) 25 33 rt. (A ) in acc ordance ,vi th e oit dr c cli les . th JJrinciples of law (règ a r 1t b 1· a f o s le ip · nc Again pn • , Article 315 · · ns ai of the Civil Proceclw·e Code cont 1·s of 1 io is v e r p e 1 t1·0n b ut tl t c · t· 0 a·ffe nothing under the same Chapte1· 1s

216

CHAP1'ER VII

.). P.C ( C. E. 4) 5 . 31 rt 11ereas a (A W de Co vil . Ci ian op lli Et 6 . Articles 33-? 5-334 · provi · · n to w hat 1s . agreement» may be 111ade 1n adc11t1o ded e s u n o . . . . r p m «co p1an C1v1l Code (Art. 1o th E 4 32 .3 07 33 s le ic rt A of 1s o1 for under· the pr·ovisi . 274 E.C.P.C.). . . .1on wh1. cl1 1s at of «con. ut th 1t st m d 1ir tl a s I1a e od C il iv C The Etlliopian y ith rt w d pa ir tl1e mission th a t us tr en ay m s tie ar «p e th by re lie ciliatiorl » ,.v ting a settle ment tia go , ne le ib ss po if d, an · e1 1 tl ge to 1 of br·inging tlien ce the dispute is in On C . . C. E. ) ( 1) 18 33 rt. (A » em tl1 n ee tw be n) (tra,1Sa.ctio t allowed to bring t11e case no e ar es rti pa e th , o1· at ili nc co e tli of s nd the 11a um of non.concilia. nd ra mo me a n aw dr s ba tor ilia nc co e th ess to court, «unl es be bound by their rti pa e tl1 ll wi 1· no ); 21 33 rt. (A h nt mo six n thi wi tion» undertaking unless they l1ave expressly do ne so «in writing to confirm» it (Art. 3322). It is to be noted that the Englisl1 \Vord «settlement» in Articles 3318 (1) is the official translation of tl1e French «transactiorz». In addition to ,-vhat is pro,,ided for in the IJrovisions of conciliation (AI·ts. 3318.3324), recourse may be l1ad to wl1at is presc1·ibed for «transaction» (Art. 3324). Moreover, botl1 transaction and conciliation are part of Cl1apter I, (Title XX), but arbitratio11 l1a.s a separate CI1apter, which is the seconcl of the same title. Finally, tl1e heading of Title XX is «Compromise (Tra1isaction) and .Ar. bitral Submission (Converztion d'Arbitrage)». It would seem to follo\.v t11en tl1at, for tl1e purposes of the Etl1iopian Civil Code, both transaction and a significant co11ciliatio11 are to be regarded on the same footing, while . differe11ce is made in connection with arbitration. Bt1t to rett1rn to the main q11estion. African law, as the generalization goes, is more co11cerned ,.vith the preservation of «social equilibrium of the comn1w1it)', wl1ile Englisl1 la,v (and European in general) is markedly a Iaw of sanctions».68 Tl1 at is not to sa.y that other legal systems do not aim at the preservation or restoration of social order.69 Wbat is intended is to en1phasize tl1e imI?ortance of an amicable settlen1e11t in African Cu. stomary law. Tl1ough one may not entirely ag1·ee tbat tl1e sole ai111 of custoinary la\,v is to malce of jt1stice a11 «institution of peace» as op1Josecl to <<S trict a1Jplication of Ia,.v>>;o it is nonetl1eless true tl1a 111a11y a ti1ne, t rules of cu stomar law «set a standarcl or provide a talkin poi11t . 1 g »ï _ Tl1ere 1 s a general agreen1ent tl1at amicable settl ement of disputes is poptilar in Etliiopia.72 Ostini 73 gi,,es a go od illustratio11 of tl1e procedw·e fdllowed by tl1e parties - eac11 of· tl1e . pa1·t1es elects one s/1.i1111agalle and both of tl1ese elect 'a th·11·d one. Th . ï� to e pa1·t1e s etz111.z tl1e11 f take sole111 n a . . . ab1de by tl1e decision· I-Ie concIudes by . aff1rmi11g tl1at al! disputes of a civil . 11ature «w1thot1t exclt1s1·ons» can be the SLLbject of an amicable settle111e11t reached at b y tl1e s/1 i1111 agall e wl10 are sin1ply guidecl by <<p1·inciples of 75 eqtiity».

217 ----------·--- --- -----

CUSTOi\I ARY L,\\V

Ali three custorna1·y Cocles l1ave J)1·0,,isions regarding settlement. TJ1e Ja,v of Loggo Cliiica declicates no less tl1a11. fot1r chapters to tl1-e matter (Cl1apters II, III, IV, a11d LXXXV), tl1e last of wl1icl1 contains the follow. ing legal maxim ( proverb): «After tl1e n1eat there is tl1e bo11e; after the suit tl1e fetzmi».76 The con. cluding ,vords of tl1e Cocle a1·e: «Conseqt1e11tly, suits ,vhicl1 have been bro. ught to an end by means of fetz111i ot1gl1t not be raised again for any reason». This importance of abiding by tl1e decision after the fetz1ni is re. interated in Article 209 bis of the Aclglierzà Tegfzelebà Code. It is expressly provided there that tl1e decision of tl1e sl1itn1agalle must stand «even if it is against the rules of customary la,v». It is in vie,v of tbes,e at1tl1orities that tl1e topic has been dealt with under the present Cl1apte1·. It does not, of cot1rse, necessary mean that Article 2148 derives solely fr·om custon1ary law. This concludes, too, tl1e discussion of the civil wrong provisions which have been classified as belonging to the domain of traditional customary law.

CHAPTER VII

NOTES

Elias. T. O., The Nature of Customary Law, ( French translation, Prèsence Africaine, Paris ( 1961), at 151-152 and Chapter viii passim.

Allott, A., The Future of Law in Africa, ( Record of Proceeclings 1959-1960), London at 39: «ln every African territory there is a general law of torts in force».

David, R., Les Grands Systems de Droit Conte1nporai11s, Précis Dalloz ( 2nd ed. 1966) Paris, at 556 ( § 502).

Allott, A., Essays in African Law, Butterv,orth's African Series, London ( 1960), at 61-63; also passim (Author's italics).

David, op. cit. supra note 3, at 572 ( § 514)

Canevari, R.R., Fetha Neghast., ( 1936) at 249.

Ibid., at 251.

Ibid., at 250 (Translation from ltalian text by writer)

Abelov,, S.C., The Code of Customary Law of Adgl,enà Teghelebà in Eritrea, Ethiopia, with particular reference to the Law of Tort, in comparison with Roman Law, Corn mon Lav1 and N1odern Civi I Law ( Doctoral Thesis at Brooklyn Law Scheel 1964 Private Con1munication), at 2-7 and passim.

1 O.

For text, see aise Ostini, F., Trattato di Diritto Consuetudinario, at 35·

l l.

See also Abelow, op. cit. supra note 9, Chapter iii·

12.

Part Il, è, ra Se l de e ch •· . di ri 0Sl1n iu G 1, op. cit. supra note 10, at 41-43,· Consuetud·1 ni Rome (1953) at 155-158.

13·

Writer's translation.

NOTES • CHAPTER

%20

14.

e 10, at 7. ot n ra p su t. ci . p o i, in Ost

15.

gna·. - n fron, T"gri 1 Trans1 at1o

cc,iÇ n.e�lÇlli..P: 1,.J!,.'t'llr::»

58 of Loggo Chiua). 16. 17.

Vil

1 rigna· Trans1 ated fron, tl,e T'g

r (( h1t' u.e: ;?Ç/it.. av1

OVf.'

J?ttl

(inCh apter

:: ))

sabilite Civile, at 239-240: on sp Re la r su de Co de et oj Pr Un , David R. «Aux conceptions traclitionelles qui sont entretenues en Ethiopie se rattache enfin un autre cas de responsabilité sans faute: la responsabilité d'une per sonne est engagée, en dehors de toute faute de sa part, lorsque, par son fait, e!le tue ou blesse une autre personne».

18.

supra note 39Chapter 111.

19.

See Ostini, op. cit. supra note l 0, at 35-36, n. 9, 10, for texts and comments.

20.

Ibid., at 32, n. 8. Neither the name of the parties nor the nun1ber of the file appears.

Ibid., at 189.

22.

Canevari, op. cit. supra note 6, at 250-252.

23.

Ibid., at 254-55.

24.

Id.

25.

Ibid., at 257.

26.

Ibid., at 303.

27.

Howard, W.E.H., Public Administration in Ethiopia Groningen (t'-letherlands ( 1956), at 74, citing Sanford,C., Ethiopia under Haile Selassiè, London, ( 1946), at 80.

28.

Canevari, op. cit. supra note 6, at 255.

29.

Ibid., at 306-307.

30.

Abelow, op. cit. supra note 91 passim.

31.

Canevari, op. cit, supra note 6, at 255.

32.

Wise and \A/infielcl, Outlines of Jurisprud ence, ( 6th ed. by Dias) Oxford ( 1948) at 106; see also Canevari, Ibid, at 263-26 4.

33.

See Leage, Roman Private Law, at 426-427 for details of this institution.

34.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note l 0, at 40-41.

35.

See Chapter 76 o f the logg o Chiua Law andChapter 21 of Adkeme Melgà. See supra note 39 Chapt er Ill.

36. 37.

Note the following: «Allant plus Io in , ., av ais clans l'avant pro ·e 1 1 t adn1is la responsabilitè du pro.. . pr,eta1re, lors même . , , que la voi. ture aurait ete volée et l'accident cause par le voleur il est . interess ant de noter que , sur le point, le Parlement éthiop ien

NOTES • CHAPTEll

Vll

221

a den1andé une n1odification de l'a van t pro ·et·, I'a Js 1 ence ce i 1 toute faute de la part clu propriétaire lui a paru exiger, en ce cas, qu'au cune· rèsponsabilité ne soit n1ise à sa charge» (David, supra note 17, at 239). 38.

See supra note 219 of Chapter V.

39.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 1O; also passim.

40.

Ibid., at 30-3 l.

41. Russell, F.F., Outline of Legal History, New York (1929), at 105. 42. Russell, F.F., in Book Revie\V Comments, 27-28 Brooklyin L. Rev. 369 ( 1960-1962).

43. Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 31. 44.

See also Consuetudini del Serae, op. cit. supra note 12 at 162.

45. See supra note 233 ( Chapter V). 46.

David, supra note 17, at 241: « . . .est conforme

à la pratique

éthiopienne

actuelle, ou il

assez

arrive

fréquentemment que cles condamnations de ce genre interviennent au profit de la Croix-Rouge .. . >

47.

Id.

48.

See note 45 supra Chapter 1.

49.

Cfr. Cotran, E, The Place and Future of Customary Law in East Africa, in East African Law Today, BIICL, London, 72, 73 ( 1966): " .. . customary law ... includes ru les established by usage ancl having the force of law».

50.

See Krzeczunowicz, Civil Code Article 758-761: Side Issues, ln 2 JEL 185, 186 ( 1965)•

51.

David, op. cit. supra note 3, at 20 (§ 13), 352 (§299), 354 (§ 301).

52.

See Cotran, supra note 49, at 75.

53. David, Communication «A»: ission a rnis le chiffre mm co La . nc bla en re iff ch le 16 le 21 «J'ai laissè à 1 'artic coutume. La la ec av t or pp ra un ait re iff ch de $ 1.000. Je ne crois pas qu e ce leur complexitè. · .:» e ut to ns da , es urn ut co les l ma cornmissi on connaissait assez 54. David, supra note 17, at 242:

,nseree e et a n io it os , sp di e tt ce e «Il est, ici, encore interessant, cle noter qu commission de la de ns ie op hi ét es dans le projet à la de m an de de s rnembr

codification».

55.

Krzeczunowicz, The Ethiopian Civil Code, 7 J.A.L. 172, 175 ( 1963

56.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 38-39.

57 ·

Consuetudini del Serae, op. cit. supra note 12, at 172·

>·

NOTES . CIIAPTER

,,� --�

Vil

58.

te 263 (Chapter V). no ly al ci pe es cl an 2 26 625 See supra notes

59.

( Chapter V)• Se e !t1pra notes 285-297

60.

, Bruxelles ( 1953), at 41 ( § 43). les up Pe s de ivé Pr oit Dr Le , R. s, Dekker

ry Law, ( French Translation), at l 07-108. ma sto Cu of e tur Na e Th ., T.O s, Elia

62.

r's translation). David, supra note 17 at 244-245 ( autho

63.

tats Africains, Ed. Peclone, Paris ( 1963), David, R., La Refonte du Code Civil dans les E ( Extract fron, Annales Africaines cle 1962, Faculty o f Law and Economie Scien ces of Dakar).

64.

Ibid., at 8.

65.

Comn1unal land ownership vestecl in the village community. See also Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 90.

66.

Graven, J., The Penal Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1 J.E.L. 267, 290 ( 1964).

67.

Bron,berg, J., Petit Dictionnaire Juridique, Librairies Techniques, Paris ( 1956), item «compron1is», at 86.

68.

See Elias, op. cit. supra note 61, at 151-152.

69.

Id.

70.

David, op. cit. supra note 3, at 557 ( § 503).

71.

Allott, A.N., Essays in African Law ( 1960) at 73, cited by David, Id., n . 1.

72.

Canevari, R.R., Fetha Neghast, at 269-270.

73.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 17-18.

74.

Cu5tomary oath, breach of which entails a pen alty w hich is payable to G�vernment funds.

75. Ostini, supra note î O. 76.

From the Tigrigna:

(( .x... n �. ,,l � 1, ,,.. h "1.,

ao..

/<'l 0'1.

J?:mt i·,c

..<.&•tJll. :: ))

CI·lAPTER VIII

BORDERLINE SITUAl�IONS It is inte11ded, in tl1e p1·esent Cl1apter, to deal ,.vitl1 sitt1ations ,.vlùcl1 l1ave a bearing on al! three legal systems, as harmonized iI1 the Ethiopian Civil Code, bt1t ,.vhere i t is still difficult to pin1Joint with a certain amot1nt of certainty that tl1ey a1·e pecttliar to one pai·tict1lar legal system. It is, ad mitted.1:y, possible tl1at similar cases 111igl1t l1ave bee11 already indirectly classifiecl ttnder one 01· more of thes.e systen1s. Tl1is vvill be IJarticttlarly tru e, for instance, of tl1e «General Rules» ( Cl1apte1· V). 111 st1cl1 a case, tl1e present «borderline» situations must b-e talcen to inclucle only those rzot othet1vise treated else·wliere in tl1e IJresent bool<:. A. NO&IINATE TORTS: ( i)

Simt1lation ( Creation · cl'itrie ApJJCLrence) - Article 2058.

The Table AlpfLabétique des Matierès places Articles 1991, 2058, 2123, uncler item ((appare1ice»; tmder item ccsi11iulation», Articles 1991, 1994, 2019. . e ai1d it is The heading of the Fre11cl1 ,,e1·sion of Article 2058 is A11parenc as follows: ((Lorsq'une personne a, pa1· ses décla1·ations, sa co11d1tite, ou so11 ce abstention , indt1it les tie1·s ou ce1·tains tiers à croire .à l'exiS'ten . ,, cl'11n certain état de cl1oses, elle con1111et t1ne fat1te si, ati n1epris cle la bo11ne foi, elle p1·ètencl opposer atix tiers le vèritable état de ch.oses». - fi�·st' A comparison witl1 th e Englisl1 text sl1ows three ii1acctiracies : 11ch vvl 11» the l1ea ding t10 ten bs «a rd wo e tl1 which is «s·imttlation». Second, p o cl n te ré p has been translatecl e ll e « ls rc o w e · d, th as «non feasance». Tl11r . 11rcl tl l1 c t1 s t s in Pose. au . ers» a <1 a 1011 t' ac 0 ' es . hav e been rendered as «l1e talc r x ti l1sb . g 11 E t s la e Partie th 1 n ·o s f 1 ·· ». Two inferences can be draw11, m tttrn, c

CHAPT.ER

Vlll

224 10 l1as createcl l 1 \v o1 rs pe e 1 t1' to ft Ie • is e iv the initiat . . e tl1 at tlJ 1 0 1 t1 1 a s . 1 tra1 • . · \VI10 n1a y J 1ave bee n af t1es JJar rd tl11 tI1e to . not ·ons and t1 a u rt s · t» n . e r . a . iJ p a <, . . . . tl. 1e responsiblc d, at tea tl1 1ns , es pl1 1m . " Elle JJ r» se po 011 d 11 .. I,e'te . . . fectecl b:y 1t.. . ta resist ( either cl11·ectly or 111 d11· ectly) to an action . . g . . person 1s endeavow_1n ((abstentio11» 1s ge11erally taken , dly con Se . es. i·ti pa d r hi t · . be1ng taken by t.11e . . 11s s10 1e1 ca wl . oc 1 be 1t 1s dif. 1 ere rnay tl l1 tig tho > , > act o t e _ w 1 1 a f « to mean . . d I B requiring the pe1·s011 «to act » - as tl1e E11gl1sh tra11 sia. . . feren tly ut1. 11ze . Y . . en 1 se 1on s to ss orm of have bee n . t en m 1re qu re is tI1 ·t 1 e av h ld I Ot tion \.V essence, �ave comparable in , ay m » ce an as fe on <<n y, dl tte nu Ad nullified. r term an cl co nf usion may be avoid. v. La on n1 m Co l ica hn tec sults, but it is a ed by simply using tl1e te rn 1 «abste11tion». le 1991 (apJJarent tic t Ar cl tl1a t1e a1·g be t gl1 mj It ce. tan bs su tlle to as \V No a acts) 11as been enun1erated botl1 unde1· si111itlatiori an d 1tnde1· 1Jpare1ice merely becatise tI1e word sin1.itlatior1. appears als o tl1ere (paragrapl1 1). The same Article, ho\veve1·, speaks also of <e[es contre-letters» ( paragrapb 2). No\V, every Frencl1 lawye1· knows that a «coritre_letter» is the technica.l 11an1e gi,,e11 to a secret contract - as opposed to a11 ostensible one entered into by tl1e parties in a case of si,nulation p1·opre.2 A contre.lettre (trenslated as «counterdeed» in Art. 1991 (2)) is the san1e as tl1e concept wl1ich, tmder Scots law, is known as « back.Iette1·».3 One could say tl1e11 that \Ve are still in tl1e domain of si111.ulati011.. Bt1t it might be 11seful at this stage, to refer, briefly, to this concept, uncle1· Frencl1 lavv. For reasons of their own, parties may \vish to conceal the 1·eal cl1a1·acter of their cont1·act. To tl1is effect, tl1ey n1aj' ente1· into an a1Jpa1·ent aucl open contract which bas tl1e ai1n of either modifying or dest1·oyi11g tJ1e effects of tl1ei1· secret contract.4 Tl1is means tl1at betwee11 tl1e parties tl1ere are t\.\'O agreements - one an ostensible, bt1t false, ,vl1icl1 is the acte apparerit or si,11.itlé, tl1e other, a sincere, gent1ine, but secret, vvhich is tl1e co1ztre.lettre or l'acte dissi111.itlé.5 Depencling as to tl1e ultin1 ate abject of tl1e co11tracti ng JJarties, si,11ttlatio11. has been dividecl i11to tl1ree t)'pe acco s, rding to son1e,6 a11d Îllto fot1r, according to otl1ers.7 Bt1t, tu1de1· Ar ticle 1321 Fre11cl1 Civil Code, contre-lettres l1ave effect only as bet\vee11 tl1e co11t1·acti1 1g parties and not as rega1·cls tl1ir d parties; likevvise botl1 tl1e oste11sible a11d tl1e secret agreements must not be contrai-y to la w for, otl1-e1,.vise tl1ey \VOL1ld be 11L1ll and void.8 Germa11 la\v (§ 117 B G ·B •) st , \Ve11t· f·t1rtl1e1· a11cl, 111 p1-i1 ea I at J e l 1c1 · · · 1 · re11dered e,,en tl1e «appar · - ent.» agreeme nt 11t1ll a11cl \roicl - 0 tl1-e grotu1 ci . 11 tl1at 1 t lacked ï 11 real 1· t Y a11 . . actt1al \-'.r1ll ( volo11.té réelle) - 11ot 011ly as bet. \.veen tl1e contracting· p ar·tIes . · b t1t. also 111 9 Tl1us , s. 1·e lat io1 pa rti 1 e to tl1i 1·d . . a few cases except. foi ·. tl 1·e Iatt er- \v1 ' · ges l 1 da111 l1ave a . . 110 ren1ecly otl1er tba11 . c1v1I for \Vrong s, tl1lcl er. t.1le clro'lt co 111111 itn.10

BORDERLINE SI'l'UATIONS

225

In France, tl1e positio11 re1nains stil1 conft1sed • Cac. rboi1n·1er wot111 c pref·er • • • • • to prohlb1t simulaJt1.011 and, by stretcl11ng the co11tents of Ai·ticle 1099 al. 2 ,vliich refer to fictitio11s clo11 atio11s, to 1·ecognize a IJrinciiJle of voicln�bilit; (11z1llité) for th e contre.letl'res as \.V ell as for tl1e cLcte a1111are1 1t.11 Frencl1 case Ia,.v is clivicled as to tl1e value to be give11 to eacl1 tyJJe, vvllere tllircl parties }1ave relied on 011e or on the otl1er, bt1t it ap1 Jears tllat tllere is a tendency to protect third pa1·ties vvl10, acti11g in goocl faitl1, 11av.e relied on 12 t11e acte apparent. Uncler tl1e law of evide11ce of tl1e Comn1on Law syste1n, t11ere is a cloctri11e c,1iled Estoppel. Originally tl1ere were tl11·ee types - (a) estoppel by recorc,l (b) estoppel by deed a11cl (c) estoppel by i·11 pais (at times kno,vn as «eqtùtable estoppel», «esto1Jpel by cond11ct» or «re_presenta. tio11» 13). It is ,vit11 tl1e latter tl1at we are l1ere concerned. Tl1e essence of tllis is «t11at a person wl10 l1as deliberately misled anotl1er by his acts or staternents cannot give evidence conflicting vvitl1 them».14 In otl1er ,vords, he is «esto1Jped>}, amoug otl1e1· thiI1 gs, from denying iI1 a civil s11it tl1at his acts or stateme11ts were not misleading. But since tl1is is an eqt1itable de. vice, tl1ere is a qtialification that tl1is cloctrine can be waived if to e11force it ,.vould be cont1·ary to public policy.15 Article 2158, it l1as been said, is not so clea1· «to a Con1 mon lavv student».16 That it \.vas not inspired by Com111on La,-v notio11s is also con. firecl by the expert who prepa1·ecl tl1e first dl·aft. In fact, after enttmerating the Common La,v nominate torts, Professor David explains tl1at tl1e saine section contemplated other cases sucl1 as tl1e tl1eo1--y of «apparence» vvl1icl1 l1ave been <<bor1·0\.ved fro111 othe1· legal syste111s». 17 In vievv of ,-vhat .l1as been said above, therefore, it migl1t be tl1at Ger. man la\v may l1ave had some influence on tl1e 1nind of tl1e expert. (ii) Distraint (Saisies) - Article 2063. J.\ persan is allowecl. to seize property ( bieris) in order to satisfy a11 ttnpaid debt, vvhicl1 is due, bu t tl1ere are t,-vo exceptions: I1e m11st 11ot seize Ltnless it is necessa1--y; and if ancl wl1e11 l1e does so , seiztire mtiSl be pro. portio nate to tl1-e amot111 t of tl1e debt ( Art. 2063) · A saisie unde1· Fre11ch la w is tl1e nan1e given to a procedttre of execu. tion whereby a debtor's property is placed uncle1· tl1e j11riscliction of tl1e co11rt, at tl1e request of a c1·editor. Rot1gly speakin. g, tl1ere are tl1ree types st comrnoi� - (a) the saisie arrêt, (b ) th e saisie exéciLtio1i v.rbicl1 is tl1e of t . an101111 .. , · . . certain form , an d (c) a ·es tl1e saisie zmmobzlzere, wluc11 reqllll • • co11st!11 se a1·e 1e tl t tt b s for·m a 1·ity. In . ·e 1 i· o t· · · a ' .. addition ' tl1 er e are les seisies • like the Iead si 1nP 1Y precat not d d an 1tionary steps taken by tl1e crecl1tor

°:1°

' ·

226

CJ:JAPTER

Vlfl

18 d attacl1 so The latter is tlie . e ty pro1Jer O tlle f e 1 a s 1e l t to , s ot11er fo r1 11 . 1;0 ti a rv e s . r1 co ro st e it q se n a eqt1ivale11t o.f tl1e Itali te na m1 no e g tl1, torts belo nging o11. am d te lis is ire ra bit Ar Seqitestratiori 19 e· Table Alz:;/1.abéti qite, tJ.1 cs at ol lo e on if tt bt , m ste sy \-\' La 0n 1 to tlle Coin11 t) en 11m a1J1Jea1· t1nder tlJe ·iso 1J1 im il .vft la\ un ( 08 21 cl a11 40 20 les tic only Ar ,2° a111ong ,vllich les tic n ar te an tl1 s les es 110 isi sa 1· cle tm s ea er \vh g, sa�e lleadin Articles 2063, are ent1me1·atecl. g din of l1ea the is Article 2063. t» ain str «di of n tio sla 1 1 tra 1 l glis En The Under English Iaw, «clist1·aint» is pa1·t of «distress» \V]1ereby a persan i s eiititled to seize (or to .dist1·aint upon) tl1e goods of anotl1e1· w110 I1as failed to satisfy the for1ne1·'s clai1n; thougl1 whe1·e a 111anifestly excessi ve 21 e b m is 1 the 1ing 1·ai lly civi dist lia san l per . tl1e ed, seiz is ds goo of qua1 1tity Unde1· Englisl1 la\v, too a self-l1elp re111edy is tl1at of «clistress ( 01· distraint) clamage fea.sant» \\1l1e1·eby a 1Je1·son is e1 1titled to l1 old cl1attels belonging to a11otl1e1· 1mtil da111age is JJaid. While it is applicable to an)' p1·ope1 ·ty (a rail\.vay e11gine in one case), «tl1e most con1mo11 instance of clistraint» is tJ1at of a1 1in1als. 22 Tl1e latter for11 1 of self.l1elp is ver)' con1.mon in tl1e 1J1·ovince of Eritrea. Ail th1·ee Customa1y La\v Codes have specific p1·ovisions to tliis effect, and all tbree JJrovide compensatio11 for excessive 01· illegal seizw·e of animals.n

(iii) Execittio11 of a Cou1·t Orde1- ( Art. 206tJ ). It is ,,ery likely tl1at sucl1 a seizt1re l1 as been made tbr·ot1gl1 the bailiff a11d as a res11lt of a cot1rt orcler. In s11ch a case tl1ere is no liability except \.vl1ere (a) tl1e order of tl1e cot1rt is not in tl1e prescr·ibed fo1·11 1, or (b) tl1e bailiff l1as exceedecl lus i11st1·uctions, or (c) l1 e l1as proceeded «\vitl10L1t re. gard to tl1e provisio11s of law» (Art. 2064). 111 Ei1glancl, a sl1e1·iff \\1110 11 1isconclt1cts l1i 1uself i11 st1cl1 a 1nai111e r is also liable; btit \vl1 ere l1e l1as actecl on tl1 e express cli1·ection of a creditor �le \-vill be iiiclemi1ifiecl by tl1e latte1·.24 A co1 11pa1·able provision ca11 bè found 111 tlle Law of Aclglierià Teg1zelebà (A i·ts. 276, 288) 01· i 11 tl1at of Loggo· CliirLa (Cllapter LXXII) wl1ereby a gt1ard of tl1e anin1als is I1eld liable for exce ed· ing l1is ma 11clate. 1·11 tl1.e 1 a\"' 0 . . . f co11t1a a st . cts, aJm . o 111 _ l·1·a 11ce 1s for , la 11ze . . f.·.. 1 ftl1 condrt1011 · for tlie \, a1I. clit)' of a co11t1·act.20 A nota11, \.Vl10 i11serts a fals e .state11 . . 1 . ent u1 a 11otari c: cal cleecl - ,,vl11 cl1 1 11itle for1 11a:y 1 even grosse�o \,Vitl be • a , , OLre - ca11 be ci··1m e,Y,ecitt . · allY l1able 111 0f 1ce a11cl sente1 Jt111ish able a 1 ,vitl l . .. tvve1 1 ty )'ears of lJenal se1·\1ititt1cle. 21

BORDERLlNE SlTUA'rio�s

227

(Î\') PrescriJJlion (Art. 2065): No offe11 ce, \.VÏtl1in tl1e m eani11 g of Article 2029, vvill be cornlllittecl by a perso11 \Vho sin1ply in,,okes «ust1capio11 or li111e limit vvlticll 11as operated ta bis benefit>> (Art. 2065). Tl1at tl1e1·e sl1ot1lcl be a Ii11ut \\'Îtllitl vvlliclJ rigllts roa)' be acqt1irecl or lo st 01· tl1at tl1ere sl1ot1lcl b.e a tiine-Ji11ut for their ex. ercise seen.1s to b e an e le111 enta1·y 1·eq1tire1nent of a11 y give11 social order. It is i11 tl1 is sense tha t tl1e assertio11 , 011 tl1e part of Pro fessoi· Davicl tllat certain qt1estions suc h as «le clélai cle z;rescriJJtio11. qiti atteiïit l'action e, 1 clor1111•zages-irztérêsts» contained i11 Cl1apter XIII occt11-1·i11g «i11 all cou11tries», must be tmde1·stood.25 A�~ticle 2065 speak s of «t1st1capion». Usi1ca1Jio i11 Ron1a11 la\-v ca11 be traced back as fru· as tl1e T\vel\1e Tabl-es, bt1t by tl1e ti1ne of Jt1stinian tl1e tern1 came to be applied fo1· p1·escriptio11 of n1 ovables 011ly, \vl1ile tl1e tern1 lo1igi te11zporis possessio applied to presc1·iption of all la11d.29 Prescriptio11, bo\ve,·e1·, coulcl operate in tl1 1·ee vvays - (a) acqui sitive IJrescription, whe. reby, by effects of lav\', one acqui1·ecl ownersl1ip ove1· possession or some otl1er rjgl1ts l1itberto enjoyed as a restùt of a certain la1Jse of tin1 e; (b) extinctiv-e presc1i1Jtion is tl1e reverse - 011e lost, by la\.v, owners l1ip or en jo�tment rigl1ts b:}' reason of l1is l1a\ri11g failecl to exercise l1is rigl1t for a certain period of tirne; a11 d ( c) adj e ctiv.e p1·esc1iJJtion \vhicl1 , as tl1e ter1n implies, affected not t l1e rigl1t but tl1e actio11 for its exerci se.30 Prescription 1mde1· F1·e11 cl1 lavv, too, is «tl1e acqt1isitio11 or tl1e exti11ction of a right by Iapse of tirne>> and is, accorcli11gly, 'acquisiti\;e' - also callecl <!Usucaption», \Vhereby a pe1·son is IJermittecl to acqttir-e a title over a real rigbt by proiongecl poss ession - and 'exti11 ctive' - vvl1eeby, b)1 lapse of time, a creclitor's rigb t of action i s ba1·1·ecl but, 1mlike tl1e fo1·mer, cI-eals not over a right in rem bt1t over obligations , tl1 at is to s ay, «contract, qtiasi. contract or to1�t» .31 The latter may be, i11 tUI·n, divid ecl i11 to sl1ort prescrip 2 i 111 ·' ) con iilr'l.» ns t t o ancl those of l onger duration ( z;1·escr-ipt, io11. cle cirai Englisl1 law, generally, k.nov.rs only the extinctive ancl tl1e acljectiv�l presciiption, tl10L1gh acqui sitive 1Jres c1·iption may also be e 11cotinterecl in «ea sements and other i11co1·po1·eal rig11ts 0\ 1e1· lancl».33 . . . <Y11izecl 0 Acqt11• s1_-t•1ve • 110 t, on- tl1e wI1oJ.-0 , 1·eco presc1·1pt1on a s a Jega1 n11 e 1s . ttncler Afric an cu er \v1tl1011t a v e 11 is cl la11 t tha d s tomary law , on tl1e g1·oun _ sses sion proprietor and cau po 1· ttla eg irr 1 a1 of n tio ep nc co be s e tl1e Africa11's · ct · 34 · en v E s n. · ssi osse rffe p of 1 ot10 rent 1 1 1 l1 � from tl1at of Savigny 01· tl1e E11glis � lf Etl1iopia above is not ,vitl1in tl1 e sco pe of D1·. Elias' worlc,3s tl1e reas o111ng rnacle is, 111utatis 1 cL1stoma1?' ia1 iop 1 l Et al ion clit muta11.clis applicable fo r tra law · In ed unt1l lz rt · g o c e i· t o 1 1 E·th1. opia, prescription of 1Aeal pro1Jerty was laL ely' 00 can . a11d cr erriclin 0 v o A 5 )' tl1e ground that ét « rest » }Jl operty 1s a.1\-Va J

CFIA P1'Ell

220

Vil1

,vever, came graduaUy to . d a t any t1· 111 e 36 La c ncl Ia w in E1·itrea, 110 · • be c]a1111 e • n sio ses . pos t1l cef a11d Jea en l anc I Jo s uou tin con _yment , en p o . t an 1 a t .1 ze 11 g1 i·eco . . . .· _ . . . d of r 11o fo pe r a y fo ar cl1. )'e erz id ss s, gives � of a lot of land ,.vitll ani, 1iiLs po l e a na ev m1 11o nt n re e no on at tl1 ed id ov _ is, pi· ip, 1 i·st vne o,. of le tit a 37 » a rz. · teg . tl e es 1 ((r to r · so es ss po 1 e tl r10d, P"'�d by during sucI1 a pe"'. s to co11template botl1 cases of an acqt11s1t1ve and ex . Article 2065 seem tiilctive prescriptio11 , since it refers to «usuca1Jion» an d «prescriptio n» Î ll tl1e alte1·native sense. a.,.

•

B. S'fRICT LIABILITY (OR LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT). (i) Necessity (Art. 2066):

«A persan s11 all be Iiable foi· any damage l 1e deliberéttely ( 11olor1.ta i. re11'1.e 11t) causes to anotl1e1· i11 order to sa,,e hin1self or anotl1er from an in11ninent clamage to (l1is) pe1·so11 or (his) property (para� grapl1 1). «No liability sl1all be i11ctrr1·ed (110,.vever) ,vhere tl1 e clamage is due to the victi1n's fault» (parag1·aph 2). Tl1e civil ,.vi·o11g l1ere co11 ten1plated bei11g tl1e resttlt of a deliberate positive actio11 on tl1e JJart of t l1e offender, doubt I1 as been expressed" as to the reasons which led the codifiers to place it in the Section d-ealing ,.vitb strict liability ratl1e1· than in tl 1at of intentional \VTongs. Pri1 1ia facie one is, i11deed, inclined to agree. One rnay, also, easily confuse it ,vitl1 self.defence, tl1ot1gI1 the l atter is a cornplete defence (A1-ts. 2039, 2067). Neve1·tl1 eless, it is a fact tl1at Article 2039 (b) also envisages botl1 clefence for tl1e pe1·s0 ancl for pro. 11 perty. But, l1 ere again, tl1e act, irzter ctlia, is done ((pott 1• gara1ztir}> w!1ile tl1e verb «proteger» is ernployed in Article 2066 (1 ). Tl1e tmclerlying cliffere11 ce between tl1e two co ncepts, in E11glisl1 Ia,v, I1as been given in tl1e followi11g lucid defi11itio11 of 11 ecessit)' by Sir Percy Wi11field: «It differs from private clefence in tl1at in 11ecessity the l1a1111 in fiicted on tl1e plaintiff \vas not JJ1·ov oked by at1)' actt1al or tl1reaten ecl illegcLl wro11g on tl1e plaintiff's part and tl1at ,vl1at tl1e defenda nt tlid may be entirely for tl1 e good of otl1e1· peo_ple a11d 11 ot neces _ �aril� for the protectio11 of l1i1 11 self 01· I1is p1·01Je1 ·ty. It differs fr0111 iiie, it ble acciclerz.t in tl1 � � at ù1 1 1ecessity th e l 1a1·n1 is intencled. Its basis 15 a mixttii·e of ch a rity, tl1e 1nau1 ta 11ai1ce of tl1e JJ11blic goo d and self-protection».39

--------

DOI{DERLINE

SITUATIONS

229

The esse11ce \vas sin1ilar tmcler Ron1a11 la\v \.\'lle · r·e a \VI'lful act ancl not is the req1· ..1irement and i11 so111e insta11ces it ,va · citlpa · s an " c alogot1s to seIf·s 0 defence.J In tl1 e Co11tin ent, tl1e principle embocliecl in Article 2066 is familiar but even tl1ere, tl1ere ar e times wl1e11 it creates a good defe11ce ancl in sticll a case tl1e a11alogy ,,ritl1 sel.f.clefence is evicle11t. 41 TI1e position is still tinclear ancl, in tl1e case of prope1·ty, La,vson l1as sun1.1nariz.ecl it by settiilg forth at Jeast tl1ree solt1tio11s - (a) tl1at necessity never justifies interference or damage, bt1t 011e may destroy a11otl1er 1na11's l1ouse only wl1ere fir e con1ing fro1n it \vas approacbing l1is own. (b) Tl1at necessity can be a good defence - acceptecl also in Englisl1 la,v42 - ,vl1ere the fire l1ad been lJt1t out before it reacl1ed defenclant's p1·operty, bt1t in sucl1 a case, tl1e action of tl1e clefencla11t mt1st l1ave been reasonably 11ecessary according to tl1e information available at tl1e time. ( c) A tl1ird solt1tio11 - acceptecl by ancl kno\VIl in A111erica as «incon1plete }Jrivilege» - ,vould pern1it the defendant to interfere \Vit11 tl1e p1·ope1·ty of another bt1t to require him, at the same time, to n1ake con1pensatio11 for the damage «l1e actt1ally cat1secl».�1 I n Ger·n1ai1y, focus is placecl on the disproportionality between the damage causecl a. nd tl1e tl11·eat of the same.44 In Italy, specific provision is made to distinguisl1 betwee11 self.clefence a11cl necessity (Arts. 2044.2045 I.C.C., respective}�,) but no satisfacto1-y 1·est1lt seen1s to l1ave been achieved as to if ancl whe11 neœssity can beco111e a clefe11ce.45 In France, differe11t positions l1ave bee11 take11 as 1·egards tl1e thircl solution - some wisl1i11g to accept tl1e German solutio11, oth-ers b1·a11ding it as «contrary to jt1stice», would de11y it co1npletely, ancl otl1ers still, ac cepting it in principle, but fi11ding diffict1lties for its legal basis in prac. tice,46 Carbonnier47 considers stat e of necessity as a wro11g intentio11ally caused to others in order to avoicl a greate1· evil, ancl gives the example of a man bel1 i11cl tl1e v.1l1eel wl10 cl1oses to damage a parked velucle ratl1er than rt111 over a person. In st1ch a case, ,vhere the value of the damaged tliing is lesser tl1an tha t saved, there \vould be jt1stification. The O\vner of the parked vel1 ic.le (no w damaged) vvo11ld have recourse by clain1ing in· dernn1ty from tl1e ovvner of tl1e property savecl, but 0n the basi· s of a geSliorz cl'affaire or 1mdue enricl1n1ent ( saris.caitse). 45 n _ of. tI1e The soltttion adoptecl i11 Article 2066 seems to be a combinatio _ _ . d1fferent positions. On the on e ha nd , by placing it tu1cler the strict 11ab1�1ty _ . 49 ,.vl10 cleny just1f1cat1on provisions, tl1e difiers e os tl1 co seem to agree witl1 eory Tl1e o0 tlie basis of tb l· s 'ri e 1 tl 0 t 1a1· 1· pect1 objective responsibility , ancl 11ot «fait te» ·te» ·z b fac. ct tl1a t ' L z 11st o Article 2066 ( 1) contempla tes « resp . . . clellng seem s to . e11v1sag . 1 b'-' J d , 1an l . lencl colot1r to tlus 1er v1ew. On the ot.1 • • t1ve . . . st1bJec berat 0s1t1ve tl1e e •equir 1 O t s seei ·eP n action (hance i11tentio11al), 1t ore test \"'11 l · ch reqw. res a free ancl co111petent ( ca1Ja bl e) \,\,'II 1 and \vl1ere, bef .

230

CH.AP'f,Ell

VIII

·cl1 an d a n1oral a J ea1 res cal ogi 1ol ycl «ps a ' cl goo ade l da111age can be n1 51 50 11 tl1at the con cept see ve l1a e V \, . . 11» 111t1st be condticted · I-Ioweve1·, p . . . · rec1at10 ·1.. (Art· 2034) is co11te1nplatecl 1n the Etl1101J1an Civil Cod"'" z . o l 1 c 1 e of a.bits c 1· 1·e l1e ju to ot in a11 11t te rt. i11 1 (A a1 is e e1· th 2032) e e1· 1 l v \, _ s , se ca o tw onJ) Ïll . Si11ce the situa. 3) rt. (A 203 oir uv z1o cle r1.t 111.e tr11. toi dé a is re e tl1e and ,vller • wl1ere the defe11dant acts not ity ess · nec of t tl1a s 1 6 ?06 le c 1· Ar�t l er l( Lil 11 t10 , ers or his oth f sel lurn property or » ve «sa to t bt1 s 1er otI e ur inj to er i il ord 1 as to why Jl) re1 tl1e » age dam t it bas nen mi «im a11 m fro , tl1at of otI1ers been placecl in tJ1e st1·ict liability sectio11 ma y lie here. Tl1ere is bere tl1en a presLlITIJJtion. of 1-esponsibilit)' wbicl1 renders tl1e defe11da11t liable for the damage cat1secl ancl l1e can rebut tl1is presumJJtion only by sl1owing tl1at t11e damage co111plai11ed of was «clt1e to tl1e fat1lt of tl1e victim» (AJ.-t. 2066 (2) ). In France, fo.r tl1e fatùt of tl1e victi1n to be a complete defeoce in cases be co111pa1·able to a force of strict liability (Art. 1384 àl. 1 F.C.C.) it 1nt1st . 111,ajeitre i11 tl1 e sense of having been t1nfo1·seeable and inevitable (i11ipré. visible et irrésistible ).52 Bt 1t this t1·aditional definition is attacked by some ,vriters, 11otably P1·ofessor Tune, ru1d tl1e clisct1ssion is still open. Tl1e te.nd e11cy of tl1e cot11·ts, too, is not to em1Jl1asize on tl1e litera! mea0Ïl1g of t11e words b11t to see if in actual fact tl1e fatilt of the victim \vas so ine,ritable as to exono1·ate tl1e defendant f1·om «tl1e Iegal consequences of l1is o,vn act».52 Moreo,,er, tl1e cotu·ts no,v ask tl1emselves \Vhether tl1e fault of the victi111, «\vas t}1e decisive cause, the exclitsiv·e cause, of tI1e cla111age stiffered by l1in1»; 54 in otl1er \-vords, it must have been the sole cause. Bt1t all tl1at cat1 be can be e11cou11tered i11 cases \vl1ich concern strict Iiability, in general. 'In cases of 11ecessity, 110,vever, u11lil<e tl1e plea of Iegiti111ate self-defence, tl1ere is 110 asst1mptio11 <<tl1at tl1e action of \vl1icl1 t11e plai11tiff cornplains ,vas p1·ovokecl by l1is 0\.\111 condt1ct ...bt1t as i11 tl1e ple a of pri,,ate defence tJ1e clefencla11t's action n1ust be p1·opo1·tioned to tl1e gravity of tl1e cla11ger, the 11ature of tl1e i11terest being JJrotected, an d tl1e 1·isk \vl1icl1 tl1è protective n1eas11res ii1volve», tl1ot1gl1 tl1is clefe11ce do es no t stretcl1 as far· as to pern1 it 011e «to sacrifice a11otl1er's Iife foi· 011e •s ow.n safet)r»_5s It seeins safe to conclt1ded, tl1ere fore, tl1at in A 1·ticle 2066 tl1ere is a . strotlg de1Jarttire fro111 Frencl1 la ,v i11 tl1e se11se tl1at state of necessit)' is not, in prii1ciple, a justificatio11. Altl1ot1gl1 tl1e ,exception to A11:icle 2066 (2) , speal<:s of tlle vic· t 111 · 1 s f· at · tlt. 10 • gene1·al, 1t • see111s likely tl1at it is 1ntended to refer to the fa' 11lt of tl1e · t· • • · ent vie 1m \VI11cl · 1 1s tl1e sole cause of tl1,e im1111n cla11ge r.

DOfiDERLINE S11"UA110 NS

(ii)

231

Sporti11g Acti11ities ( Art. 2068):

Wl1ere bocljl)' l1arn1 n1 ay l1ave bee11 inflictecl (Art - . 2067) , 1t · . n11g • 1t 1 be clt1e . . . l a,,111g taken a certain risk , ,vcll Jcn 0,,vv,1· 11gto tl1e v1ct1m 1 tl1e poss1·ble a11cl Probable conseqt1e11ces. !11 st1cl1 a case , i11 aclclitio11 to tlie . · clef·e11ces pro,,1'de d for in paragra1Jl1 2 of Article 2067, tl1e clefe11cla11t ca11 a,,ail llimself of 1-\r. ticle 2068, \Vhicl1 reacls: «No liability sl1all be inct1.rrecl \-vl1e1·e, in t]1e exercise of a spor·tj a 11 ::, . . . . act1v1ty, a }Je1·so11 1n3ures anotl1e1· taking JJart i i1 tlie sa111 e activ ity, or JJresent as a spectato1·, p1·oviclecl ll1at tl1 ere is 110 deceit or aross i11fri11gem.ent of tl1e 1·t1les of tl1e s1Jort». Note s11ould be taken l1ere to avaicl conft1sing tl1 e «cleceit» 1nentioned in tl1is Article \-vitl1 tl1at cliscussecl uncler Aricles 2059 to 2062, as a specific civil ,vrong. Her.e tl1e French ,1 ersion spealcs of «clol», ,.vl1icl1 must be talce11 to 1nean «fraudule11 t manouv1·es»56 to i11dt1ce tl1e ,,ictim to asst1n1-e tl1e 1is]c, ,v;tl101.1t a full lcno,.\1ledge of its legal conseqt1ences. Frencl1 Ia,v, ge11 erally sp.eaking, cloes not allo,-v one to \.\'aive his 1·igl1t to s1.1e in tort by maki11g a.n antecedent contract, if tl1e civil \.vrong is eitl1er intentional or ,vl1e1·e tl1 ere is gross negligence.57 l11 tl1e case of clangerot1s sporting activities, bowever, the Iule is 1·elaxed in tl1at it recog11izes tl1e prestuned acceptance of risks - l1 ence co11sent - «11 ecessari]y inl1erent i11 tl1e sport», pro,;icled that tl1 e 1·t1les of the gan1e are properly observed ancl tl1at the organizers allow no excessively dangero1.1s concluct on tl1e part of tl1e participants to take place. 58 Tl1e1·e is a certain relt1ctance 011 tl1 e part of \.Vriters, notably M.M. Mazeaud, to recognize an i1npliecl or tacit acceptance of tl1e risk as sufficient, but tl1 e cow·ts are clearl)' in its fa,,our.59 rfhis brings into tl1 e 111incl tl1 e con1n1011 Ia,-v doct1·i11e of voleriti rion fit iiijitria, better knovvn as asst1mptio11 of 1isk, in America, \-vl1ereby a person ,-vho expos.es l1imself to clange1· \v. itl1 the «fttll appreciation» of t.he same, is deniecl 1·ecovery for any ensuing damage.60 But English la\.v drav.,s some fine distinctions6 ' between the position of tl1e participant in tl1e gan,e itself and tl1at of a me re SJJectator. On the vvhole, ho,vever, tu1less reasons of ,:p11blic policy», of «p ub lic morality» or «public safety» in general prev�nt it, a spectator appears to be in a sJigl1 tly better position tl1a11 a partec i p. a11t. 62 1 11 e i 1. 5 to rs to ta ec sp e . 1ir qt French la\.v, on tl1e otl1er hancl, see1 11s to re 63 n racts tor t in , s11e co tl1ough a bystancler (bctclaitcl) may t. n e se e v a l1 e w s a ' cl te " la p S.111ce spo1:ting ativities in general ,vere co11 ten, 1at l t y a s ly u tr " y a 11 1 i· n Cllapt er VI, as we ll as t1nder custon1 ary 1,l\V, 011e. Arti cle 2068 is a p1·ocluct of comparative lavv.64

i ___ z3z_

CHA P1'EH

VIII

_____ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ _

d i11 ll1e Asn1ara I-lig·]1 de ci de se ca a to · ei -ef 1 ay n1 - 11, 011e I n conc1t1s10 to ta ec r durin g a11 a sp to ed us ca 11 r1 J1a Jy di bo ng 11i er i1c co Court of Jtistice, . 1 ex es t 110 ak t1r p r co r n . s e es tl1 of t e e11 111 J·t 1dg at1ton10b11 e.race. .65 w11J·le tI1 e 1 e Cot1rt fou11cl no clifficttlty tl , cle Co l vi Ci 1e tl of 1 1 io ferei1ce to a11 y IJ rovis e damage and the or. th ed us ca ly ct 1·e di l10 vv on rs pe e in holcling botll t]i 1 damage. Tl1e inference to b� cl st1 r fo e bl Iia 1 y tl i1 jo ce ra e ganizers of tll . t as 68 no w le 20 tic ken into Ar ta at tl1 is ·, e1 ev ,v l10 t, e11 m dg ju is 1 tl om clro\.v11 fr ft1l event took plac e 11g 1·0 w e tl1 at tl1 1 o1 as 1·e Jle n1 sii e 1 tl r fo n, io consiclerat l)' integrated with that of ete pl 111 co s \va 111 ste sy al leg 11 ea r itr E e tll e befor c)' an v e le· of the de. tl1 1·e , so ing oe àt Tl1 . ire np E1 1 1 pia hio Et e tl1 the 1·est of 7ing tl1e t1·e 11d of tJ1e cou rts before tl1 e 0\.\ 1 sl as ent ti11 per ly on is 1 cisio1 application of Article 2068.

(iii) Exor1.oratio11 fron1. Lia.bilit)' (Art.• 2086): Exce1Jt wl1 ere tl1e da111age is clt1e eitl1e1· solely or in part t o the fau.It of tl1e victim (paragrapl1 2), there is an absolt1te liabilit)' tinder the pro. visio11s of Article 2086 ( 1). He1·e, in fact, strict liability pro\ 1ided for in n1 ost of tl1e prececling articles seems to l1ave been expressly reinte1·ated. No otl1er clefe11 ce is available to tl1e pe1·s011 st1bject to exceptions already ther.e encot1ntered, ,.vl10 lias bee11 decla red legally responsible for tl1e cre. ation of an abnorn1a� risk (Arts. 2069-2070); or for damage cat1sed b)' animals (Arts. 2071.2076); by btlildings (Arts. 2077.2080); b)r macl1ines a11d motor \1el1icles (A1·ts. 2081-2084); b)' mru1ufactu1·ed goocls (Art. 2085). Article 2086 specifically taJtes a\vay tl1e follo,vi11g general defences: (a) Tl1at 110 fatilt ( faitte) \Vas co111mittecl by tl1e defenda11ts tl1en1. selves; or (b) tl1at tl1e cause of the clan1age 1·e1nai11ecl- t1nkno,v ( qt,e la. cazLSe n ·

cli,. do1n11iage est cle111.eitrée i11conrztte); 01-

(c) tl1at it ,vas 11ot ,vitl1in tl1eir po\ver (beyo11 cl tl1eir co11trol?) to preven th e dan1age; or (d) tl1at tJ1e clan1age \Vas clt1e to tl1e fat1lt of a tl1ird party. \,Vl1ile t11 e i111port of IJa '1.ae rr r••c11J11 1 ca11 be t111de r stood fro 111 tl1e contex t of pai·agraph 2' tl1e E11g l1· sl1 tra · 1 1·t111s cot111ter to tl1e ratio feais for • ns1 at101 . . 0 ' 111steacl of <c112ay 1iot» in11··11ectia · te1,Y af-·te.•r tl1e ,,v o1·ds «111a11t1factured. o-oocls» .J.t. says . . o tl1at tl1e clefenda1 . ' 1 t s (( 11ia)' » relieve tl1e111sel t)r». bil i ve lia s th of eir· . T1 l e o1.ig · 1n . a1 ,vords In t]1 e Frei1c11 . 101 . 1 a1·e «les pe ve 1s JJeve11i rso 1irz es . ie . 1 . . . . • . . · , l'Ja.s saff1a11cl1ir cle leitr res7Jo11.sa . . bil· 't · e tl1e E110-lisl1 t1·a11 slat1o , s111c 1 · e». n 1n 0

BORDERLINE

Sl'fUA1'10NS

233

66 vvas «the perso11s . . . ca1111ot rie Dr aft tlle fii·st l ·the1nse 1ves of thetr . . . . 1n . tl Iiability · » 1t 1s ver y l1kely tl1at tl1e omission of tJ1 e \''O ·, r c 1 « 11 o t» 1e E.C.C. . is solel:y due to a11 overs1ght. In tl1e formt1latio11 of Article 2086 ( 1) tl1 · e ge11era' l def.ences of· both tl1 .e frencl1 and English la,,v l1ave bee11 do11e avvay \\ri.tli. 'vVe l1a,,e alreacl)' seen 110,v, t111cle1· Englisl1 la,v, th•�0 doct11n .· e of va ler1.tz• ,zo,i fit irijt.Lric1. can be a goocl clefence in cases of spor•t1· 11cr cact·1v.1·t·1es . 1t 1s • o callecl «l� a,,e a11cl licenc� » in tresp�ss to lancl. Under tl1e rttle of Ryl ,1 d, a s v. _ . Fletcl-ier'" 1t 1s pleadecl 111 connect1on vvitl1 tl1e accumtilac t1·0n of dangerot1s chatte! for tl1e con1n1on benefit of botl1 pa1-ties. It is applicable in defamation to sho,v tl1at tl1e plaintiff l1acl consentecl 10 the pt1blication. 111 persona! injtu11 cases, it cornes unde1· tl1e broacl conce1Jt of «consent». In tlie s.ense that the victi111 hacl co11sentecl, eitl1er expressly or by implication, the cloct. rine lias a «gen.eral applicatio11 i11 tl1e la,v of tortS>>.63 ,Il,. second general defence is to pleacl that damage took place \vith 110 fa1ùt of the defendant. In otl1er vvords tl1at l1e could not prevent it by exercising reasonable care; but this is a good clefence for every other ci, 1 il \.vrong vvhicl1 is 11ot under Ryla.rz.ds ,,. Fletc/1.er. 111 the latter case tl1e defence of «Act of God», is, instead, pleaded. Eve11 if some subtle distinctions clo exist, it is synonyn1011s ,vith the second clefence i11 strict lieabilit:y - tbat of «inevitable accident - ,vhich envisag.es clarnage occtu·ing due to natt1ral forces, like flood, or to an event beyoncl any reasonab]e foresigl1t, skill or care.li} In France tl1e expression cai-Lse élrarz.gère 11orz i111piitable appearing i11 Article 1147 Frencl1 Civil Code bas been extencled by legal writers and by the courts to cases of ci\ril vvrongs, especiall)' tillder Article 1384, àl. l. This is a broad concept, however, and it contains force n1.ajeitre, fault of the vvhich l1e can neitl1er fo1·see 1101· prevent».72 This is so vvhetl1er tl1e strict 11iajitre - or cas fortuit - and l1ere agai11 , except for son1e acaderoic clistin ctions/1 tl1e tvvo expressio11s are syno11ymously used - is a basic de. is t» len cic ac e bl ita ev «in of e nc fe de fence . Although in F1·ance tl1e Englisl1 to • em se . ed b ac re s lt ., su re e th e», -L1 not g1ven st1cl1 prom1nence as «fo1·ce 1naJL t, en ev n «a s ge sa ,,i ei1 t) ui rt fo 1s cc ( b e essentially the same - force majure or . s tlnder I1is control ing t h external to tl1e defendant ancl th e perso.n s or . ' strict tl1e er 12 Tl wl1etl 1 so is · · 115 \Vhlcl1 l1e can nei tl1e r for see no r prevent». the1· . 1.iabil ity is 11nder Article 1384 as in tl1e 1arz.cl' 1ieit1.1J case or under e1 ct1vely. . . respe s 1dina • b ' O d an w Articles 1385 and 1386 whicl1 cleal vvitl1 an1roals t no f Iumse l ate exct1l 1J ' so J a n ca nt 1cla fe1 Along with this clefen cle a . . but. · ce, v1ct1m tl1e of lt ati f . ie t only by sl1ovvin g tha t th e damage wa s clt1e to .1 that it was also clt1e to the fault of a tl1ird party.

CRA PTEll

VITI

234

latio11 t h e ef. is s g s le a IJ 11 a c e 1· tu la is g le 1e t tl 1a tl 1g i1 y a s t u o h it v \, It goes t s t a a e le t \v, o cases r e a 1· e l1 T . s e c n fe e . d y 11 a r aJI o t n e v e r p to is ll ic li vv fect of s it 11 il 1· b e a c li n y o t c s r r fo fi e l1 T o s e n o cl s a J1 . 1re t1 la is g e 1. 1 I c n i·e F e 1 tJ \VlJere tl ft e a l1 r 1 er or \V ·c i1 a e th ' g in s 'u 11 0 1·s e IJ e l1 T ft. ra ic a y b d se ti ca ts iJ le ic c ac d by it to se e 1t g a a c m a d y 11 a r· fo le b . a li ' !) e ctiv je b o is r e 11 ,v o ie tl is 11 0t J1 e o d clefe11 ce ly o n g o 1e , tl se ca a 1 cl su 1 11 ». cl 11 11 e g1·0 th «o s 1g 11 i1 1 tl t:o or s 1 i o rs pe e 11or tl1e fault of a third tr ji 1.a 11 e . rc fo r e l1 it e n is tl,e fattlt of the victi111; t cover damage o n es o , d cl 11 a h er 1 tl o 11 1e tl . n o , part:y are defences. · This lavv gers ,vithin tl1e air. n se as p to or s ft ra 1·c ai vo tv n causecl by collisio11 betvvee e od ril C i\ C 1e tJ would of s n o si vi ·o 1 p 1e tl s ce 11 ta 1s i1 l1 crafts - vvl1ere in bot g n yi s, rr ay ca \v pas. le b ca cl ea l1 er ov f o s or at er op or apply. Constr11ctors e footing 111 e sa th on ed ac pl ·e a1 » 11p ilt bu t no is senge1·s «over land vvl1icl1 ects falling bj «a or ns bi ca 1e tl by ed us ca e ag m cla )' an as aircrafts users, foi· 75 1». e11 1 tl 1n fro d k. te s or ac W l1a en l1) tis 1·i B e tl1 so al s (a ·e t1u sla gi le Seconclly, tl1e Frencl1 ion at ns 1Je of ry m co \1e co 1·e e th te ita cil fa to as , so .\ls la, n io me11's Co111pensat ras , to tl1is effect, ir. \ \ 1lt fa1 11 ow , e os 1 ,vl ees · y ; 1Jlo 011 tl,e IJart of tl1.e e1n releva11t.;6 r a Jate to ,ed er, res e1·, is vev hov , ti1n ,,ic tl1e of lt fau e 1 tl to n as sio ct1s Dis stage. Sttffice it to point OLlt l1ere tl1at tl1er.e being a departure from botb E11glisl1 ancl Frencl1 lavv, tl1e travaux p1•éparatoires alon e can satisfactoril)' i11clicate tl1e sot1rces of A.rticle 2086 ( l) Etl1iopian Civil Cocle. (iv)

Ot/1.e,· 'Tfiings' (flrt. 2087):

It l1as bee11 ren1arl<ed tl1at tl1e ter111 'c/1.ose' (tI1ï 11 g) is tJ1e most am . bigtIOtlS ,vorcl i11 the Fre11cl1 lang'l1age.n That tl1 e legal meaning � of tlùs .... · · · d a11cl diffe1·ent term l1as been extended· 1·n Franc c e to cove1· ,,a1·1e 111atters, • . i·anging f �·oin gas ancl electricity to pipes and \Vires, from falling trees to inotorvel,icles, I,as lil<ewise been obse1·vecl.111 F1·e1 1cl1 case-la\v l1ad e,,0I, 1ed t}1.e general p1i11ciple tl1at c tl1e 'tl 1111g · ' need 11ot be necessa1·i1,, 1110,,jng at tl1e ., • • . 111a te1·1al t1111 e ( sticJ1 as a' IJac rl<ed ,,e111c 1 e) nor be dange1·ot1s extrinsically . ( st1cl1 as a cl1a1r on tl1e balcon), 0f a caf,e); bt1t tl 1e rece11t t1·end of tl1e . . ,vot1ld allow tl1e defencla1 t . . courts c 1 to sI· 10,v tl1at it IJlayed a ' IJ ttrel)' JJassi,re . l . . . . . . i ·ole' \V . I11c 1 1s tantan101111t to sayii,g .t1lat. «the · cat1se t]1.etl11n° 0 did 11ot . . ·1t was 111 acc1•cten. t»'ï9' or ·tJ1at c · r,naz IJ1ace or tl1at 0111)' a 11or111al 11se of 1ts 11.o it l1as bee11 inad e.so As f ar as tl1·e gc·trd' 0f tl1�a l . t 11ng 1s conce1ï1ed, Frencl1 · Ia,v reqtiires tlJa·.. t tl1e1e . be «tise di.1ec t· ...ol» 011 tl1e part of tl1e 1011 and co11tr ' . . , garclier1.'.s, Tl1rot1g1 1 .t. 11e 111ax111 1 SJJeci·al·ia gerie7 -., ,alzbits .. derogan.t, I1ovve,,e1·, 1t . is establisl1ecl tl,ca·t a «tl1rn . g » \.VI. t:11· 111 . · tl le 111ean ing of A1·t1cl e 1384 does not • 111clt1cle matters vvl,icl, 11a,,e been ex, 1J1·ess1Y C0\1e1·.ed by otl1er JJr·ovisions of C

DORDE11LINE SITU,\TIO NS

�. •3·=--

t]Je fren cl1 Civil Co de - sucl1 is, fo1· i11stance, tl1e ca , se of. a11 1• n1a1s a11cl btiildin gs specific me11tio11 of w lticl1 is 1nacle i n f\rticles 138S ancl 1386 _a2 German case -l ,,,, seen1s to n1al(e Ltse of § 823 (àl l B G.B . ) for_ ·tI1e lJre_ . . . . . sumption, of st1-ict l1ab1l1ty to be attacl1ecl to tl1 e perso11 who llas tlle care of the tl1ing tl1at cre tecl the cla11ge1·ot1s sittratio11. 1 11 11egligei1ce cases Englisl1 jt1dges s1Jeak of tl1e 1-ule of Res lJJsa Loqz.titiLr _ the tlling speaks for itself - ,.vhicl1 is eqt1ivalent to legal JJ1·est11n1Jtio11, rebtittable 0 111y by evidence to tl1e con. tra11· -63 Tl1 t is to sa)', on the ligl1t o.f certain circum stances ( sucl1 as collision bet,veen t\vo trains of the san1e cornpany) the cotu·t dra,,vs tl1e infe1·e11ce that tl1e eve11t JJer se is proof of 11eglige1 1ce, 011 tl1e grou11d tl1 t sucl1 n eve11t vvotùcl not have happe11ecl if, «Îl1 tl1e ordin ry course of things ... tl1e persan in cont1-ol of tl1ings» l1ad take11 reaso11able care.� But evidence to tl1e contrai)' is dmissible. Unde1· Article 2087 E.C.C., tl1e owner or l{eeper ( gctrclierl) of a tl1 i11g ( c/iose) is held liable for any dan1age cat1se by i.t. But l1e ca11 exculpate l1 in1self by sl1ov. ri11g tl1at 11eithe1· l1e 1101· tl1e pe1. ·s011 for vvhon1 l1 e is (legall)') respoosible re to blame - i. e., that they l1ave 11ot co111n1ittecl a11y f t11t. The heading «other tl1ings :> is sigi1ifica11t. Tl1e 1Jrovisio11 is inte11cled to apply to things otl1e1· tl1 n tl1ose vvllicl1 I1ad been envisaged u 11cler «tl1e preced.i.ng articles>>. It seen1s reaso11able t o thi11g tl1at it \vas 11 ecessary to make tl1is clarification foi- at least tvvo 1·easo11s. 01 1 tl1e 011e l1a11d, to restrict the range of applicatio11 of tl1e concept of «tl1 i.11g» as appeari 11g in Article 2027 (2) ancl, 011 the otl1e1·, to cliffere11tiate it f1·01n sitL1ations fa.lling ,vïthin tl1e n1eaning of tl1e provisions wl1icl1 have bee11 specifically dealt \.VÎth unde1- the articles 1Jrecedi11g Article 2087. Tht1s a clJair,85 vvl1 icl1 is not coverecl elsevvhe1-e, ,.vot1ld b. e vvit11i11 tl1e dom in of tl1e present pro \rision; wlJile a 111otor-vel1icle ,,,.roL1ld not ( A1-t.2086). a

(v) CorztractiLctl Relalio11s ( Art. 2088): · a '�' vv here tl1ere 1s clea1· a.11cl legaIly b'1n ct·111g cont1· ·act bet,v, ee11 tl1e parties, · · · . . so is 1is Tl 1 ·· e1, tl1 1t 1s the co11tract n ee t \V e b 1 at1011s re tl1at w1ll govern tl1,e eve1 1 wl1ere tl1e damage arises ot1t of abno1-mal risks, or has b.een c ti�ecl . le 1c rt 1\ of ts 11 te 11 co b Y or th1·ough. ani111als, bt1ilclings or th1ng e 1 tl e 1 c.1 1 t1c l s. S 1 1ectecl 11 co is es g ' a m 2088 \Vluch envisages tl1at tl1e per son novv c 1a1n c" la 0 1 1 a 1 · 1 • . . 1g · -1 t·I1e a1111 i1 cl . .. '"'It 1l t1 . b . . 1e tl 1 tl 'i '" . ·t· l1 the \VI l ' a ' 1 1 · 1 dangerot1s 1nclt1str1al act1v1ty, cl re . te 11 e . . ss le e l1 rt e or the th1ng v e 11 as 1 1 1 wl11cl1 l1as cat1secl tl1e dan1 ge anc . .111to . . a specif 1 1s1ble.I11 st1cl1 o 1J s I 11 re a , ) e 15 0 ic contract witl1 tl1e person v,,110 . e 1 s le u r 1e tl . y b a case tl1e t 110 , e d 1 . conseqt1ences of tl1 e cla111age are sett t 11 1e • 11 e e r a a e 1 t1 Jat.•ng to f 0 o i 1 15 1 . e " � strict li�1bility, bt1t j 11 accorcla1 1ce vvitl1 t..1,e t i reacI1ecl by botl1 parties. a

236

CDAP1'EH VIII

ishin g liability arisin g u g in t is d in d e 1· nte u o c n e e b n a c t a tl 1 'flle cliffictùty s b e e n d i scussed a s l1 g 11 o r w il iv c f o is in g out r a t 1a tl 1 11 o fr t c oL1t of contra 2037. le c ti r A 1 tl i \V 11 o ti c e n n o c in ia r it j : ( or a ss t1n1 p. in it f 11 0 11ti n le o v 11 i1 x a 1n 1e In Allglo-A111erican Iaw tl 11s a n d tl1ere o ti t la n a re v 1e .s r e st a 1n r e v a c to d e d 11 te x e 11 e e b s a 11 ) k s ri f o tion es of en1ployers ti u cl d 11 a ts h g ri e th er v o <<C are many statute s vvl1icl1 now 86 ». Where con. es ad s, tr n o i at 1J t1 cc o s, ie it ,, ti ac a11cl e111ployee s ï1 1 dangerot1s ns o f p u b lic policy', tl1ey o as 1·e i· fo t p ce ex t, is ex tract s bet,,Veen tl1e parties y bee 11 ad as re l1 al on ti en m , 67 ,v Ia 1 cl n re F to are cleai·ly enforceable. As d h. e re tl1at tl1e ad to it e ic ff Su . rs ke or w of 88 on 111ade of tl1e peculia1· positi cial securit y so a of n io t1t it st i11 e tl1 l1 1g ot 1r t] l ec J,, so problem see111s to be pensated fro111 a m co ly ab ri va in is ee oy pl im d 1·e ju in e sy stem \vbereby th r ye s. \Vhetbe r or Jlo er11 1cl a1 rs ·ke o1 vv 1 tl1 bo by to ed t1t co1n111011 fm1d contrib s not exclt1cle the payrnent e do ee oy pl e1n e tl1 of rt pa e th on t ul fa not there is n atio11 of tl1e amount ·1n te1 de e tl1 to as t an ev rel be y ma t bu , ion sat e11 1np of co 89 e. em tl1e r scb de un cl itle e11t be uld ,.vo to \,vl1ich tl1e i11jured employee In Etl1iopia, the ,,vl1ole relationsl1ip bet\vee11 e111ployers and ernployees is, 011 tl1e mai11, regulated under the p1·ovisions of Title X'VI of the Etlùo . pia11 Civil Code, but ,vhere tl1e accident is clue to th e faitte loitrde or d1nl on tl1e part of the en 11Jloyer, the contractual rigl1ts are v\raiv-ed and only tl1e IJrovisio.ns of tl1e Cl1apte1· governi11g civil liability (Arts. 2027-2161) ap. ply (Al·t. 2559 (2)). Finally, it is to be obse1,1ed tl1at while dan ge1·ot1s acti,,ities, ai1h-nals, buildings and tl1ings are 1nentioned, Article 2088 cloes not 1·efer to eitl1er 1 nacl1ines or motor.vehicles. In the case of BeracJ1i De1nsas v. Qabe 0 l-Ja:lè,90 it ,,vas, ii1deed, argued t hat the word «cJ1ose» must be tal<.en to in. clude motor vehicles.91 In ,,iew of tl1e Cot1rt's holclina in that case and the express pro,,isions of Article 2088, l10,.veve1·, tl1e n1:tte1· seems to have been settled.

(,,i) Disi11Lerested Relatiorzs (Art. 2089):

. Wl1ile tl1e pre,,iot1s article cov er.ecl cases of. co . n tracts, AI·t1.cle 2089 co11. _ n1p]at_es tl1e case of }Je te rso11s malcti. lg «ttse» of an.1111als, bt1ildi11gs a11d. tlungs, in tlle absenœ of a contract . ( para gr-aJJll 1))• If. ,vl11le st1cl1 IJ-crso11s are 111akin,g tise of t·h e a11.1n1al, the .. .11g, son1e dan1nge bLIIïc1·111g. or. tl1e . tl11 e11st1es, the 'tise r., cannot. a,,a.1I l1. 11·11self 0f t·I le rt1les gove1-uing liabilitJ, 111 . civil w1·ongs ' provicled th · at. ne1t l1er t11e OvVller nor· tl1e garclie11, l1a,,e deri\red . son1e benefit fr · on · 1 11 • C 011\1 e1·sely tinl ess tl1 e C>vv11e1· or tl1e gardien l1ave ' com1nitted a fatilt, no 1ia . bI.1Il.y' .. attac]1es to tl1em ( 1Jarag1�apl1 2) a11cl tl1e tiser

DORD.ERLINE

S1TUA110NS

2J ï

ren1ecly i11 tl1 e clo1nai11 of co11tracts ' must seek his arld, at . , OL1ts1cle c: any 1.ate • • tJ1 e Ja\V of c1,11l wro11gs. In aclclition to 111acl1i11es a11d motor.\1el1icles · • t \i Vll ic \ · · · 1 • \ · e re 1111ss1ng f·ro1n . Articles 2088, no refere11ce 1s l1e1·e 1nacle to abnor11 1 a1 rislcs. A1tb ot1gl1 tbere a1·e son1e i.rnporta11t qL1alificatio11s, tl1e prov isioils of Article 2089 seen1 to be a co111bination of a.11cl to e111 bi·ace 11otioils dei·iving _ , . , Co11t1ne11tal la \-V ancl Con1n1011 Ia\v fron1 Roma11 la\v , . U .1.,cler Roinan la\\,' a grat11itot1s contract of deposit of a viciot1s J1orse 01· a gratLtitotts contract of cor1111zoclatz.L111. of tl1e saine, wottld reqtùre tl1at tl1e oWJ1 er ii 1forms the otl1er party of any bacl trait� of the l1orse, even tl1ougl1 in tl1e case of co,11• n1oclatit11z tl1e ovv11er derived 11 0 be11efit from tl1e Joan. While cleJJOsiti,r,1 (\vl1ich in1plies the benefit of safe-custody for tl1e clepositor) \.VOttld 11ot a1)_ pl); to tl1e provisions of Article 2089, tl1e co11t1·act of C01'11.111.ocl'atu111. seems to be relevant. 91 In France, t11e 'tiser' of tl1e animal is cons.iclerecl to l1ave t11e 'garcl' of of tl1e sa.me, thougl1 tl1ere is still so1ne co11troversy at tl1e vvhetl1er the lia. bility is based on tl1e theory of risk, as some coLtrts seen1 to thing.93 The tl1eory, at any 1·ate, is that tl1e cont1·0I a11cl di1·ectio11 l1ave been tra11sferrecl to tl1e one ,,vl10 is maki11g tise of tl1e ru.1in1al, for l1is o\.v1.1 benefit, at the moment tl1at the dan1age is cat1sed. As to buildings, it bas already been obse1·ved tl1at Fre11cl1 la\\1 speaks onl_y of the prOJJriétaire.9 � Ge11e1·allJ' speaki11g the ow11ers' sole clefe11ce is force 1najeitre bt1t tl1e1·e are tl1ose '"'110 tl1i11g tl1at tl1e fat1lt of tl1e victi111 is capable of exulpatory effect.95 It l1as also been JJOi11t.ecl OLtt that Fre11cJ1 law in tltis field is mt1cl1 less de,;elo1 Jed tl1an Englisl1 law \.vl1 icl1 makes net d istinctions bet\.veen trespasse1·s, licencees, a11 d i11vitees.90 The Fecleral Repubblic of vVest G.e1·n1a11y l1as jttst ratified tl1e Etrropean Convention on the Liability of Hotel-I{eepe1·s, conce1·11i11g the JJrOJJerty of their Guests. U11cler a 11e\.v s.�ctio11 (702 n.) the l1otel-keeper is re11clerecl liable for any Joss, clamage or clest1·uction of tl1ings brot1ght bJ' tl1e gttest - vvllo need not be necessa1-ily tl1 e O\.vne1· - but 11ot for any vehicle ( or pro� e: ty left in .it) or live animals.91 But even there, tl1e botel.keeper is cler1v1ng some benefit f1·on1 tl1e t1se of tl1 e l1otel by lus guest. · . Un der Engl1sl1 law , a «trespasse1·» 1s someo11e \vl1o e11te1·s into tl. 1e .pro. A ' 1 «1nv1tee» Pel�tY \v, it 1 , wl1 ile a1 ·e · 11out permission or autl1or1ty pl occtt e 1 · of· tl 1 ess or otl1er 1 si is tlle one who cloes so u b I · ncia 111a f' e m so. � «i11 purst1ru.1ce of ensee» mat ' eria. · I ·interest com1no11 to I1in1 a11cl tl1 e occt11J1e c: n·cl so is a « lic · 1• »,• a d te ec rm o c y il r excePt tl1at he enters a s s e c e 11 10 t 011Jy for his «own pttrposes 1 . . . l Le IJ tt c c o \Vi'·h any 1nteres 1e tl » · s e e s n e 9 c · 11 « f O · L t of t h e occt11·Jie1·». ·i 111 the case · 110 s a I1 e l1 a' s a dLity l1 · cl 11 Ja e ' ll · t 111 ' to warn tl1e111 of any J1iclden da11gers . _, r e prepa. � not srrnï· sl1ot1lcl 1 clI cluty 1e J 1at. l . t . . e xce1Jt to\va1·ds <<trespasse1·s» 1. 11 . r a �·· 0 - ot11er l1 «trap,.,» e t a r e 'b li e cl s r· e 1 clev1ces to cattse tl1e tres1Jass-

CHA P1'El1

238

\'fil

ra tecl in a11. American st lu il l el w is cl n a y b d te ep Titis lattei· nile is acc · f e1 l o o at o w JJ in . the a 1 i1 g . 1 i1 m n i1 sw e n o g cl a l1 case99 ,.vI1e1·e t,,vo cl1ildre11 c 1e m li o tl b u fr p ls road. rc a y d e rd 11 u l1 e n o t u o b a d te ' defenclant s Ia11cl, situa r acid and zinc u l1 1J ù s1 s u o n o is o p d 1e i1 ta n co Unfortinately tl1e ,.vate1· l1ad p1·em.e Court 11.eld s u S te ta S l ec it n U e l1 T 1. e1 lr lc 1i cl st1lphate wl1icl1 killed tl1e r f1·om any liability. ie p cu oc 1e tl d te 11J en ex d an tl1e cl1ilclren trespassers e r has e 1Ji , th ce cu oc an st in r fo , 1·e l1e \V , 1is tl to There are some qt1alifications 11. The U.S. 1·e lr 1i e cl th to t» en 1n 1r llt «a an is 1 cl son1e attracti,,e object ,vl1i ay tu1·ntable in ilw ra a g in ac IJl r fo e bl lia 1· 1e v1 o\ nd la Supreme Cot1rt 11.elcl a , h n l10 re ug ,v ro ild th ch 1e tl t ec ot pr to re ca e du l1is land but failing to take ine as to e sa 101 tl1 lly ia nt ta bs su is \v la 1e Tl cl. re ju in tl1e <<allurn1ent» were c11pier must not oc e tl1 at tl1 ed i1· qu 1·e is it 1�e he so al t bu s ai trespassing anim ing the tres1Jasjtu d in an g tin ac tr at of e os rp pu le so e th r fo g 1in place sometl 101 . als im an sing » J1ave b,een ms ste sy al leg rs ive «d ese tl1 n1 fro ing 1·iv de ts ep 11c co Tl1e ity and incorporated in tl1e Cl1apte1· of the Cocle dealing witl1 strict liabil s icl1 ion to wh vis pro ent ing str tl1e g on am are ns» ltio rea ed est ter si11 t «di tba a tempera1nent l1as bee11 brougl1t, l1as been co11firmecl by tl1e learned ex pert102 of tl1e Draft. Notl1ing fttrther, tl1erefo1·e ,11eed be added. C. MODE AND EXTENT OF COMPENSATION: (a)

Mcilerictl Da111ages.

(i)

Fai1�t of tJ,ze Victi111 ( Jlrt. 2098).

Tl1is article 1·eads: « ( 1) , .vJ1ere tl1e dan1age is due partly to tl1e fawt of tl1e ,,ictim, tl1e

latter sl1all be entitled to partial con1.pensatioi1. only.

«(Z) In fixin� the exte11t to ,vhicl1 tl1e cla1nage sl1all be n1ade good,

· all tl1e c1rcu111sta11ces of tl1e cas...,"' sh ail be take11 111to · cons1dera. . . . .tion, in P�1·tictùa11 tl1e exte11t to v\1l1icl1 the fawts committed l1a,,e corztribitted to causz1· 1g t. .:1e ara. dama 1 ge 1·espec tive a11d tl1e 0 . vzty of tl1ese faults».

. . Al tl1ot1gl1 tl1e 1:.-rencl1 versio11 0f tl115 . . article 1s ca1·eft1lly vvo1·ded so as to avo1. d, prest1mably, tl1e tise of tl1e verb « to cattse» or of tl1e te1·m «causatio n», .· . tl1ere is no cloubt t· l1.at ' causat1011 1s l1ere ·imp1 ie · d · I11 tl1e san1e '"'ay as F1·ench Ia,v S!)Ol<e of cause in A t·1c1es 13�2-1384 ,vitl1ot1t concept, so d, e fini tl1e ng Articles 2027 and. 20?- 8 o·f� ··tl1e E.. tl11op · · · Code also s1Jeal..: of ca.i1se. iai1 civil . s Since cat1satio11 is ai . c: 1. e. ss en ia · t · el 1 em e1 1t al · · ' c: o 11g. vv1t·11 d a111age a11d at t1me • . 3 . ,v1tl1 fa11lt'io for li'abiI' 1•tY ar1s1n g out of ci,,i 1 to sa)' · ï ,, is necessa11 v 1·011gs, it ël fe\v ,vorcls J1ere Tl1.e . in1.poi·t of Ai·ticle 2098 toucl1es tl1e cloct1·i11es of ·

BORDERLINE

SITUATIONS

239

o- ,,,.,itll the a11eg contributory and comparati,,e negligence' aJ011b ec1ly Roman • . concept of culpa.comperzsatio. A brief survey of tllese concepts vv1l l also be 1nade.

Cai,sation:

(a)

The concept bas been \Vell explained by Catala and Weir10 as follo,.vs : «Damage is always necessa1-y, bu t it is equall:'>' esse11tial, in all cases, tl1at the dan1age be related to tl1e defe11dant's act. Tl,is possibiJity of relating tl1e clamage to the behaviot11· of the defend. ant - eitl1er to his fatùt or, if one accepts tl1e notion of objecti,,e 4

responsibility, to conduct ,.vl1ere tl1ere \Vas no element of fault _ thls is what is meant by vvhat French Ia,.vyers call tl1e lien. de caiLSalité, the causal 1·elation, bt1t whicl1 is 111ore sl1ortly and con veniently renclered in E11glisl1105 as 'causation'».

After observing tl1at the concept is a general one and incapable of being defined vvith sufficient precision, the learned autl1ors point out that Corn. mon law equivocates between 'causation' and 'duty' 011 tl1e one sicle and 'causation' and 'damage' on the otl1er. Accordingly, they contint1e, tl1ere are rnany writers novvadys, especially American, who «suggest tl1at most of the problems which l1ave hitl1erto been clealt with by tl1e common la\.v cotu·ts under the heading of causation are more s11itably dealt witl1 uncler sorne other heading)). 106 Still, the subject is of such importance tl1at many writers tried to sha\V its impact on the Iaw of civil wrongs and, as it is to be expected, tliere evolved many theories which Catala and Wei1· have attempted to expound an<l 11ave summarized them as <<extensive» and «restrictive» theories.'01

îhere are two, however, \.vhich stand out fro111 tl1e otl1ers.

(1) Th e Th eor)' of tlie Equ'ivcLlence of Conclitions.

Th.1 s is the work of a German criminolog1. st ca11e d Von BtirilOS - btlt tl1at s Id 10 professor a l I 1 c h' ' i ,v l Mil L wson109 attributes i t to Joh n Staurt .

; 11s ca its every conditio lly ua eq is � n sine qua non of the l1armful event 0 Tl11s 11 . ty. . . ili sib on "'sp . hence there 1s <<eq f rt: O • \.V wvalence» fro m the point of v1e . no,v seen1 s to be Ios111g . theory was once favoured by French ju1�1sts bt1t 1t

grounct.111

CHAPTER

240

Vlll

. e s i, a C f o cy a u q e cl A f o y (2) Tlie Tl1eor 112 agai11 a German, is the author wl1 o fo r . s ie r ' The pl11loso1J11e1• Von K . . essence, . . 1ts In y. tur cen 1t nolcts l1 ent ete . nin tlle n · 1 ry o e 1 1 t s mtùated tl11 dam age ancl they do not ail tl1e of ts clen • . ece ant ble '1era n t1 n tl,at t11ere are 1n y are not the 'cause' of the the e e11c I Ie. enc tirr occ the 1 · 11 t r a take an eqt1a1 p y. «Th e 'adequate' ar ss ce ne en be ve I1a ay m ce en r ttr nc co . t·hough thei·r even t, age tl1e dam duœ pro as distinct l1y 1na nor ! ,vil ich wll e aus c, 1e l t · • 1s cause 11J an d «in con tra st to von Buri, » ly us to , fronl that ,vllich may do so fortui ons - th e_ unequal im. iti nd co of ce len i,,a qu n-e no the es lat stu po ies ,,011 Kr portance of the antecedent circum�tances».114 . . t The tech nical Janguage used to express th1 s concep 1n Germany, Swit. 5 11 '. acy equ ply 'ad sim is ies ntr cou an z erland and in the Scandinavi In England, if the d efendant is not proven to have caused the damage, tl1e latter is called «too remote», ,vhile in the United Sates one may say tl1at tl1e beha,,iour of the defendant ,.vas not the «proximate cause» of the clamage.116 Tl1e results reacl1ed tmcler this theory in the Continent are not sub. sta11tially different fTom those obtained in the Common Iaw count ries under tl1e criterion of «reasonable foresight»117 01· sirnply «foreseeability», tl1e test for whicl1 is not far from the «hindsigl1t» test enunciated by Jt1dge Colt in tl1e Ame rican case of Hill v. Winsor.11 6 Tl1e theory of adequate cause found more favour and its impact in re cent times, according to son1e writers, can be detected in so n1e recent decisio ns of tl1e French Court of Cassation, concerning, especially, stolen cars.119 Ne vertheless, neither tl1e Fre ncl1 no1· tl1e English courts app ear to have definitely accepted any theory of causation and prefer i nst ead an en1perical aJJproacl1 wl1icl1 wotùd not discard the necessary link but, \\'Ould at the same time, conce11trate 011 the ascertainment of tl1e effective cause - tl1e French cause génératrice 120 - of the da ma ge . Even if, str ictly speak . ing, a clistinction can b e made between fault and ca1ts ation, tl1e cou1·t's tendency seerns to focus on the in qt1iry as to «wh.i ch among the seve1·al causes of _ ai1 a�cident was tl1e one wl1ich ,vas 1n ost blan1e\vortl1 y», having regard to · certa1nty and proxim1·t y 121 Th. · · . 1s bri· ngs us to tl1 e concur1·e nt part1c1pat 10n of more faults nd 1·t mi·g1 1t b-e conven·1e11t to deal ,vitl1 ci,.lpa co111.per1satzo � . in the san1e top1c of contrib11to ry negligence .

•

(b)

Corztribiltory Negligerzce:

It see ms tl1at t11e Romans 1 not hav e an exJJression co1·resp onct·w g ct·ct to ,con . . tr1bt1tory negligen . t11e . ce,•. noi· ,vere tl1e y co11cernecl ,vi th discuss1ng top1c · f LI11 )', tl1ough it 15 ' . ti-ue a breach of a «causal 11.exus bet,veen tl1e citlpa

BORDERLINE SITUA 1'IONS

241

. . of the defendant and the damage clone»•22 wa s ' of m t a er ia 1 11n1Jortance. Tl1e . . range of appl1cat1on of the Common la\v co11tx·ibuto ry neg . 11gence 1s sl1a1·ed . between citlpa ancl causat1011 and tl1e position as to w110 s11o uId bear 1t or . to wh at extent tl1e damage 1s to be borne is still blui·red.123 ( 1) CulJJ'a Co111.perzsatio:

Certain writers tried to gi,,e a pla11sible explanatio11 and came 11p witll the suggestion tl1at tl1e Ron1a.ns deciclecl tl1e cases on a basis of citlpa. co1npensation \Vl1jch the Gern1ans Iabelled as citlpa.co 111.pensati o ,i.•z4 Otl1ers, notably Buckland and Mc Nair,125 l1ave castigated this attitude 00 the ground tl1at it co1npletely falsifiecl the real Ron1an view wlucl1 \vas: that the negligent 01· intending persan was liable for the l1arm if l1e caused it but not if some intervening agency prevented l1is act from producing its effects. Ma11y applicatio11s of t.l1is principle are recorded wlucl1 l1ave notl1ing to do witl1 contributory negligence». « . . .

Others126 stil1 do not see any difficulty ,.vl1ere tl1ere are tvvo ci1l11as but ,vould seem to be troubled where there is culpa on 011e sicle ancl dolits on the other - tl1at is to say, ,vhe1·e the defenclant wot1ld deliberately h11rt another. The following ex3:mple tl1ere given is pertinent. If A passes through a sport field where a javellin is being tI-1rown by B ancl be gets hurt, A bas only hln1self to blame; vvl1ereas if B throws tl1e javellin cleliber. ately then B \vould be liable and A wo11ld recover accordingly. Buckland and Mc Nai1·, while al\vays emphasising on the res11lt of eitl1er actio11, fincl the latter example JogicaJ. TJ1us: 121 ({The result ought logically to be tl1e same wl1etber my original act was intentional or mere negligent. If I djd not cause tl1e res1ùt in the one case I did not in th <:; other. And presumably tl1is was so. In tl1e javellin case indeecl we are tolcl that if seeing the man cros. sing I intentionally throw at l1im, I am liable. B11t tl1is wot�d be . . cause. I was tl·1e prox1mate ct 1re true on a·ny theory. I was the d . ta qi e 5 zn a us ca e th as w ce en cause. I had the last chance. I-Iis pres non: m y act was the causa caitsans». in e tl1 r cle un cl l1e ac r·e lts su But Lawson who seems to ag re e with. the re f tl1e o . s . lu o d e 1 tl terpretat1o �e e 1 1 ,J f "' O 1 e • n g1ve11 by Pernicc, g1ves tl1e exarnp .. r tte l e tl1 re l1e ,.v defendant had as � preceded tl1e culpa of tl1e plaintif[ - st1cl1 it o int cle liberate ly ls fal y ssl ele car prepares a trap for tl1e former wl10

Cil A P'fER

VIII

\v \vould allow the la l1 lis 11g E r no w . Ja 11 1a on R and concludes t. 11at «ne1·ther as to rel1eve an u1te11_ so e at er op . to ce en ig gl ne · "bLltory doctr111e of cont r1 tional \.vrono-doer of liability».12s niLio n of c011t. fi l a cle nc fi to s ou lu rf pe su be t no At tllis :tage it migl1t r tl1e Com1no n La,v de un d ie pl ap d an l oc to rs cle tin ribtitory negligence as S)1stem. (2)

Last Clear Cfiance:

In England, the expressio11, <<Contributory negligence» does not neces sirily imply a breach of a duty of care owed to otl1ers. It simply means that a plaintiff J1as failed to take due care either of his person or of bis property and as a result bas been tl1e victim of a damage. Th.e old Common la\\, 1-ule made this negligence on the part of the plai11tiff a complete and absolute defence for tl1e defendant, irrespective as to \,vhetber or not the latter l1ad contributed to the bringing abot1t of the damage in a \'eD' large measure. Tl1is obviot1s injustice led the cot11·ts to look for and select the effective and predominant cat1se, out of tl1e diffe1·ent cont1-ibt1ting causes, \Vl1ich would be discarded. Once it \\ras ascertained that tl1e predominant cause was dt1e to the defendant, the plaintiff \.\70uld be given relief and justice do11e. It is in tl1e cou1·se of the selection of this p1·edominant cause tl1at tl1e courts came to speak of the so-called rule of «Iast opportunit)'>> but better known as the «last clear chance» rule, meaning that l1e ,-vl10 «l1as tl1e last opportunity is alone i·esponsible».129 (3) Co111parative Negligerzce:

In Englancl, the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, atten11Jted to bru1g some cl1anges but it \\1as not t1ntil tl1e Law Refo1 1n (Contributo1y Negli. gence) Act, 1945, 130 that a better solution was fot1nd. Tl1e effect of tl1e Ia,v is 10 enable the conrts to take into account ail contributing circumsta11ces a1 1d apportion in an eqt1itable manner tl1e dan1ages bet\veen tl e t\\10 pm·ties, 1 accordingly. For some unknown reason \vhicl1 n1ay go back to l1istory tl1e «absolute» Common la\v � e of contributory negligence was not applied to Admiralty cases, \Vhere, m torts arising ot1t of collisio 11 at s-ea tl1rot1gh n1utual fault, tl1e clamage was pooled a nd ct·1v1·cted 1 ·1 equ ally bet\ , v ee11 31 and 11 part ies; the . otl1er c1rct1n1stances• tl1 e detai·1s of \V . :r. 111ch ,ve ne ed not go i11to' tl1e pla1. 11t1. fi recovered in proportion ·t 111s . . O\,vn est11nated fat1lt. Tl1is 111etl1od of . . determ1nat1011 of fault a11d cons . apport1.on eq t1e nt 111ent of clamages betvveen . . t'l1e parties is also know11 as Compa 1·ative Negligence.1J2 4

BOHDERLINJ; SITUATIO NS

243

TJ 1e de\1elopn1e11t of tl1e la\ .v in c onnection with cont11 •'buto . ry negli.g :!nce . in Engla ncl bas fotmd ec l10 al so 1n A1nei·ica· The abso1ttte I"ltle was so . u inticl 1 resentecl tl1at 1n 1941 Prosser .1 vvas obligecl to say tl 1at. t·her e \vas . . . . . «an incres1ng d1ssat1sfact1on v\11tl1 tl1e clefence of c oi1tr J'bt1t ory neg11g . e11ce». . . 111 1955 l1e tr1e cl to g1,re a1 1 ex1Jla11atio n as to ,vI1y tllis harsh ntle 11acl been enclt1red for so long.1.1., Tl1e same vvriter .l 1as also sl10\vn 110\\' clifferen t tI 1e i·ule \vas iil Am erica even as to the application of tl1e Admiralty 1-ule where tI1e court s llacl some. vvl1at ad opted an a rbitrary 1-ule. At a11y rate, 11umerous States lla\re gra dt1ally enacted stat utes pro vidi11g for apportio11111e nt of <lainages propor. tionate to tl1e fat1lt of tl 1e parties, so tl1at \vl1ere, f or instance , the denfenda11t 's fault is t,vice as gr eat as tl 1at of t l1e plaintiff, tlle latt er \Vould reco ver t\.\70-tl1i1·ds of damages and bear one third of t I1e Joss. But even so, Prosser saw difficulties i11 cases ,vl1ere the part ies are mor e tl 1an t\VO and suggested tl1at tl1e solution n1a)' be f ound in tl1e enactment of st at utes similar to a11 Ontario statt1te wluch p1·ovided «mul ti.party casesn. 133 (4)

Con1,111on Faitlt (Fa.i1.te Con1111.1,rr1):

It is not, 1 10\vever·, tl1e Con1mo11 law al one wl 1ich has l1acl trot1ble, as ,vith causation, fault, and related t opics. Tl1e so-called cloct . above shown, . rine of «co n1mon fault» 135 vvas i11trocluced by the AL1stria11 Civil Cocle of 1811 and being strongly influenced by natural la\v providecl tl1at «wl1ere plaintiff is guilty of co11t ributo1·y negligence, l1e is to be liable proportio. nately, and if tl 1e co rrect proportion cann ot be determi11ed, tl1e11 casL1ally \vitl1 t l 1e defendant ».13 7 While it appears i11 neither the Prt1ssian nor in the Frencl1 Codes, it eme rges tl1at the coUI·t s of Fra nce knevv and appliecl it before the coming into force of the Frencl1 Civil Code, tl1e11 s\vitcl1ecl to the proxin1ate cause rule at the begini11g of the nineteenth century, bttt 3 d. aile v 13 b y tl1e Iate forties the cloctrine of com11 1on fault had definitely pre TI1e Swiss t ook it ove1· from t he Frencl1 in 1868 and it l1as been accepted in the QL1ebec courts ev en if belatedly. Ge1·1nany, unde1· the stron g influence of tl1e Panclektists, wa s slow in aband oning the Ro ma11 approach, ancl one can see tl 1rougl1 the German Co mn1ercial Cocle of 1861 that tl,e cloctrine was more conservativ e tl1an t l1e Aclmi.ralty rule of the Common la\V syStem, in that it clicl not pr icle f o1· equal clivision i11 collisi on of ships bt1t l�ft ov i ve lat re to the loss g in rd co ac g lin vic cli where it f ell.u9 ccTl1e principle of 1 e \Vi th tl1e 11 ca blame\vortl1iness» ly 1al fi1 , t i as Professor La\vso11 calls B.G.B. i11 1900.Ha Even if it cloes no t aJJpear i n tl1e cl1apte r clealing witl1 • • • • 1.a l . ion viS civil \Vr ongs, ro p Ar ticle 1227 of tl 1e I.C.C. ha s now a similar

CHA P1"ER VIII

244

g in \v man-Dutch o o ll R fo e s 1 o tl s a 1 cl su s ie tr n u , Tl1ere are st'1 ll soine co n a g si in u d o a, wliicl1 L lu c in s te ta S ed it n U e th in law and sonle jtirisdictions o� and fault, ti sa t1 a n c e � tw e b re tu ix m a is icl1 h w le 1-u ld o Je t} to k ic st l ll st u1i does 1 1o t seem to b� 11 -i, 11 co te it a f· f o e n a11 d eve11 11· 1 F◄ 1·a11ce, tJ1e doctri 1 1, therefore, would so w a L r o ss fe ro P 1. o1 ti sa as C vvell recei\red b y the Court of seen1 to appi·o,,e tI1e Saskatcl1ewan scl1e111e of insurance against motor accidents, whereby a con1n1u11ity fund is to be established out of which claims woulcl be met and ail operators and drivers would be compell�d «to contrib11te to it by paying premiums».'42 It seems gratifying to learn tI1at the Frencl1 I1ave recently s110\.vn an interest in a draft law intended to 1·eplace insurance for civil responsibility. 143 Article 2098 Etl1iopia11 Civil Code would seen1 to be a combination of tl1e com1Jarati\1e negligence and tl1e «common fault» rules, but in either case, it reinterates tl1e co1nrnon feeling that tl1e plaintiff shouid not benefit fron1 l1is own civil wrong - a IJrinciple now espoused in almost ail n1oder11 legal syste1ns. Wl1at p1·actical results \.Vil! be obtained in Ethiopia - a task beyond tJ1e scoJJe of tl1is work - is for tl1e Etl1iopian co111·ts to say. In the case of Ar1.to11is I-lctjoglou v. Tlie /1nperial Highway Authority, 144 the Addis Abeba St1p1·e111e I1nperial Cot1rt appears to l1ave enco11ntered no difficulty in awarding partial damages to an employee v.1ho l1ad contribued, througl1 his o\vn fault, to an accident occt11·1ing in his \Vork (Art. 2559 (2)), as a result of \.vl1icl1 he lost an eye. Tl1e cou1-t, ho\veve1·, pointed ot1t tbat, in tl1e absence of a ba.sis for the calculation of tl1e exact amount, it availed itself of tl1e discretion give to it under Article 2102. (ii) Necessity ( Art. 2103): The seemingly harsl1 rule wl1icl1 holds the defenclant strictly liable even . in cases of necessity (Article 2066), is r·elaxed \,vl1en it cames to assessing · · clamages. 145 Where , in or·der to « pI·eserve» ( preser· , ver) l1 1 n1self or anotl1er from an in1ininent damage or danger, the defendant l1i1nself causes dan1age · r, tl1e to the · proper·tY Of anothe court l1as discretion to act equitabl)r in ·. . . f1x1ng th e �ino�mt due by tl1e clefenclant (Art. 2103). Tl1e point 1s clear a11d reqtitr · es no ot ber co1nme11t. T\vo points, 110,v e,,er, draw ones attention· Tl1e f'irst conce1·11s tl1e \re1·b to <<preserve» and . . . . the words <c 1mm111ent danger'> used 111 Article 2103 as oppos.e d to tl1e · verb . <<to protect» and the wor·ds « 1. 1n1 . 1.cta n1n en t cla 11 a1Jpearing i11 Ar. e, e» ticle 2066 ( 1). Since i11 botl1 cases . . tl1 e l ob Je ct rep e of tl1 to e de . fe is 11d an t . . an IITIIlllnent. harm in the wicler sense of. tl1 . e word, 1t seen1s safe to suggest . that no difference was intended . On tl1e ot he r l1and - and this is the

BORDERLINE S11'UAT10NS

second point - vvhile Article 2066 reqL1ires that t}1ere be an imminent clamage only, Article 2103 envisages botl1 a «clamage» ancl an «im111i11ent clanger» ( cl'ur1. clo111.n1.age ou d'i1.11 danger in1.r11iner1t ). Here again, one COLùd overlook tl1is discrepancy but a11othe1· difference Iooins Ltp. \.V11ile uncler Article 2066 the defenclant is preswi1ed to l1ave catised damage ( it,1 JJré. jztclice) to «another» t1nder Article 2103 l1e is supposed to 11ave catised damage to the «property» (attei.r1.l 146 aitx bierzs) of another. It would seem to follow from tl1is tl1at tl1e ten1perament intended by Article 2103 is applicable only vvl1ere da. mage is caused to property ancl not \Vl1ere it is caused to persons. One coulcl perl1aps appreciate this better in the case· of fire where, say, a house rnay l1ave been clestroyecl. And yet, a deliberate «l1a1·m» or «inju.ry» (préjitclice) causecl to tl1e p.erso11 of anotl1er does create cla-,11111age \vithi11 the meaning of Articles 2027 ( 1-2) ancl 2028 E.C.C. (or of Articles 13�2-1386 F.C.C.) whicl1 could be even more serious than the destruction of tl1e house.In case it was intendecl to dravv a dif. ference between the tecl1nical v.rords of préjitdice ancl do111.nictge, one ca11 easily point out than in France they «are generally considered synonymous» and as such ,,used interchangeably to denote tl1e injury, Joss or clam. mege ...»14; It is very likely that the key to tl1is rnay be found in tl1e travaux préparatoires. As it is, one can only l1ope that tl1e courts will not be bound to run into difficulties of inte1·pretation. (b) Other Mod-es of Cornpe1'z.satio11: lnjiLnctions (Art. 2121 ).

The court has po\ver to grant an injunction i11 order to restrain tl1e defendant frorn: (a) comn1itting, or

(b) continuing to commit, or

aar (p t an nd fe de e tl1 to l ta en im tr de ( c) resuming an act w hi ch is graph 1). . . t\VO . in . . ly . . n o d se ci er ex e b n c a · d T h1s d1scret1on, however, 1s l1m1te d to an cases - (a) when there are goo d grou11ds (se,1,L·eLLses raisoris) to believe . 1 keI Y t o be carried out ancl . . 1s that such an act on the part of the plà1n 1· t1ff . at. . . th " e 1r tt · 0f such a na (b) Where the prejudice threatening the pla1nt1·rr is ). h rap it can not be rag (pa � s» age dam redressed by an award of eal<p s y tl rc . tr S . . . . . y d e m e r aw An order of 1nJt1nct1on 1s a typ1cal Com mon I . · · • d in d e 1 . lt . c . . 1o cl n a o ing the t ing ong n 1t ought to hav e been class1f1ed as b e1

216

CHAPTER

VIII

. g ,Mitll civil wrongs. It l1as mer ely Iaw n mo Com l ica typ . 1. 11 . tl1e Cl1apte1· dea1 .• n n atio tai erv cer obs s of e aus bec de ma r pte Cha bv s tlu • 1n l J c e c a I been p . nt tl1e ese of pr se ur co cussion · dis t11e in ar pe ap , ll wi ll J1ic , ' '" \Vr1·ters Jegal .. . . . . . nction In th e Ia,v of civil Ju In of y ed m re e th , I1d gla En in Historically, s i s so because the u·suaI Tl1i . late ly tive rela ne sce the to S \Mrongs corne . . • tl1e nature of damages . It In ion sat pen com of t tha is edy em r y and JJr-imar · . . g 1n many t1mes, the 1·t ove1·Iapp to d an e im cr , at tl1 ct fa e tli to e dti is also t. us ur no Th co l injunction was na mi cri e tl1 in th \vi alt de be niatter could ns of libel whicb, as we tio ca bli pu ted ea rep of es cas in 5 187 e for be d gr·ante 148 saw, was a crime. It may so hapJJen, however, tha t tl1e defendant bas more to gain tJ1an to Jose by continuing wit h tl1e practice which may be detrimental to the plaintiff, even at the cost of paying damages every time tl1at suc11 a practice takes place.It is obvious tl1at, in such a case, damages are of Iittle use to tl1e plaintiff and so111ething more effective was needed to deter the offendi11g party. Such a 1·emedy \Vas found in tl1e order of i njw1ction which emanated from tl1e Chancery Court - a Court of Equity. Tl1e effect of this remedy was to compel the defendant to refrain from the continuance of the wrongful act, wl1icl1 was usually tbat of «nuisa.nce» at the peril of l1is being imprisoned for contempt of court.149 Tl1e followi11g good definition of this concept by Wade 150 may be l1epful: «Tl1is is also one of tl1e standard ren1edies of private Iaw.It is an order requiring some pe1·son to refrain from breaking the law, e.g. by comn1itting a to1·t or breach of cont1·act, and is enforced if necessal'y by in1prisonment or fine for contempt of court, or by attachme11t of property. It is an equitable remedy, 1neaning tl1 at it derives fron1 tl1e forn1er Cow·t of Chancery, ancl tl1at it has a discretionary character .... » Injunctions are «n1andatory » \Vl1en a positive ac t is ordered and «pro. �ibitory » when the effect of th e 01·der is to fo1·bid futt1re action. Gray131 Iists tl1e three main advantages of tl1i s re1nedy as follo\vs: · «(l) In the case of cont·1nt11n g to1·t the cat1se of action 111a)1 be en. � irely disposecl of at once i11stead of 1·en1ainirlg to be tl1e sub Ject of successive actions i 1 1 tl1e future·, «(2) tlle reinedy is specific a11d is directed to tl1e discontinuance of the wrong instea'cI Of b e111g · me1·e co1npe11satio11 afte r the event ; « (3) i t may be in ,,oke to p1·event tl1e co1nn1issio11 of a tl1 reatened tort before it takes place at ail, \Vl1e1·eas tl1e riol1t to dan1ag es at o Commo11 La,.\I' cannot ai · . . . .1se unt1·1 afte1· 1t s comm1ss1on».

IlOilDEllLINE S11'U,\'l'IONS

Pollocl<151 points ot1t tl1at - ttnlike clan1ages _ t11e 11ac tur·e. . . of a1 1 ll1Jlll1C• • • • tÎOil 1 s not of univers al appl1cat1011 a11cl conseqt1e11 tly is gi·"'n c, tec1 on1y \V11ere . · . . dan1ages a1·e deemed 111aclequate, especially ii1 cas 'es of n1 11s an ce , co nt1nu1ng . . _ . . trespasses or 1n 1nfr111 ge1nent of co1Jy1·1gl1t a11ct trade nlarl<s. Salmond 15, aclds that assault ancl battery, false i1111Jriso11111e11t and mac l·1c10 · 11s 1Jrosecu• • • • tioi1 are not ,v1tl11n 1ts clo1ua111 ancl after infor111ing 11s tlla c t 1··t s o bJe · ct 1s to stop tl1e co11ti1111ance, the 1·epetitio11 a11cl tl1e con1n1issio11 of a ci· v1-1 .,vrong, points out that - ,vl1ethe1· 111anclatory or prol1ibitory _ it ca11 be «inter. Ioc11toryi> (an order iss11ed before tl1e l1earing of tl1e action) or «perJJettial» ( an order iss11ed after the detern1ina tio11 of tl1e sa111e). Also Salinoncl1 54 emphasises the n1atte1·s ,vl1icl1 1nust be taken into acco11nt before tl1e re. medy can be be granted and su111 marizes then1 into three - first «tl1e magnitude» of the inj1u-y complainecl; tl1 at it sho11ld be substa11tial and not a mere apprcl1ensio11. Secondly, tl1e «co11duct of tl1e partes» \v b. ether or not the plaintiff is, foi· insta11ce, in good faitl1. Thirdly, tl1e nat1tr e of the ({interests» involved, l1aving regard to those of tl1e defenclant and of the public in general. In the Unitecl States, most of tl1e actions for infringen1ent of IJatents

con1e witl1in the «interlocutory» injunction, often calle cl «a11 injw1ction per1cle11.te litei>, 155 but Chapte1· 48 of tl1e Restame11t l1as quite a st1bsta11tial list of the kinds of civil wrongs for \vl1icl1 tl1e order n1ay be obtained. 156 In France, the remedy of an i11j1111ction cts sitc/1. cloes not seen1 to be well settled, but simila1· results 111ay also be tl1er.e obtainecl. Eve11 if 11otl1ing specific is said in tl1e French Civil Code/5; tl1ere are some special la\vs such as the Cocle rural - vvliich envisage proventive measures ancl Articles 3-6 of tl1e La,v of June 21, 1898, do make provisions for «procéclirres d'injorzctiorr». 158 Again, Article 1142 Frencl1 Civil Code speal<s of obligations ,vl1ich require both a positive ( de faire) a11cl a negative ( de rie pcls fcLire) bel1a,,iour, and a tJ1ird kin d of obligation ( cle don11er) ,vl1 icl1 eq11ally re. 159 As far as .. .C F.C 138 6-1 113 qu.ires a positiv. e act, is envisaged in Articles the obliga tio11 de ,ie pas fciire is concerned (whicl1 is the of obligation co11templated in Art. 2121 E.C.C.), th e creditor ca n ask the Cottrt to l1ave, say, a construction m ad e in violation of th e agreement bet,veen tl1e parties de molish ed, at th e expense of tl1e clebtor (Art. 2143 F.C.C.). Btit, except i�1 very rare occasions, no restraint of persona! freeclom talces place. Ac cording to Carbon nier 160 tl 1e solutions reacl1ed u11der Frencl1 Ia,v are 110t so · Performac nce» (co11far f·rom tl1ose reacl1ed under tl1e remed1.es of «speci·ric • obliga. tl1e to ares pc m co 1e cerrung positive actions) and of inj11nction \vl1ic h • 1 . spec1a«<rreat the are t1· on o f· cle ne JJCLS ' 0 10 l fciire. If, be asks, tl1e E11g1 1s 11 \V . co11rt, of tempt on c 1·i sts of .ndividtt 1 tt ec 1 al liberty» 161 hav e nonetheless admi J

CJ-JAP1'ER

VIII

2,18

110\v, it appears , take on ti nc jo irz al 1·e A s e? is ew lik _ clo '1v la 1 1 c . . 11 e coL1lcl 11ot Fr 1 v1l P1·ocedure, coi, . C e of od C l1 1c e1 Fr e 1 tl . of 1036 le c i· t · Ai 1 l e c 11 u )' 1 11 place 0 2 '6 . » e c rz tdie i a l' e cl e c li o 11 la « 1g ce1·11j1 1 63 tl1inks th at tl1e re111edy of astrei 1 t te , ee tr S e il l1 ,v , 1d 1 a 11 · ei l 011 tlle otl 16,l 1 e1 1r el o M an slat es V tr . », n . . n io ct 11n 1j i1 i· fo e L1t it is c,tlle French stibst 1 it migl1t be ) it ar cl of e k sa added 1e tl r Fo . n» io ct 111 jt in i-y ra Jo 11 e1 référé as «t 1 e in se 1c a1 ca n r1 of pro. ·fo e1 p ct 1 ·e i d in of d 1o tl 1e n a tllat astrei11.te is en of tl1e m a dg nt to ju ua 1·s t pu eb d e th of on ti ac sf ti crastiilation in the sa y ch or da ea r fo onth of 1n m su d xe fi n ai rt ce a y _ pa ill v ,. or bt cottrt, tI1e de 165 ré (Arts. 806 et fé e of ré ur ed oc pr e tl1 1· de Un . be ay 1n se tlle clelay, as tl1-e ca r to talce certai 11 ,,,e s po ha e dg j11 a , e) ur ed oc Pr il v Ci of cle seq frer1cI1 Co der to solve a certain or in it, ds a11 m de y 11c ·ge u1 e 1er wl , es ur as 111e ten1porary ment of an expert int po e ap tl1 as ch su ( es rti pa the een t,v be g sin a1·i point n to exa1nu1e a11d report 011 the trL1e state of affairs of certai ,vorks ,vhich 166 migl1t be L111de1·,vay). These were tl1e reasons wl1ich lecl tl1e \Vriter to pla ce Article 2121 Etl1io1Jian Civil Code in tl1e pres.ent Cl1apter.Otherwise, one will easil)' 167 tl1at l1ere tl1e Con1n1011 lavv remedy of unjunction ell Russ Dr. agree witl1 l1as been SL1bstantially espoused. 'Tempo.rary Injunctions' are no\v con. te1nplated in Articles 154-159 of the Ethiopia.n Code Civil P1·ocedure, but notl1i11g is to «affect the JJrovisions of Art. 2121 of the Civil Code» (Art. 155 (3) E.C.C.P.).

D. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTION OF OTHERS (VICARIOUS LIABILITY). (i) Liability of Bodies C'o11101'ctte ( Pe1"s01i11es Morales) Art. 2129. . . If a ci, ,il· wrong is comm1tted b)' a representat1ve, or a pa1d an aoe11t ° ,vor](· ecl (salarié) , in tl 1e ctisc · 11arge (or perfo1·ma11ce) of l1is dt1ties ' bodies cor1Jor te ,.vill a]so be vicario11sly liable (Art. 21 29). � It 1s obvio11s he1·e tI1at tl1 e a1·t1c · 1e 1s . conce1-11ed w1tl1 pe1-sons otl1er than . pl1j's1cal ( or 11attua· l) whicl1 ·01 of legal requ 1 1·e111cnts, are en. ' f . lJtuposes . dO'vved \.Vlt11 a legaJ perso11·'-1Iity. T l le natm·e of tl1is legal JJe1·sonalit)1 \,vlucJ1 in F · rance, at_ ·least J1as o··1v •· 0 ei1 1ise to a g1·eat cont1-ove1·s)' - 1s beyo11d ' . tl1e scope of tl11s 168 work · Never·tllel ess, lea v1. 11g apar·t tl e dif ies theor , fer . ent 1 .· 011e inay st1ll be11efi . . .. . t fro1n kno""ing s , · the1r Amo . to class1 f1cat1o n. Accor ding and Wac. lton, 169 «1nor.al JJe1·so . ll . . (a) of pL1bl1c ns» ca11 b e. la\.v, (b) of essent 1a Y JJttblic btit prac1.Ica11Y of_ pr1. vate cllat•acter a11d (c) of private }a\.v. Among other tI1ings, cat. egory (a) . includes tl1e State, togetl1e1· witl1 its sub.di \1isio n5

DORDERLINE

S11'UATIONS

and related agencies; établissenierzts pitblics' SLlCll as ra· c. l l,vays, 111usetm 1s ancl universities; professional organisatio11s, st1c11 cas tlle ba, r· and 1nedica1 asso ciations. Catego14Y (b � co,,ers cases st1bstantially coming Llllcler ptiblic . la\V but \vl11ch foi· pract1cal 1·easons ar e t1·eatecl as private _ stich are nationalized ba11ks or rail,vays. For pur1Joses of jtirisdictio11 tllese inatters con1e within tl1e con1pete11ce of tl1e ordinary cot1rts _ as OiJposecl to ad mii1istrati,,e cotrrts - e,,en if tl1e State o,.v11s ail or a greater }Jart of tlleir shares. Category (c) inclt1cles commercial ru1d civil sociétés, syndicats pro. fessiorzels (01· tracte t111io11es), and foit11.dat, io11s. Ho,ve,,er, tJ1at tl1e co11text of A1·ticle 2129 E.C.C. is not intended to apply to State liability seems beyond doubt. Tl1ere appear to be at least t,vo reasons for saying tl1is. One is tl1at State liability is expressly regttlated else,vhere (Arts. 2126.2127). The other is that tl1e worcls c<forzctiorinaire» or ,ceniployé de l'Etat» (Art. 2126) do not appear in Article 2129. Wl1etl1er or not tl1e ,vords ccser·vices pitblics clotés de la z1erso11alité». (Art. 2128) are comparable \vith or equivalent to the ,,établisse111e11ts publics» of category (a) above, is a different matter; it is also a point upo11 \vhicl1 tl1is vvriter does not feel competent to embark upon. Neve1-theless, it is a fact tl1at for the pu.rposes of Etl1iopian law the State a11d its territorial st1b.clivisio11s are moral persons (Arts. 394-395); so as are societés (Art. 405) ancl sy11dicctts professio1'znels (Al-t. 406) - \vl1ile <cFondations» (Art. 483) are placed uncler the sarne Title III but in Chapter III, tmde1· the heading of Des Patri. n1oi1'zes1ï0 cl'Affectatio11S translated iI1 Englisl1 as «Prope1·ty with a Specific Destination». The English version of Article 2129 makes no sucl1 distinction and merel)' speaks of c<bodies co11Jorate», vvhi1e the French counter.part conten1plates Les z1erson11es n1 o ra.les ou JJatri111oirzes il'c1ffectatiort. (ii) En1.pl0)1er's Liabilit)' (A1·t. 2130 ): Article 2130, likewise, renders tl1e master ( pat1·011) vicariot1sly liable for any civil wrong committed by on e of l1is employees, in the perfurrnai1ce of his duties. While the «employer» of this Article is tl1e same <<employer» 0! Arti�le 2125 ( c), it is doubtfttl whetl1er, for th e reasons give11 i11 co1111ection_ vvit _h Article 2129, i t was intended to include th e State. Tl1e Frei1cl1 version 15 carefully \vorded - it l1as us ed bo th tl1e tenn «JJatron» (Arts. 2125 (c) ancl 2130) a11d the term «e1nJJl oyeur» (Art. 2125 ( cl)), ,v1 11·1 e 1·t 1·s eqt1ally trt1e tl1at . 0 3 1 2 d 11 . a 8 2 1 2 ) (3 7 the worcl cce111.ployè» appears in Articles 2 1 , ' 2126 (1- 3) 2 . , .es, un cler ,,E,nployetL1..» one . . If one looks at the Table Alplicibétzq Matzei cle ite · 1 1) 011 · » tat l'E , le c zO)'es \Vill fii1cl Articles JJ 11 "E1 er u11d bt1t . 9 215 and 0 5 213 212 ' 11 Ie W1 2159. Article A rti·cle 2513 appears. · • appar-en t 111 . 1 1s Again, the clistinct101

---- --------

25ll

C1:JAP1'EH

VJJf

_ ______________________

t al of a en or ag 1n or nt rs pe 1ta e1 on es pr re a of ks ea sp ) 30 ?1 • ·t I (A pa1·,1grap.l1 1 . . .. . et of a ,,Jan iorznaLre)> or ks ea sp 2 l1 ap gr ra pa , é) ri Lla sc ( or of a paid \.voi·ker tl1e use of tl1e ,vord d in un fo is 11 . s io ct in st cli t an rt po im r l1e t o· ". ul , r cce111J. J l0)1e». . . o tz nc fo 1 e s cl . se A s) se c er ex l' s care. r1. da ( » es ti du � s J1i of � e nc ,a om rf pe «ii1 tlle l1en 1·eferr1ng to tl1e w d de o1 av en be s ba e 11s its at tI1 s vv ,o ftil scrtitiny sl s ea it is frequently er ,vh , )) (2 59 21 , 28 21. , 25 21 s. rt (A , ts an r·,, se its State 01y, ) pil 57 (1) , ap 21 I I33 21 r 9, tl1e 212 . rts e (A ns . 1·so pe r he ot of se ca e tl1 Îil usecl ed in ion nt ect n1e e11 n11 be co dy ea ion alr as 1 l It s. tl1i for on ati lan is an exp l1 an en1ploye e of 1ic wl >> ult «fa e th of e tur na tl1e t tl1a , ity bil Jia te Sta 1 t1 ,vi tl,e State, i11 tl1e broad sense of the ,vorcl, is s11pposed to l1 ave co1n1nitted (fciitte de se1·vice) is to be interp1·eted far mo re restrictively tl1an tl1e kind of fault ,vltich a ,,sctlairé» of a give11 master (z1atrorz) con1mitts «in the perfor1nance of his duties». 111 It was, indeed, intended originally to place 011 equa1 footing State liability 011 the 011e l1a11d and liability arising out of ci\,il ,.vro11gs committed by State sen1ants or employees of comparable bodies, on. tl1e otl1 er. In s1icl1 a case, tl1e rules of clroit con11nitn applicable in con11ection ,vith tl1e liability of a patrori woL1lcl have been the same in botl1 cases, but for one exceptio11 - wl1ere the State was involved, au. tl1ority to proceecl l1acl to be obtained befe1�e11and fron1 the Nljnister of Justice. Tl1e Etl1io1)ia11 Codification Commission rejected tl1is arrangement on tl1 e gro1111d tl1 at it was dangerous as it n1 ight encourage S tate irrespon. sibility, everj' tin1e that sttcl1 at1tl1ority was not forthcoming. 1n It ,.vould see111 to follow f1·on1 tl1is tl1at the word «e111plo),é>) appearing in Article 2130 v,1as not i11tended to apply to State liability. W11ere sucl1 inte11 tio11 ap1Jears from tl1e text, st1ch as, for instance, in Article 2 126 (1), its use may l1a,,e been dt1e to lac k of a11other mo1·e convenie11t term. (iii) Perfo1111ctrice

Di-ttz·e..,.:

(A1·t.

2131)

an,t

Tapies

( Arts. 2132.2133).

Ar ticle 2131 ex1Jressly and Articles 2132 a11cl 2133 by in1plicatio11 refer _ _ to Articles 2129 a11d 2130 and seem to . 11 ave bee n 1ncluded i11 orde1· to s110,v the nature ancl extent o f tl1 e le . . I eva nt « dLtttes», so as to dissipate do11bt a11d . avo1cl co11fusio11 as to tl1e In . at1,1e 111ea11i11g. Artic 2131 reads: · tenc1 ed 1eg1sl le (( ( 1) For tl,e JJLlf JOSe l of A1·t. 2129 a11d 2130, a liabilit)' sl1all be

clee1necl to 11ave bee11 111c . • t1r.r.e d 111 tl1e d1scl1a1·ge of cluties ,.vJ1ere tl1e ,,v1·ongfu l act or tl1e ab ste . nt1. 011 \Vas co1111nitted foi· tl1e pur. pose of ca1i-ying ot1t tl1e clt1ties.

IlORDEllLINE SITU;\1'IO NS

..,...�- 1

« (2) rfl1e fact that tl1e ,vro11gf11l ac t or· a bs te11 tio11 \vas 11!tra vires

or th. at it s at1tl1or ,,._,as strictly forbiclclen to co111n11·t 1·t, s11a11 not 1·elease th e e son ,vl10 is legally respo � � nsible froin his Iiability, Ltnless tl1e v1 ct 11 n kne,v or 011gl1t to I1ave kno\v11 of tliat fact ».

Except for proof to tl1e contrary, if a ,v1·ongft1l act is committecl b)' a representati,,e or an agent of a moral person 01· by a paid worker «at tlie place wl1ere or cl11ring the time wl1en he is normally employecl», there is a prest1mption t11at l1e com1nitted it in t!1e perforn1ance of I1is dtities (Art. 2132). But ,vl1ere s11cl1 d11ties l1a,,e n1er.ely p1·0,1ided tl1e at1tl1or of the ,,.,_ rong ful act or a·bstention ,vitl1 an «opportunity» (l'occasio11) he ,vill be deeined to have bee11 outside tl1e scope of l1is dt1ties or en1ployme11t a11cl co11. sequently 110 liability attacl1es (Art. 2133 ). La,vyers in botl1 tl1e Co11tinental and in tl1e Com1no11 la,v legal systems l1ave not found it easy to deter1ni11e tl1e exact nature a11d tl1e extent of tl1e duties wbich are relevant for tl1e p11 rposes of establisl1ing civil liability. It ,vill also be noted tl1at paragra1Jl1 2 of Article 2131 speaks of illtra vires in the English text and of clépasserrient cle pott11oir in tJ1e Frencl1. Both points call for a brief corm11e11t. Reference ,vill be macle botl1 as to tl1e position in t]1e Common La,v ancl in the Civil La,.v, respectively. (a) Servant: 1\s a general 1"l1le, at Common Ja,v tl1e n1les of ag.ency (1Jri11cipal.age11t) and master.serva11t apply equally to inclividt1als, to corporations or to part nerships.1ï3 Tl1e1·e are, 110,vever, so111e im1Jortant qualifications aocl disti11c tions to be made. A master is 11sually liable foi· civil wro11gs con11nitted by his se1-vant, ivhether tl1e latte1· has acted for his master's benefit or not or \vhether the act has bcen authoriscd 01· not. But tl1-e act must have bee11 committed bv tl1e se1·,,ant «within the sco1Je of l11s · empIoyment» 11·1 Tl1e tliis servan t is als� jointly a11cl severally liable ,,. ritl1 l1is 111aster. As to ,vl1e11 _ occu rs exactl)r is a poi nt of fact bu t tl1e circumstances 1111cler ,vh1cl1 the act giving rise to th e Iiability "'-,as con1n1itted ,.vill be significant. AJtl1ougl1 , . e) on d e b to is it t.ime may be an 1m1Jo ay w tl 1e i.e. (. e ' d mo rtant factor, tl1e ·in v..,l11cl1 tl 1e wron:::,rrft1l act 1s co11. 1er · tl 1e 1 ,v I t1nc tl1e cltity was perforn1ed . . . coinr11ittecl i·'i tJze coitrse 11 ected 1vith that duty - if, in otl1er ,vo1·ds, 1t is re 1o n e b to in e se y 0 f that duty a t s n1, ac ancl belongs to a ce1·tai11 clctss of· . tl1e -. 1 11 ro f . s e s tt b 1e 1 tl impo t OLI e k ta . rta11t. ', Tl111s, if son1e clr1,rers ,vere to .. . _1cler . to 0 . 1n o_ cIepot. - wl1e11 not on duty and ,v1tho1rt at1t.11or.1· tY tO do s . . ecl, tl. 1e tr JL in . m for is r e Llse tl1e cl 11 ta � 5 ' ) b a 1 a race , in tl1e cot1rse of ,vJ1icl en1ployer \Voulcl not be liable.'16

Cl:IA PTER

., � 5'}

(b)

VIII

Age11t:

1 ployecl to represe11 t 11.is p1·i11cipal en , is cl 11 11a er· otll 1 e tl A 11 age 11t,, o11 vant because l1e 1s not ser a m fr·o e1·s diff Ie I · e ·pos r u p •r· 1c for soi11e s1Jec1 . . . . . 1 1s employer ( tl1e pr 1n c1pal) ,vheu 1 of n tio ec r cli . d an l ro nt co t c tmder t11e dire . . . . . . 1ty ex1sted for t11e 01· 11ot author er . etl1 ,vh ver i·eo l\iio ' · t u Y d • 1 1s 1 g perform1n . ..- . · . . n lias aptly sl1ew tl1e d1st1nct1 on on k11m Mac . ice . Jtist d . or L . 1 · 1a e1 at 1 n act 1s • . 1 1_8 : z.1 .,' 1d en rzv he sa Bo wh v. t 1it eu H . in , ts ep nc co o tvv bet,,veen tlle . 1 -1

«If A suffers cla111age b)' tbe vv1·ongft1l act of B a11d seeks to say tliat c is Iiable for tl1at damage l1e 1nust establisl1 tl1at in doing tlie act B acted as the age11t or servant of C . If be says he ,vas C's 1ovv tl1at C autborized the act. If l1 e ea u sl l1er furt J t mus e 1 nt e acr 0 estab1ish tl1at B was tl1e servant of C no question of authority neecl arise. A maste1· is jointly ancl severally liable v.ritl1 l1 is ser,1ant foi· any tort cornmitted by the se1·vant i11 tl1e cou1·s.e of 11.Îs emplo)'· n1e11 t». Tl1 e facts i11 tl1e above case ,,vhere tl1at of a son \vl10, \-vitl1 out l1is fatl1er's a11tl1oritj', toolc J1is fatl1er's car to take l1is girl frie11d l1orne and 011 tl1 e vvay killed a 1Je1·son. It was l1eld tl1at tl1e fathe1· ,vas not liable as J 1is son was not tl1en l1is «agent».179 (c)

Ultra Vi1es:

Corporatio11s a1·e vested ,vitl1 legal personality bt1t it is only tbrougl1 11atural persans tl1 at tl1ey ca11 act. Since they are a creation of the Ia,v, 110\.vever, tl1eir po,ve1·s are well defi11ed ancl li1nited to tl1e extent co11 ferred 111Jon tl1em by the lavv tl1étt created tl1en1 ancl by tl1 e n1e .n1 orandurn of as. sociation. A11ytl1ing done .eitl1 e1· in breacl1 of or no t vvitl1in tl1at is so autbo rized is what is 11s11ally n1eant by «itltra vires»; tl1at is to sa)' «outside the powers of tl1e co1npany» a11 cl as s11cl1 «is 11 ormally ,,o id». 160 Si 11 ce tl1 e corp. oratio1 1 acts tl11·ot1gl1 natural IJersons, it follo ,,rs tl1at it ca11 st1e and be sued for civil \.vrongs, bt1t onl)' to tl1e ex te11t tl1at a co1·po1·ation ca11 coin. nl . it t J1em or to tl1e exte11t tl1at tl1 e) 1 can be c111 111 ittecl agai11st it. Thus, 1Jersor1al civil ,vrongs st1cl1 as assa 11It a11d secluction a1·e outside of its clomaiI1, tl1otigl1 it ca n s11.e for clefamatio11 becat1se its reJJL1tatio11 may suffer.•s• Conversely, corporatio1 1 s ca11 be I1 eld liab]e foi· tl1e act of tl1 eir age11ts or servaii ts onIY 1"f· an cl wl1e11 st1cl1 an act l1 as be en autl1orized or ratifie cl. Bt1t 011ce· tllis bas c bee11 cl0 11 e, 1t · 1s · 11·r • ele,,a11 t wl1etl1 er tl1e act 1s · tl[t1·a vires 01· i11trct 11ires, JJi·ovicl . e c 1 ·t 1 . 1s co11111 11ttecl by a 11 agent 01- ser\,ant act.·1 11g . . «\\'It111n tl1e scoJJe 0f l11s · at1th01·1t • y or e1 111Jloyn1e11t». 182

DORDERLINE SITUA1'10NS

253

Altl1ough tl1e concept of itltra vires is t'-,p . . ica l of co J ' rp or . a t e 1avv, 1t 1s • • • also relevant 1n connect1011 w1tl1 tl1e 0 oe11eral tI1eory of Jt · 1cl'1c1a • 1 control of • • • • 183 public autl1or1 t1es. Both 111 th e ca se of corporatioi1s a11d 1n · tl1at of· pt1bl1c authorities, the «l1eart of tl1e \Vhole 111atter» a, 1)pear , s to be «stat·tltOl'"j' co11.on on tl1e part of tl1e co11rts.18 � It ,.vas prest1111ably tlus \Vllicll strt1ct1 », macle 183 sa y tl1at «practical co11venience 1·at11.er tI1a11 tl1eoret Holdvvortl1 ical con. siclerations have ... determined ,,._,11at activities are possible and wl1at are impossible to a co1-poration». Moral persons, under Frencl1 law , have mt1cl1 \Vider powers a11ct ar e capable of participati11g «in all juristic acts ,vl1icl1 are not exclttsively ap. propriate to natural persons».186 In tl1is sense, it will be see11 tl1at there is «no general doctri11e of Fre11ch la,,._, \vl1icl1 at all closely correspo11cls to tlie Englisl1 p1inciple of ultra vires». 187 :r11is, however, does not 1nea11 that moral persans have an absolute range of applicatio11, for there are certain limita. tians ,,._,I1ich a1·e i111posed by positi,,e la,.v. W11at marks the clifference is tl1at, unlike the Co1nrnon la,"', F1·encl1 law does not 1·egard as intrinsically voici, any acts \-vhich may ba,,e been done, for i11stance, by associatiorzs or sociétés, in excess of tl1eir legal po\vers.'33 In vie,.v of tlus, it seems doubtful wl1etl1er it was appropriate to tise the ,,._,ords «itltra vires,, in the Englisl1 ,,ersion of Article 2131 (2) ). On tl1e other band, Frencl1 lawyers speak of a 111.a1tdataire or a rézJreseritar1t l1aving exceed his po,-vers ( «dépassé ses z1oitvoi1·s); the. words abits cle clroit clenot. ing «rights» as opposed to «powers,> a11d tl1e \.\forcls détoirrr1.nient de z1oitvoir being strictly and rest1·ictively utilized only i 11 connection with cirait cLcl. n,zinistratif. 169 To tl1 e extent tbat ttltra vires is not intended to be u11clerstoocl in its tech. nical meaning as in the Co1nmon la,"' vvorlcl bt1t only as denotiJ1g . cl that an agent or servant l1as exceecled l1is powers or I1as gone beyon those conferrecl on l1im by bis principal or master, it \vould appear tl1at 90 ir.' vo t t po cle r1.t , 11ie ass it is acceptable as c01�responding to tlie Frencl1 dép be ed ne 1 1cl mt t no , ed ern 11c co is é os éz1 pr As far as tl1 e qualification of a added to vvhat has alreacly been saicl before.'91 Unlike an agent or a ser,,ant, · a1 or· bY tl 1e · ip a préposé can even be someone no t chosen by tl1e princ en id , es tim at , be ot nn ca n tio si po te s mas r, but this does no t m ea n that hi il co cl an on si vi er ip SL n, io ct re di tical to that of a servant vvl10 is t1nder tl1e is trol of his rnaster.192 Wl1at is imJ)ortant is tl1en tl1e determination of l1 1l ft · g 11 ro v 1e " tl · l t · ec it m m co l1e n exact position witl1 respect to the master, ,.vl1e .enot. a cl s . efrec ,. t, a pré11ose, 1s . French Jeoac: l te1�minolo0y a act· To th1s . t1sed 1n ing botl1 an agent or a servant.193 a0oe m a cl y · 11 a r ' fo le b ia 1 · · s 1 Under Article 1384 (àl. 5) F.C.C. a master 011 vvorl< do to aecl · a eng 0 catised to a thircl par ty by tl1e fault of tl1e perso11s 1s hi s behalf. I�ikevvis the person wh o actua 11Y co111m 1.- tted the civil ,vrong e

CllAI'TEl'l

%54

\'Ill

a 11d servant. Pt11·suant to ter mas of ility liab t J'oin ' a • 1s . . . . l iable so tl1at t·J.1e1_e . 1 ty of tl1e master b1l l1a ot1s ar1 ,,1c . . nal the · for is lie bas s tlJe , ,v 1e . . v , 1o 1t d a ' . tJ1e tr . . r cl 1s ste l1el ma the ponsible , res say to is 1 at tI _ ilt fat , f o 11 10 t . on tJ1e prestu11p . de ma r a tl1e 1 bad e l1as i cho ce in tl1at l1e ecl sttm pre · 5 1 •t 1 e s 11 a c e b ) (liable . . e ad m od a s go ba be 1f . 01c , cl1 or tl1at e, or1 rs pe he ar ctù rti pa t , tlla 1g 11 g e1 1ga . .. . 94 e es to tl1 tly ac ex concepts that s 1 It ' ' 1·l) Je ·01 p1 m hi ise r,, iJe su to }Jas failed · the Latin 1na xîm of nce to e1·e 1·ef ke n1a s J iter v.rr l ega I n'96 a 105 , ' tali 1 J c F renc 1- an y. vel cti Also Roma11 la\\, e p. res , iclo ila; ,,ig i11.. J7a citl c of . l anc ·,,rlo I , /tL e · el• 'o • iri l Cll pa 1) 83 .B. (§ both envisaged B.G tl1e r cle un , , . la, an r1n Ge d an ian ttilder Jttstin 198 spe aks of cul11a in instrue 1 7 law 11.do to · eli··genclo • 9 Aoa o in , F1·e nch Clllpa l11. clenote béld tools or instruments giv en by t]1e ma ste r to l1is servant for the 1,urpose of pe1·forming l1is duties. frencl1 Ia,,v1rers, hov.reve1·, I1ave 11ot found it easy to establish wl1en an act is said to have been con11 nitted «in tl1e exe1·cise of the servant's func tio11s» and cot1rts ar eqt1ally di, 1ided in tbeir l1oldings. 199 If it can be as. st11ned tl1at tl1e se 1 ·vant (prép osé) \vas acting in tl1e exe1·cise of his duties tl1ere is 110 diffict1lt:y; bt1t sucl1 a difficulty exists \\rhen the wrongful event is committed by tl1e se 1 -va11 t eitl1er at tl1e place or during tl1e l1ours of bis e1111Jloy1 ne11t or ,vhen tl1e servant's wrongful event 11as been facilitated by reason of l1is em1Jloy111e11t. In sucl1 cases, it is ve1·y like ly l l1a t the ci,ril \i.rrong::; com 1nittecl by tl1e se1·,,ant «are 11ot incidental» to l 1is dttties.:!!13 At tl1e beginning, French co11rts, especially criminaI, appear to bave bee1 1 111 ore fa,,ourable to the victim, for they allo,vecl 1·ecovery even in cases ,vl1ere en1ployees l1ave taken tl1 eir employer's velucles for tcjoy. riding », without pe1·mission and tb1·ough careless drivù1g l1ad caused damages to others.201 More rece11tly, they tend to exonorate the master fro1n liability v.1l1 e1·e tl1e servant is gt1ilty of ab its de fo11.ct io11.s - l1ence tl1e wrongful act \,vill l1ave bee11 com1nitted by tl1e se1'"Vant 11ot only against tl1e orders or not ,vitbin tl1e k 11owledge of tl1e master b 11t aiso for «purposes otitside the scope of l1is em ployme11t» ar1d no t «i1 1s1Jire d by tl1e interests of l1is master.20� Tl1e cot1rts l1ave also be e 1 1 kno,\rn to J1old ,rica1ious li.lbility \vl1ere tl1e facts s110,ved tbat tl1 ere was no ab ies de fo11ctiori but that tl1e wrongftù ac t ,vas connect · ed ,-v1tl1 tl1 e cl11ties ( raz,z1o rt avec za . . fo11ct io11) ·201 In st1cl1 1<In . d f s.1 tt1at101 1s, tJ1e cou1·ts lool< at tl1e in1press1 011s fornJecl by tl,e victim (l'etcLt -cl 'es11rit) as a 1·esult of tl1e bel1 aviour of tl1e servant o r en1ployee I f, for • . 1ns · t a 1 1ce , 1 1 t e 1 1111Jlo);ee gi,,ing a lift to some one · on pa)rment acts as tl1ot1gl 1 11,c 15 · cl0111 · g 1· t 1· 11 tl1e 11ame an d interest of· I11·s pat1·011 ancl the victi1 n b eI.ie,,es tl11s, tl1ere \vil! be ter, n1a s tl1 e Iia of bi lit y but not so ,vl1ere tlJe vi. . . ct in 1 l1as 110 1·easo11 to believe tl1at the en1ployee . \Vas act11 1g for l1is n1aste1·_20�

DOROERLINE SITUATIONS

255

Finally, it may be obse1·ved that both in the Coinmo11 1a\.v a11d . 111 tl1e . e ex1st, as 1·eferrecl to befoi·e, son1e Continental la\V the1· C0111pensat1011 , . La,1/s or \,V orkma n s Com1Jensat1011 Acts. In ce1·tai11 class of accicleilts the orclir.ary rules of th e la,.v of civil wrongs a1·e inapplicable and provicled 'tllat it can be sl1ew� tl1at tl1e_ acc�cle�� ,vas cat1secl in tl1e cotirse of tlle einploy. 01e11t, tl1ere vv1ll be st1·1ct l1ab1l1ty attacl1able to tl1e employei·. For tllis reason, it l1as bee11 st1ggestecl tl1at «fom1er clecisions in toi·t cases ancl tlie definitions of tl1e con1111on Ja,,v sl1ot1lcl 11ot be too closel), follo,ved in corn • p en satm cases»- .205 Tl1e relationsl1ip bet,veen an e111ployer and l1is employees ancl the position t1nder Ethiopian lavv has already been refe1·red to in connection w ith tl1e contents of f\rticles 2086 206 a11cl 2088. Mention is l1ere made to Title XVI, Chapter I, solely i11 co11nection ,vitl1 the ,vorcls «arisi11g from his ,vork�> ,vl1icl1 8.ppea1· in Article 2549. In tl1e 1·ece11t case of Eftyl1ia Mamal ingas a11cl Pa11a)1 otis Ma111ali11gas ,,. Zappiilct anil Ka1'11JJUS, Ltd.,2°7 tl1e Com mercial Division of the Addis Ababa I-ligl1 Cou1- t vvas faced vvitl1 tl1is qt1estion. In an action by tl1e st11·,,i,rors to recove1· damages against an employer for tl1e deatl1 of an employee killed by shif tas (outlaws), while n1aking a trip for tl1e benefit of the employer, tl1e court held that tl1e ,.vords <!arislng from l1is ,vork» ( «[Jar le fait cle son tra·vail» in the Frencl1 version of Art. 2549) are to be construecl to n1ean that tl1e work must be «the ca use of the l1ann», tl1at is to say, «tl1e \N'ork mt1st be related to and connected \Vitl1 tl1e ha1·m» s11ffe1·ed by the em1Jloyee. Tl1is, the Cot1rt l1eld, in spite of the fact tl1at it adn1itted of «the deceased performing l1is ,.vorlc at tl1e tin1e of the accident».208 E,,en thougl1 the case was decidecl 011 the basis of a co11tractual liability the inte1-pretation give11 by tl1e cot1rt is very pertinent. By stressing on the causal coru1ection, the court appears to be moving towards the trend of tl1e Frencl1 courts in the 1950's ,vl1icl1 bas siiice tendecl to emphasize instead on the orders given by and the kno\vleclge of the m aster.2li9 The Frencl1 Cou1·ts, l1owever, do 11ot seem to I1ave vascillatecl in l1old ing the n1aster liable wbere the to1·tiot1s act committed by his 210 of tl1e » Sts erv ere int s ant ,vas «su1Jposecl to ha ve been inspired by the former. Since, in the cas e of Ethio1Jia, the victim vvas killecl while pe: forining \.vork wruch vvas clefinitely inspirecl by tl1e «iritere5 'ts» of 111s m fro emplo yer, the re rtu pa cle er oth a11 is decision of th e Ethiopian Coi:1rt the recent trend of the French higl1er courts. (iv) l11clipenclent Co11.tractors ( Art. 2134): ·Th·lS Is · a diiferent case fro m tl1ose cons1c• 1erecl under· the prececling n ke rta cle tin Articles. Artic s l1a o ,vh le 2134 envisages tl1e case of someo11e er anotl1 to }Jerform of bel1al · f ' some work ancl proclt1ce a certain result on

CBAP1'ER

256

VIII

as 1· its to te lat ecution e ex th of . ity 1or 1tl at · · In e tI1 1 1 o1 fr . Jt r le c n e 1p 1 c . 1n s . . bttt 1 l ro nt d , co an on ct1 1·e su pervision d1 e tl1 lls ca law cll en Fr t ba otl1er \vords, w l a m ro as nt om C co d on an on si Iawyer vi er 1p st d ile ta de s r' te as m ( or tlle yer. Conseqt1ently, the latter plo em e tl1 in cl · ste ve r ge lon \,\TOLt Id say ) , ls 110 . 1. CI\ 11 w1·ongs con1m itted by of ou g i11 is ar y lit bi Iia y � an is exemJJted fron1 . e kmd of wo1·k for whjch th g 1n m or 1·f pe le lu \v , or ct ra 11t co tlle inclipendent l1e l1as been emplo)red. os ép a pr of n é can be at. tio ca ifi lif 1a qt e tl1 le hl w , w Ia ch en Fr u11cter n it ca , ve1· apply to s) ne ee oy pl e1n d an rs ke or (w iés lar sa aJl · to d tribute 211 (or sim ply erztre1Jreneu1·s) wh ich in English are rzts a id' pe idé i travailleurs 1 212 1· cto tra is con ent nd free as to iJJe ind n A » ors act 1t1· co1 ent end dep «in . called ediary \Vl10 l1as been cLesignated llü\.\' 11e is to carry l1is job - an inte1·m to biing about tl1e sale of a ,,ehicle, 01· a garage.keepe1· ,vl10 has been 213 In both cases, the . gory cate is 1 tl in are , entrustecl to repair a vel1icle manner in wl1icl1 tl1e \Vork is to be clo11e is lef t to tl1eir discretion and tl1e employer wouJd 011ly expect one rest1J t - tl1a t of the sale of tl1e vel1icle in the one case and its repairs, in tl1e otl1er. Tl1e positio11 under tl1e Common lavv is substantially tl1e same. Also tl1ere the test is tl1e 1·ight to decide as to tl1e rnanner in whicl1 the work is to be clo11e. Wl1ile tl1e serva11t is ru1 agant who vvo1·ks under tl1e detailed supe1-vision of lus 111aster, tl1e inclepende11t contractor is, as Salmondlli \voulcl pt1t it, «one \vl10 is lùs own master». As a general rtùe, tberefore, the indipendent contractor is alo11e re sponsible both for lùs own civil wrongs ancl tl1ose of his servants. There are times, 110\vever, whe11 tl1e employer can be l1eld liable for tl1e acts of tl1e indipende11t contractor, such as \.\Tl1en tl1e res11lt \Vhicl1 tl1e latter l1as demanded to produce is itself tortiot1s 215 Tl1ere are also otl1er similar cases, . such as a breacl1 of statutory cluty or strict liability unde1· Rylarzds 11. Flet. cher·216 It seems safe, t oo, to · say tl1at the p1·esent tre.nd is to extend, ratl1er tl1an to restrict, the employer's Iiability ,vl1icl1, to tlu effecc, is not s · re0arded as «vi·cai-iotts» but persona!, in tl1e sen se tl1at tl1e employer l1imself l1as been guilty of a breacl1 of dtity.211 E. ACTION FOR DAMAGES: (i)

Lega l /111111itnities ( Arts. 213 7, 2138, 2139 ):

Sec� io tl V of Cllapter I (Title XIII) begins \Vitl1 A1·ticle 2137 wl1icl1 bars _ any action aga1nst II- .I.M.' tl . . \VfODe,cr . le. En1pei.or of. Etl11. op1a c1\11l , any foi· wl11· c11 II- e may personall . .. . t. con Y 1111 1t, ins no r aga ca n st1c an act cee ion d . . of the Im1Je mem bers . 1e . . n Govemn1e1 rial c: Etl11opia tI f o 1t, or members

BORDERLlNE Sll'UATIONS

257

jt1clges of the Etl1 iopian cotii·ts , f0 . Ethio pian Parlia. ment 01· 1 «an act con. . nected \Vith tl1e1r ft1n. ct1ons». (Art. 2138). Tl1ere is an exc ' epti·on t o tl1e 1atter f\rticle in tl1at, tl1e 1mmun1t)' conten1platecl by it sl1ail be vvaivecl in tlle case \-vI1ere tl1e saicl perso11s ha ve bee11 co11,,ictecl by a crimiilal cotirt «for acts pertaining to tl1eir office a11cl inv olcecl by tl1e plaintiff» (Art. 2139). Tllis roeans that vvl1ere one of tl1e class of persans e11t1n1 erated in Article 2138 J1as been convicted crin1 inally, l1e can be st1bsequently stied civilly for 218 t. c a e the sam Tliat tl1e State can be l1eld .liable foi· civil wrongs committed by its servant s t1ncler the guise of faute de service l1as already been observecl, to Articles 2126-2128. Like,vise, n1ention vvas macle tl1at wI1ere . \Vitl1 respect tl1is takes place tl1e cou1·t is empovvered to decide tl1at damages be borne. either ,vholly or only in part, by tl1e State, by its territorial clivisio11s or by t11e public se1·,,ice concerned (Art. 2157 (2) ). Article 2138 brings an exception to the principle contained in Article 2126. A1·ticle 2137 is, in. stead, a gene1·al exception to all tl1e principles of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Code, in matters of civil wrongs. It will be obse1-ved tl1at this general imn1 unity is applicable only to the perso11 of H.I.M., the E111peror, in l1is capacity as tl1e Sovereign. It does 11 ot extend to the Imperia! Fan1 ily.219 In tl1ese t\.vo cases, therefo1·e, tl1 e1·e is no 1·emedy open to the victim, t1nless an in. demnity is given ex g1·atia or u11der some special law enacted to this ef. fect.no Th.ese Civil Code provisions are intended to imple1nent constitutional requj rements.221 Article 62 of the Revised Constitt1tion recites: «(a) In accordance witl1 tradition and the provisions of Article 4

of this Constitutio11 . no one shall l1 ave the right to bring suit against the En1peror.

1 of 1 · (b) Any resiclent of tl1 e Empi1·e 1nay bring suit, in tl1e cot rts part De , ry ist in M y an · 01 t, en 1 n rn ve ia Go op , against tl1e Ethi ts ac l fu ng ro w r fo , of re 1e tl ty li ment, Agency or instrumenta ts ur co e tlJ at 1 tl t en ev 1e tl rest1lti ng i11 st1lJstantial damage. In or ly us io ic al m l1t ug ·o b1 shall find tl1at such suj t l1 as been . try, Depart. · without fot1nclation, th e Goven1me11t or any Mirus . tl1ereof, against \.Vl1om . - ·1c1a1 ment, Agency. instn1n1ental1ty. or off" n ti ac of lt gl ri a e av � l1 l or which sucl1 suit w as brougl1t. sl1 al . · s or. ttiifotmdecl su1 t. against such resident for st1ch m a11c1ou . . es pe11al1t1 or ecljes m re ee and the court sball, in sucl1 case. decr according to Iaw».

258

CTIAP'f.Ell

VIJl

e1 1t petîtions to tl1e En1peror· ·es p1 ca 1 1 e 1 i yo ,er e, 63 . . . Btit tind e r AI·t'1cle nal cl1arge aga1nst a11j, n1embe 1. 1111 c11 y a11 or t . stû il civ . . . ArLicle 8 4 bars a11y

pear1 11 g befo1·e e1tl1e1 · Cba n1ap · te1 nis Mi . y an st ain aO' . of Pa1·I1an1e11 t - or ' o ' state 1ne 11 ts st1bm1 tted to Parlia 11 te rit w r fo or cl i·e tte ll ber _ for ,vord s 1er e t� 1e m em be r of Parli n1e11 t llas l ,v t bu ), C. C. E. � . nJent (Arts. 2044.2049 n has been obta1ned from s1o 11s rn 1Je or to lic de te a11 · · igr f·lc bee11 arreste cl 1·11 1 m on ed , to ans\-ver a cri. 1 sw or l ec i11 ta de l, ec st ·1·e a1 be ay tlJe CbailJbei-, 11 e ni 1 011gh 110 si n1 ila r immttnit y obta ins tl , 1» 1 io ss se a g in tir «d 1 1 nlinal charge eve s t] 1e inclipe1 1de11ce of the ee u1t rr 1i1 gt 0 11 le tic Ar ). 85 . rt (A s for civil case 111ctions a1 1cl i1npli�dl y extends legal im. ft 1 eir tl of e cis ei· ex e 1 tJ jtidges in _ . _ 1 e1 r statits, 1nclt1cl1ng the1 r tent1r e of of. tl 1ile ,vl , se ca eir 1 tl to o als munity rni11 g tl1e Judicia1·y» (Art. 11 1) ve go v , la\ ial ec sp by d ine l 1·n ete «d be to is fice, It is to be noted tl1at Al-ticle 62 allo,-vs a civil suit only «for wrongful acts restùting i11 st1bsta11 tia1 cla111age». Wl1at n1a y contitt1te «\vrongful» \-vill be determi11ed from t l1e factual sitt1ation, bt1t infringen1 ent of a stntute, of a decree, or of a11 ad111inist1 ·ati\;e 1·egulatio1 1, wot1lcl constitute a11 offence w1cler AI·ticle 2035 E.C.C. Mo1·eover, tl1e1·e is a détoit1'11e11ze11t cle pouvoir, in accordance \Vitl1 Article 2033 (2), e,1 e1-y time tl1 at tl1 e pt1blic sen,ant (fon.c tio1111aire) «tt1r11s to l1 is 0\"'11 advantage or to tl1e aclva11tage of another, IJOwers co11 ferrecl t1pon l1 i1n i11 tl1 e pt1blic interest by l1is office». The question \.\1ill tl1en a1 ·ise as to \vhetl1e1- tl1 is kind of offence constitutes a faute JJerso1111elle or a faitte de service, but a st1ggestio11 �=? bas been made tl1at «orders 01· decisio11s» wl1icl1 may be l1eld to be ttnconstitutional under AI·ticle 122 of tl1e Re\1ised Constitt1tion, \-vould constitute «\v1·ongful actS>> for wl1ich a suit t1nder Article 62 (b) of t11e Revised Constitt1tion \.VOttld lie. Adn1ittedly, the san1 e ,vriter has sl1 ov\'Il conce1·11 tl1 at clain1ants 11nder Artcle 62 (b) n1ay be deterred from « b1·i11gi 1 1g borderli 11e cases», for fear of being stted, in t11r 11, sl1 ot1ld tl1eir clain1s b�- st1bseqt1entlj' fow1 d to be «n1 aliciot1s or t111fow1cled».223 1\d1 11 ittedly, too, - acco1·ding to a recent de. cision of tl1e Addis Ababa St1pre11 1e In1 perial Co111~t221 ,vl1 ere tl1 e I-Iigl1\vay Autl1 ority (a Go\1 er1 11nent agency) acti 11 g tl1rot1gl1 a }J1·i,,ate co111 ja11)1 called 1 Eskaniska Co., proceeds to tl1e qt1arr)1 i11g of sto f1~0 1 1e 111 a p1·ivate }Jerso11's la11cl tl1 roL10o-11 a {Jrocedtiie . . . sa es t a b)' b • l 1s 1 d 1e 11ot b)' proc lam cloes at 1 1, 1t 1 0 • ' • .n 1 .1at1o clo111cr . 0 \ lolate Articl e 43 (c Itie JJrocess of Ia,v) a11cl Article 44 ( expropr procedtire) of tl1e Revisecl c011 t · · s ·1tut 1011. TI 1e qt1estio11 as to ,vl1 etl1er or no t . · tl. 1e IJlïvate c o n11J'a11y vvas an 11· 1 cl1• 1Jenclent co 11 tr·actor tmder Article 213-''t ◄ E.C.C ., cloes 11ot seen1 to I 1ave ar1· sen -� . Agai11, ,,,J1ile 1\rticles 2027 and ?0?8 E.C.C. n1erely spealc of «da1 11age», f01. tl1e Go,1e1·11 1 11 e11t 01� 1. ts ao0·enc1· es. to be suecl t1nde 1· Article 6?- (b) . 0f: t Ile Re\11secl Co11 stitio11, tl1 e cla1 nage co111pla.ined o f mt1st. l1 a,,e bee1 1 «SL1b st a11 t1· a 1 ». TI1t1s, \.\1l1ile it is dot1btful ,,vl1etl1er s0111e• ,. . . . . o11e br1ng111g a st11t . . sIy ' fo . . c 1 l a11 1 iou age otl1 al1c . e1· tl1a11 s11bsta.11tial is actin°· 1 n •. . 0 1t vVOttlcl a1 Jpear tllat SLlC1 1 a st11... t vv 1. ll b.e «1111 fotu1cled».

DOROERLINE

SlTUAl'IONS

259

vVhetl1er the State ca11 be helcl res1Jo 1 1sible (li· 'ab·le) cat a11 ·to 111 a 1<e goocl • • • dan ' 1ages for c1v1l \v1-011 gs ancl,. if so' \-vl1e1 1' i 11 \-v·11 'at ci·r cu 111s ta11ces ancl to bee 11 qt1est 1 on s tl1at l1ave trotiblecl tlle \Vl1 at extent , l1 ave . · wor11 c over but . more specifically Conti11 e 11tal Et1rope and tl1e c011111101 1 la\ ' V \\/01_11 C . 1 11 Vle\V of t11 e i� por�anc� of tl1e p1-i11 ciples i11vo.lvecl,. it is tl1otigl1 t necessary to aive a br1.ef l11sto1·1 cal sketcl1. C,

(a)

Cor1tir1e11tcll Ei1.1·01Je ( a11cl Ot1'zer Parts of tlze Worlcl).

Fat1lt was also tJ1e basis of responsibility for tl1e Ro111a11s. It followed from tl1is tl1at it \,vo11lcl be asc1·ibed 011 ly to indivicit1als. Conversely, Ro111 a11 2 of p1-otectio11 of conception tl1e incliviclttal v b 2.1 agai «no a grottp)). 11 st ad v la f\ltbot1gh classical Roman la\N' cliffere11tiated bet\vee 1 1 iits 11itblicit11i ancl iits pri11atu1n, co111 mercial tra11sactions entered i11to by tl1e State vver.e settled by pt1blic officials and clealt \Vitl1 by acl111inistrati\re procecl1tre, so tl1at there \.vas no q11estion of pr. ivate la\v. Agai11 , tl1e aerarii,111 (payments a11cl receipts of the Republic a11d tl1e fisci,.s (Imperia! Treastt.r)') vvere in tl1eory clifferent, but in practice tl1e latte1· S\\rallo\.vecl botl1. I11 so cloing, tl 1e State entered into the domai11 of nrivate lavv. Tl1e fiscus co11cept strrvi\red tl1e I-Ioly Ro111an Empi1-e a11cl 111eclieval Gern1an States 11secl it, as fottncl i11 tl1e \vorl< of tl1e Glossators. Bt1t the difficulty \,vas tl1at i111periun1 and clo111i11ii1111. l1ad beco111e blt1rrecl, as the fet1dal lorcls in tl1e Micldle Ages «\vere clee111 ecl sovereig11s as vvell as proprietors and car1-ied tl1ei1· regal prorogatives i11 tl1 e perfor 11 1ancc of all tl1eir actions».™ In the seventeentb a 11cl eigl1tee11tl1 ce11 tt1ries, tl1 e scl1ool of natural la\v Jed to the 1·evival of Roma11 la\\, a11d tl1e clivision of f11.11 ctio11 s into corp• orate and go\remmental. This t 1".e11cl conti11uecl i11 tl1e 11inetee11 th ce11tury and German ancl most otl1er Central E11ropean States allowed the fiscits to be sued by the 01-clinary 1·ules of private la\.v b11t, at tl1e same tiine, denied a remedy wh ere governmental n 1atters we 1-e i11volvecl. In France, tl1 e /iscits concept lias no t Ieft st1cl1 a g1·eat n1arl< and was at any . rate · s,valled up by tl1e concept of State properlj'. Thot1gh a c1er··1111· t·ion °r fisciis · · 1d.•ecl ·tO co,rer tl1e l not been settled St ree t aff i1-n1 s tl1at ·1t n1ay be exte1 1as treas11ry, tl1e fiscal 1:elations of tl1 e State, its private ancl ptiblic property, and the State itself vvl 1e1 1 exercising corpo1-ate ft1nctions.221 1n1 x a m . 1e tl 1 . tl i w cl te a e c 1 . 111 JJe I0 pre.Revol11t1on F1·ance, pt1 bl1 c la\.v \vas e s o l1 w l1 . c r a n o 1 11 · e it lt so t e ab «l e R O'L rie peilt 111.c1l faire». Tl1 e King \.vas ..h · 111 and tJ1at .L11' LJJeJ.ii, a fet1clal of ' po,vers were ,1 . combination of tl1e Ro1 11a11 h1n1. to ted . delega r lorcl· Sovere1gn . O l . c11 ec ty a11 cl p11blic 1Jovve1- wer e atta 1 ld not cot l1e e ' 11enc . l·I·e was tl1e · .· fot1ntain.l1ead of 1 Jower a11d JttSlice 4

CIJ.Al�'fEil

VIII

%60

tl1e acts of those ,vl10 ,vere acti for or· ts c a. liis . foi· e "bl ng .ty be 11elcl res1Jo11s1 _ . bel1aIf. I11,asmt1ch as tl1ey we1·e IJfOJJer owne1s themselves, tl1e 0 11 h1s . . . . . enced 111flt1 y cleeJJl by tl1e ,vritmgs of n vve1·e ltitio Re,,o . . 1 1 c _ _ 1 e1 F r 1 e . tl .. . 111en of . .. . . . . . . co11 s1'derjng 1e sa11ct1ty of p11vate property, to such an e tI . xtent Rot1sseat1 in . . . . . .1p le ,,Vas A1 . 1 n t1cle 17 of uco11Jorated the 1 Decl later c: ' aratio n c 1 11 . 1· p s . 11 tl tl·1at x1m t ma tl1a tl1e lly, the <<King can do clua 1 Gra 789 . of . 11 Ma of ts 1 R' 1g 1 of tl1e . . tl 1 at «tl1e State 1s an 11ones to 311 otl1 er 1nax11n " 110 \vro11g» gave I)lace t acts, ,.v1th no recourse to tl1e sllield w1·011gful 1-epaii· to i·eady •s c: 1 h ma11» \,V o of tl1e sovereignty co11cept.22s tl1erefore, «France, in common \.vitI1 tl1e « Until tlle 1u11eteentl1 ce11tU1-y», rest of Elll·ope, deniecl any State 1·esponsibility, so all-pervasive were tl1e 229 Between ity». reign sove ancl s Ki11g of 1 t 1789 and 1890 rigl e clivi11 of ns !lotio statutory pi·ovisioi1s 1·equired tl1at before a private citizen could sue a public official it ,vas 11ecessary to obtain tl1e consent of tl1e AdmiI1istra. tion.llo TI1ere \vas some justifiable fear tl1at if free rain was gi,,en to citi. zens to sue public officiais at will, tl1ère wot1ld be discouragement to ta. Jentecl men ente1·i11g the adn1i11istration and iI1 gene1·al a tendency to the bringing about of clisruption of public services and of abuses of Jegal pro. cess. It ,,vas clecided tl1 erefore to allow stùts \vithout JJrevious administra. ti,,e co11sent against public officiais for fautes perso11nelles only. After 1890 ftu·tl1er legislatio11 vvas enactecl, tl1e effect of wl1ich was to make the State liable for civil wrongs arising ot1t of pt1blic \Vorks and pro,iding for compensation in exp1·opriatio11 cases and the trend continued. But even so, distinction was made as to certain actes cle goiLvern,11.erzt, political in nature, \vl1ich ren1 ained completely imn 1un e. These l1ave been compared to tl1e Acts of State doctri11e unde1· E11glisl1 law, furthe1· reference to \Vl1icb ,vil1 be made later. Tl1en came a broacl class \\'l1icl1 covered tl1 e pu.blic services ( puissa11.ce publiqile) and supe1·ceded a furtl1e1· div ision i11to .4.cte d'Au torité ( i1111Jerii1111.) and Actes cle Gestion ( dom irzi,111.). It \Vüttld appear tl1at lately tl1e Conseil d'Etat bas arrived at a list of actes de goi1ver11111e1zt on practical grou11ds. Sucl1 a list iI1clt1d es actes cliplo111atiqtles ,vl1icl1 \vould invoI,,e claii11s of Frencl1 natio11a ls abroad, treaty obligatio11s, public se. curity, les fctits de guerre in all tl1ese n1a tte1·s I tl1e1·e is 110 State liability ai1d tl1ere is fear tl1at the li st ma)' still exJJand.2..11 îlle di5tiction bet\.vee11 fa itte z1erson11elle a11 cl faute de ser1,ice ,vas not macle merely for jt1risclictio 11al pt11·poses. Tl1e ki nd of «faute» reqt1ir ed to malce tlJe State liable was clifferent fro1n tl1 at, say, inct1r1·ed tl1rotigl1 tlle act of a JJréJJosé ,vI1 0 was acti11 g for a co·1ri111.ettant.232 Tl1e test of State liability was «b"acl acl · • . ,. ' 1n1111strat1, e, 1J1·actice», l1 aving 110 link witl1 t 11e faitte JJerso11rlelle. At ti111es, l1oweve1·, botl1 kincls of fa 1at it tl n ,vo ve in te t1l w r ts e1 ·e \V as extre111el c1 1· · .. . . Y ffIctùt to establ1sl 1 \.\1itl1 ce1·tai11ty as to ,vlucl1 \vas ,.vh i· c h·

BOllDERLINE

SITUATIONS

261

And 50 vve con1e to tl1e clevice of cit111itl wJ1icI1 ,va' s inti·odu ced t.11rot1gl1 tl1e • , 3 • • 11er23 clec1 s1on. In tl1at case ' a am11 101 ' n1ay fam ous L ' or of a con1n1urLe l1acl . or(J'oanized a cluck.shoot1ng co111p.etitio11 i11 the cotirse of w111c • 11 a stranger . \Valk ing along tl1e nearby r1,,er.bank ,vas sl1ot. A civil court llad fowld tbat there \ .vas a faic.te perso11nelle bt1t tl1e Conseil cl'Etat llelcl also th e Admin istration liable. Tl1e cot1rt observecl: th e accident i11 tl1is case ,vas tl1e result of a personal ac t of such a cl1aracte1· as to invoI,,e tl1e liability of tl1e agent, and even the fact tl1at tl1e agent lias actually bee11 fOlllld liable, cannot deprive the JJe1·son injt1red of l1is rigl1t to 1.Jring a direct action against tl1e public a11tl1ority concemed to 1·ecover reparation for the los ,vhich l1e l1as sustained».23 � « . . .

Tl1e Administration, it ,vas g1·aduall)' concedecl, can be stted before the civil courts every time tl1at tl1ere a1·e s0111e infringements of individual liberties on tl1e part of a public servant, acting under colour of l1is autho rity. Such an infrù1gement constitt1tes a voie cle fait, whch is a kind of ad.rninistrative trespass. I t is not a faute 11erso1111elle, tl1ougl1 it is similar a.nd both may co-exist: tl1us, a violation. de for111es wottld constitute an excés de poitvoir for wlucl1 tl1e adn1inist1·ative courts would l1ave jw·isdic. tion; wl1ile l'abse11ce totale de fo1·111es wot1ld be outsicle tlus sphere ancl corne ttnder the jurisdiction of tl1e civil courts. The same is true ,vl1ere an agent, \.vho l1imself had 110 legal autho1·ity, does so1nething acting on the authority of his s11perior; 01· wl1e1·e a persan is detainecl in priso11 il. legally or ,-vbere an enchroacl1ment is mad e 011 his lancl, tl10L1gl1 wl1ere tbere is damage to tl1e land ,.vitl1out enc!1roaclunent tne Cortsetl cl'Etat takes over.235 Again, after a period where faille loitrcle was reqt1ired for a faute cle service, State liability came to be 11101·e easily held under tl1e tl1eory of risque, a for111 of strict Jiability.236 Where once n o ast1·ei11te (administrative injun ctions) or mo ral dan1ages we re allowed against tl1e public aclmini5lra. tion, the position is more substantially modified, especially after tl1e 1961 Letis serand decision under vvhich tl1 e ca,,1seil d'Etctt has specifically agreed to allo w moral damages.231 It can th en be safely concluded tl1at toda)' a persan suffe1ing damage through tl1e action of a public servant is. sur� to obt ain satisfaction ev en fo r a faute persotinelle, ( «à 1noins q1,ie cel�e-� ne • e»), 2Js e1·t11er bY s11m· g tl1e ad·n11rustra. • z·ere1nent ét1·angère au servic soz·t ent · tl1e fore · e b e "bl i ns po res tio n befo re tl1e administrative cot1rts or tl1e persan · · of · rt pa e tl1 on t l" "b 1 1 Y 1 civ i1 courts. Lest tl1at thi s migl1t encot1rage 1ri· s oi1 esp � tl1 ::! :r l1 ,v at th lcl l1e tl1e pub lic serva nt th e 1951 Laruelle2J9 decision l1acl tl1e s l1a it le el 1n o1 rs pe Administrat ion is � ariously h el d Iiable for a faitte ic

CHAl:'TEH

VIII

262

11i tl1e 1 1istra tive ad1 ore bef t van ser . e 1 tJ COLLr ts st i1 ci aga , e s r u o c e r f o i ·ia 0l1t 1 t l1ad L1s ed a gove111me11t ca r for ll is pe r· 1 --va sei rlt me ern . .• . . . r11 tl1at case a gov 1el d tl1at 1n add 1 t1on to a per son::t l as ,v It . dy la a ei· ov n rti l . sonal JJur·pose a11Cl d goo na of 1nte lc ma lac for 11ce e ,,ic ser of de tlle te fau also ' S a w e r e 1 1 fat11t t on ers tte fai rzelle a11d of fai,t,�, of p o11 cti 1 ti1 dis cal ssi cla tl1e , . ca1·. ACCOI·ct·11 1gly d conf1r1ned a11d fortif ied by an se ca o· 1c a1 Bl e tl1 by d ce lti oc ltr de ser,,ice ii 240 ca se , apJJea1· to tl1 e g1�adually fading r ay tie aw lle Pe . s i ot in fa lly tia eq e tll e 1er e wl e1· ts th ac al nt is still im. me r11 ve go i· fo pt ce ex y, lan rn Ge In 1 ird parties by its sub. tl to ed 11s ca ge n1a da · foi ble lia is te Sta munity, the dem . ic distincti ons bet. aca ne so1 be ll sti y ma re the 1 l ug tl1o d an , tes oi·diila ' is sti ll tl1e nnclerlying pri11ciple ,vhic l1 lt 'fau , law te ·i,,a 1 p and ,.veen ptiblic i :s alone, i11 all cases. Italy, too, recog ni. u cot il civ the by n1ust be determined zes State liability to a certain degree. In Belgiu1n, Fre11ch administrative prac. tice I1as not been follo,.ved blindly and tl1 e main functions of its Co1iseil cl'Etat are advisory. Tl1e en1JJhasis is on tl1 e n1les of civil Jaw, ,vhicl1 are applied by the civil cou1·ts. Greece and Spain both l 1a,,e Corzseil d'Etats but are 1·eluctant to bri11g cases against tl1e State before them. Rolland, em. bued witl1 Dutcl1 -Ro1 nan lavv, stil cli11gs to tl1e old distinction between pro. JJrietary a11d gove1·nn1ental acts; effo1i:s are bei11g made, however, to extend p1·ivate law concepts to State responsibility. In Russia, tl1ere is no rigl1t to sue the State ancl a citizen wl10 feels aggrieved can only acldress a camp. lai11t to tl1e P1- ok1rra, ,vitl1 a furtl1er rigl1t to aJJpeal to tl1e State Con. trol Office. Switzerland, too, seems to favo11r tl1is metl1od of settling clispt1tes. But Hu11 gary l1as a Civil Code wl1icl1 provides for State liability. Ail Latin American States, except for Argentina, allov\, tl1e State to be suecl ,vithot1t its consent, but even the1·e a distinction betvvee11 actes de gestio11 and actes d'autorité still pe1·sists. There is in1 munity only for tl1e latter group.241 (b) Tl1e Co,11.111011. Laiv World.

It vvottlcl appear tl1at tl1e ma xim «tl1e ki11g can do no ,vro11 in E11gli sl1 g» law cornes from a11 observation 1nade by Bracto11, 700 yeai·s ago: «The ki11g must 110t be tir1der man, b11t uncler Gocl and uncle1· tl1e la\V' becat1se it is tl1e · la\v that mac ·kes tl1eK · i 1 1g» .24� T l11s · king was t11 1clerstood to 1nea11 tl1at as tl1e • 1s tl1e creation of Iavv b tl1e sa11 . ll 1 c , Y 1e token, l1e ca11 brake tl1e la,.\,. Pract1ca ), tl1ere was no vvay to cornpe1 tl1 . e 1 - an d 11 K. g. Tl1e courts ,,vere 111 s o\vn courts .1n tl1e sarne way tl1a t a fe11c 1al lorcl cotùd not be talce11 befo1·e l1is o,vn . cot1rts, so tl1-e King colùcl not. be st1ecl befo1·e l1 is O\\'n created cot1rts. He cot1lcl be a p1·ivile gecl I ai. 1t·'ff 1 P i bttt neve1 · a defenda1 1t. Tl1e jtid.ges ga ve . . further lIDJJet us to tl1is cor1ce1Jt ancl a for1ne1· p1·oced1iral in1munity beca n1e

--------·- -

DOnDERLli'\E SITUATIONS

2(13

protectecl by sL1bsta11tial la,v . Tl1e trLte ser1se 0f tl1e a riel .., lt n1ax1m can1e . . , . g ca1111 ot clo a tl1e k111 e 1at s1nc tl n ,vi·ong it fol!ovvec 1 t11at. l1e l1acl mea to . . to clo or to aL1tl1 or1ze a vvr ong • Tlle l aw c. c1·1st·1ngL11s no Jeo 0 al power . 1 1ecl h1m • • • from an ord1nary . c1t1zen a11cl l1ence co11ferrecl on llinl povvers a11 d prero. aativ es tl1at are cl1ffe1·ent fro111 tl 1ose of l1 is subJ. ects· BLit tl1 1s • a 1so rneant o as a corollary, tl1�t t l1 e sa �1 e la,.v ga,,e l 1in1 no aL1tJ1 ority to trailsgress. Th� . difficL 1ty vv1tl1 tl11s 1·easo11111 g \Vas tl1;:1t 110 disti11 ctio11 ,.vas 111acle bet,.veen the acts committecl by tl1 e king in l1is political ca1Jacity and tllose com initted in l1îs pri,,ate ca1 Jacity, a11cl it appears tl1at EnglisI1 law 11as 11ever co mpletely succeeclecl i11 d1·avving tl 1s clistinction.243 Tl1is, inevitabl)1 , l ecl to State irres1Jonsibility. Tl1e king vvas t l1e p er. sonification of the State; l1ence l1is 1:,ersonal i1111nL111ities and prerogatives passecl also to tl1 e State ( Cro,-vn). Nor· could tl1 e Cro,vn be ,,icario11sl y l1elcl liable for the civil wro11 gs of its se1,1 ru1ts si11ce it co1ùcl not autl101·ize them. In tl1 e nineteentl1 centL1ry tl1 ere ,vas a revival of tl1 e Petition of Rights clevice vvl1icl1 hacl l1ad go11e i11to disuse si11 ce tl1 e fif tee11 tl1 ce11 tuf)' and clicl not, at an:l rate, ge11 erally apply to civil vvrongs. T l 1is \.Vas a special pro. cedL1re vvhereby the citizen co11ld 1Jrese11 t bis claims to tl1e king against the king l1imself as tl1 e L1ltimate head i n tl1 e hierarchy. 111 1860 a sin1pler procedure ,vas introduced b11t the judges ,vere still conser,,ati,,e a11cl stuck to the old principles. Finally, tl1 e influence of Dicey's «Rul e of Law» ,.._,as sL1cl1 tl1a t in 1921, a11d again in 192ï, t,vo Committees vve1·e appoi11ted to stucly tl1e \vhole matter. Altho11gl1 tl1eir 1·eports clid not bear i111mediate 1·esL1lts, a de,,ice l 1ad been found to eliminate injustice: tl1e Cro,vn coLùcl not be suecl directly but it could fumîsl1 tl1e na me of a servant agai11 st ,vl1on1 an actio11 coulcl be brought. It then stood behind Jum and paid a11y clamages ancl costs awarded a gainst him. But eve11 so, tl1is wa s foL1nd no t vvbolly satisfactory. Th11s, it came to pass th at in 1947 tl1e «C1·0,vn Proceedings Bill» was intro. duced, becoming effective i11 1948 as tl1e «C1·0\vn Proceedings Act 194?». îl1is Act abolished the olcl Petitio11 of Rigl1ts a11d subjectecl the. Cro,vn to s \va n ovv Cr e l1 t t, ec eff is th ta sui bility in tort ,vithout its consent. To ta be treateLl lik e «a pri,,ate p.erso11 of fLù l age and capa ci1y » so that \Vllere tl1e latter can be suecl so ca11 tl1e Crovv11.24� the e, pl 111 x e . r Fo . is 1 tl to TI1ere are some impo1·tant q11a l ifications � al o rs pe 1s 1 1 or r be r fo Crow n, in tl1 e person of tl1e So,,ereig11, is no t liable � 1el11cle , a f o g in 1 ·v · ur a 'c ts. where a person is injLtred, say, by tl1e 11 eg 1·ige11 t a g in br to lt gl ri l ga le 0 1 on the part of tl1e Sovereign, s11ch a persan l1as 1 . i re1g . S e : tl1 O\ to ed it � s uit against tl1e Sovereign. 24s This le ga l i1nmt1nity is lim . to rt neveI. ex•tendecl to 1ts se1For even before, . tl1 e Crown's i1nmunity 1n a il ktD<ls of s al ci fi of 1at van ts personally. Th e tl , is l il st l 1c a1 , as w le p ci n pri

(:J;JAl'1'ER

VIII

---- -- ------- -2�6 "� --- ---

11age causecl for \vl1 ich tl1ey cannot prod Li c da1 any · foi ble e a1·e persona IlY 11a . . . . . _ 1 1ted numb er of acts wl11c h tl1e prerooative Iin a for t Excep . 6 Jegal at1tl1011.·tY·. · . C1.o,v n .]Jer se . . s, es1Jecially Îtl ti111e of vvar, tl1e orders of.. the are no 1e just1f . .. . that . . super1or order th1s rom f . s stem It . Jeaal be s to ,e 0 are a l ' le ey 1 Tl ce en ef cl servants l1ave po\.ver to atith o. r 1ts . o n 11 Crow tlie iei· . neitl . e c . 110 sl11e1c 1' «s1n S>>.246 Ollg \,Vf rize • • , onsl11 do ob t�1 under the at1 rel t an erv r.s ste ma of es -uJ 1 tlle l, era � In gen � 1-vant l1as comm1tted a c1v1l wrong se e 1 tl e1·e 1 wl es, cas in Act aild in sLicli d y an 11tl joi severall y liable ¼,ith be l wil lie t, nen 1 y plo ein Jiis of trse cot tJie yer the plo ere is not Iiable for em ,vl1 es cas i-y ina ord ike uiil BLtt tlie Crown. r, » an cto ent t1·a «ag con of the Crown 1t de1 ipen incl an of s act ul iigf wro the unc1er tI1e Act inclt1des an indipe11dent contractor, for which the Cro\vn 241 . ble lia 1 eld l be ca11 TJ1ere are some important in1munities for the Crown and its servants in 1natters of Post Office and of tl1e Armed Forces - neither the Crown nor its sel'Vants are liable i11 tort, for instance, fo1· an)' postal packets lost (u11less registered) or for eitl1er injury or deatl1 caused by a men1.ber of tl1e ar111ed forces in the cot1rse of a duty. Wl1ere tl1is is due to a persona! action a suit, of cou1·se, lies. Ail judges are entitlecl to immunity for any. thiI1g done, in tl1e discl1a1·ge of tbeir «judicial» functions, but not so if they act i11 excess of tl1ei1· jt1risdiction. Yet in tl1e case of superior courts, Jack of jt1risdiction mL1st be specifically s110\.\111 by the plaintiff.2� Since the Cro\vn's liability tmde1· tl1e Act is based on appoi11t1ne11t a.nd pay, it is not liable for \vrongfL1l acts cormnitted by the police or otl1er pt1blic officers 249 Vi1l10 are appointecl or paicl by local a11tl1orities. A ty1Jical defe11ce for political acts of the gove1·1m1ent is tl1at ·of tl1e «Act of State» cloctrine. Tl1is l 1as been clefi11ed by Wade250 as:

«A11 act of tl1e executi,,e as a matter of policy perfo1ï11ed in the cot1rse of its relations vvitl1 a11otl1er state, i11clud11g its relations ,vitl1 the st1bjects of tl1at State, t1nless tl1ey a1·e te1npo1·arily ,vitl1ù1 tl1e allegiance of tl1e Cro\vn». Tl1is defence co11cerns mainly acts co n1 n1ittecl outside tl1e U11ited Kingclom. Tl1us where ca c1·v1·1 w1•ong · · tecl ab1·oad by a ser\rant of tl1e . 1 s co1111 n1t Cro\vn ' « tl1e Crown n1a rati · f·Y and acl opt 1ts cY servant's act, ,vl1ereupo11 t he wrono0 b• eco1nes a11 A c t Of S . t ate ,vl11ch cannot be n1ade tl1e st1bject of any • proceed1 ngs in tl1e Britisl1 Cou1�ts».2s1 Las�ly, t�1.e JJerso11 sui11g tl 1e C1·own n1ay, still fi11d h is case cliffic1tlt. TI1e . C1o\vn 1s st1ll in ca p ·t· osi ion '"'11e re 1u1 der the 1 11 a11tle of «public i11tere5l», •it. ca11 create procedt1ra1 O bsta . ncles. T11 t1s, «cliscover)'» p1 oceedings may not be a11owecl ' for to · give sometl. 11.ng openly as evidence vvot1ld reveal son1e 4

BOHDEflLli'lE

S11"UAT10NS

26!;

office sec1·et. In tl1e long• n111,• tl1er.efore ' tl1e victin1 ma 'J ,, f'1nc 1 tl1at h"1s J)OSI, • tion vis.ci.vis the Crown 1s st1ll a tl1orny questioi1 .�s2 In th e Con1n1onwealtl1, tl1e cle\1elop111e11t I1as been siinilar to tl iat of En::,alancl, bt1t ma11y in110,,atio11s l1a,,e bee11 111acle an cl oft.e11, 11e\v anc 1 pro1e been take11. l1a\ s, step sive ares 0 It may be clt1e to tl1e 1·.ece1Jtio11 of tl1e Co111.mo11 la\v of tlle Realm on the part of tl1e United States tl1at tl1e p1·i11ciple of no.state liability crossed the Atlantic ancl t1·ans·platecl itself also there. Bt1t ii1 America tllere \\ras no Cro\VIl a11cl Street rigl1tly obse1~ves: «\,vl1y tl1is E11glish tl1eory of sovereign imn1t1nity originaJl)' persona! to tl1e ki11g, ca111e to be applied i11 tI1e Unitecl States is one of t.l1e 111ysteries of lega l evolution».25 1 Ivlany jt1clges tried to find a basis for it and can1e up, in tl1.e n1ain, witl1 reasons of public policy. Tl1e developn1ent conti11ued and Justice I-Iol1nes l1as well captured tl1e ptiblic sentiment whe11 l1e 1·erna1·kecl «JJublic opinio11 as to the pecttliar rights and p1·eferences due to sovereign l1ave cl1anged».25� Tl1e America11 citizen could by now address l1is claim to tl1e Legislatt1re, ancl Congress passed an Act to e11able l1im to get compensation, wl1ere it deemecl it fit to do so. The Fiftl1 Amendment also provided foi· compensation foi· property taken by tJ1e Govern . n1ent. Gradually, tl1erefore, goven1n1e11tal liability was being recognized. Tl1is ctùn1inated i11 tl1e enact1ne11t of tl1e Federal Tort Claims 1-\.ct of 1946 ,vhicl1, apart from certain limitations, made the Unitecl States Government liable in tort \.\'itl1out its consent. The defence tmcler the Act of State doctrine i s also tl1ere applicable. ln spite of the Fecleral Tort claims Act, howeve1·, there a1·e som.e An1erican states wl1icl1 still reft1se to submit to a suit in to1·t; otJ1e1·s, sucl1 as Ne,v York, l1ave permitted it; and there are at Ieast 27 states wl1icl1 l1ave allowed st1its against the State only in contracts.255 Tb.is cursory sm-vey will show l1ow important and incleecl intricate, the ,vhole question of Sta te liability bas been every wl1ere. Besicles, that the imm unities envisaged uncler n1o de 1·n Etl1iopia11 law are 11ot, i11 essence, different from tl1ose of other cotmtries, lias alreacly bee11 affiimed by 257 . 1ers tl 256 O Y tl1e expert of the Draft himself, ancl corrobo1·at.ed b (ii) Prescription (Delai) - (Art. 2143): a -·bp� longer periods (par . Except where th e cri mi nal Ia,.v 111ay presc 11 11ot be 1nconc gr·ap h 2) ancl as far as th e ntles of tmJ. tist e11iïc · l11nent may brot1ght . · en be . . . mt1st os sist wro11 -1 0 t w1th (para gra1JI1 3), an action for civi a(I)ar e · · damag tl1e 1 h·1n t\vo years from the tiine that the v.1ct11n s uf·fer·ecl w't gr apl1 1 ).

CHAPTER

Vlll

_ ___ __ -·- -------- �%6:6 ___ _____ ________ _

botl 1 in conncction ,-vitl1 already, witl1 cleaJt . beeil 1 «effect Tl1e n1atter ,as • .• . • s2s ancl 111 . n ect1o conn . 2149) 1th 1 v. (Art. «pi· » . ctioil escrip. a 'l ,1 .· 1, c 11 0 l 1a 1r of crim . . 5n1t a .. • . 1on 1 ere reco of ecl 10 plac ] tl1e ? 065)_is9 It is 111e1·ely . fact .•t. th at i A ( » tio11 · . . A 1 of la,v. s 101·t p.e1·1od of Ji initac. S)'Stem · 1 pai·tict1la 1,, ., 1 a f o 1 a 1c p ty it is 11ot .. 2 .the York, Ne,v for 1 I . 60 example 811"'vl1e1·e. • 1 , -' r·bed 1 c s . e period I t1on n1ay be P . f·01• tort 'actions varies acco1·d1ng to tl1e 11ature of tl1e tort . ta . . _ of l11111 t1on . . . . battery, false 1mpr1sonment ancl malicious and 1ea1.s for· assatilt · ' , ) vo t\. s 1 it e 11s o year foi· defa1n ation. u1 . act1 1ce neglige1 n ; 0 foi· l . years e re tl , D IO t l J.)l"OSCCL Notl1i11g furtl1er need be addecl. (iii) Collecti-1,e Lia.bilit)' ( ..4rt. 2160): Wl,ere several persons l1a,1e contribt1ted, througl1 tl1eir ow11 fauJts, to the com111ission of one and tl1e same da1nage, the court, taking into ac. cotint ail tl1e st1rrou11di11g circu1nstanc.es - and pa1·ticularly the extent and. gra,,ity of each contribt1ting fat1lt - sl1all act equitably i n fixing the propor. tion of debt to be borne by eacl1 pe.rson (A1·t. 2160). Tl1e l1eacling «collective liability» in tl1e E11glish version of this article is not a l1appy one . !11 fact, the topic appea1·s to be not tl1e dete1111ination of liability bt1t tl1e fixing of the contribt1tion to be borne by eacl1 co . responsible . It n1ay easily create a conf11sion bet,.veen liability in solidu11z (Art. 2155); 1·esponsibility attacbed to a gro11p of persons ,.v11e1·e tl1e author of tl1e clamage ren1ains unlcno,.v11 (A1·t. 2142); or even, thot1gh it migbt be l1iglùy unlikely, \vitl1 ct1mulation of liabilities (Art. 2136). The Frencf1 «Far,tfe Partczge· » unequivocably refe1·s to tl1e partitiori of fatùt an1 ong tl1e several persons conce1·ned. It is sub1nitted t l1at, in t11e ci1·ct1 n1stances, «cil vision», «partition» or «contrib1rt:ion» ( of fat1lt) ,vo 11ld I1a,,e better con. ,,eyed tl1e ratio legis. Tl1e issue bas been exhaustively discussed in connection ,vith fault of the victi111 (Art. 2098) and refe1·e11ce is novv made to tl1at dîscussion.263 It migl,t be aclded l1ere, en. JJassarzt, tl 1a t JJczrtage is a vvell-kno,vn concept ttncler Conti11ental law.264 In Eng la11cl, tl1 e cot11·t ha s disc1·etio11 in the avvarcl of coz1tribution to be borne by each «j oi nt to1~t feaso1·», so tl1at, l1a,,i1 1g regard to tli e extent of t11e respective res1Jo11 sibilities, 111a)' con1e to «a jt1st · ancl equitable »264 de term1n · · ·10 a t · r n. t vv o1 1lc l f as o o on ap .· pe po a1 s1t th � · tl1 1 at e 11:e American Restate 111ent of tl1e Lav., of Torts is 11ei 1e1-y far 11or tl , 1e 1· d1fferent fron1 the la,v in E i1glancl.265

CHAPTER VIII

NOTES

See supra note

Carbonnier, Théorie des Obligations, at 167-170 ( § 122).

Arnos and Wallon, Introduction to French Law, at 177, n. 8.

Id.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2.

Id.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 177.

Ibid., at 178.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 171 ( § 123).

51, Chapter V.

10.

Id.

Il.

Ibid., at 172.

12.

Id.

l3.

Street, H., Governmental Liability., at 156; Russsel Lectures, at 464.

l4.

Street, Id.

IS.

Ibid., at 158.

16-

Lectures, a t

17·

237: David, Un Projet de Code su r la Responsabilité Civile, at

282.

des délits part plus la part1·cu liers, cas es 1 i · rm pa "Ious avon s envisage, «,, • d'autres à es té n ru p n er hypothése s s e rs e iv d et . . . is spéciau x du droit angla ntrahel1clo ou co n i a lp cu èo ri e de la droits, relevant par example de la th

celle de

18.

l'apparence.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 546 ( § 225) ·

N01"ES • CITAPTEH

26n

19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

VIII

17. David, supra, note

8, 1574, 1988, 2063, 2407, 3079. 1 1530, 156 5 9 4 1 , 7 1 Articles 12601 14 . h av1ï Law, at 444-449 ( § 986-993). Jenks, Eng1,s ell Series), at 31, 106; Winfield, Textbook of Law (Nutsh . Torts of ' aw of Fisher, L ; Lectures, at 291. 8) 14 (§ 18 7-5 51 at , ) 50 10 , 1 e d• r. tl Tort (:J

c·

(Arts. 274, 287, 288); the Law of Adche The Lavi of Adghenà Teghelebà me fv\elg à of Loggo Chiua (Chapter LXXI 1). (Cl,ap ters 18, 27, 71) ,· the Law

24.

Jenks, op. cit. supra note 21, at 444-446 ( § 987-988).

25.

Cnrbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 173 ( § 124).

26.

An,os and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 25:

«A grosse is a copy bearing the formule exécutoire. The executory formula

which is the san,e in the case of a notarial act as in the decree of a court of law (ita lies suppl ied), is an order acldressed to a 11 huissiers and other agents of la force publique, directing them to give coercive effect, on re quest, to the covenants of the instrun,ent». 27.

Ibid.

28.

David, R., Le Code Civil Ethiopien de 1960, 26 RabelsZ, 668, 678 (1961).

29.

Leage, Roman Private Law, at 201-208.

30.

Ibid., at 200-20 l.

31.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 22.

32.

Ibid., at 147-148; see also Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 530 et seq. (§ 221222).

33.

Leage, op. cit. supra note 29, at 201; see also Lectures, at 292.

34.

Elias, The f'Jature of Customary Law, at 187-188.

35.

Ibid., at 16.

36.

Ostini, op. cit. supra note 10, at 100-101.

37.

Id.

38.

Lectures, at 292-297.

39.

Winfield, H.P., A Textbook of the Law of Tort, (5th ed . 1950) at 56 (§ 18). Buckland and M c Nair, Ron1an Law and Com111011 Law., (2n ed . 1965)' at 373-374· d Lawson, Negligence in the Civil Law, Oxford ( 1950), at 20. Gray, The Law of Civil Injuries, at 164. Lawson, op. c1t. supra note 41, at 21. Id., n. 1, citing § 228, 904 B.G.B. De Cupis, Fatti llleciti, at 308-311 .

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

NOTES - CHAPTER ,r111

46.

269

Lawson, op. cit. supra note 4 l, ns. 2, 3 , 4, Cfr. aIso Rod'ier , e, R, La Responsabilité Civile, at 41 ( § 1409) and vvhere he woulcl cleny necessity as justification in civil

. n,atters but where a crin,inal conviction occurs, con 1 pensat1on would be g1.ve n to defendant on the basis of Article 1382 F.C.C. (lbicl., at 43) (§ 1410). 47.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 369 ( § l78).

48.

l n this Carbonnier agrees vvith H. and L. /v\azeaucl, cr· te d bY Rodiére op. cit. supra note

46, at 41 (§ 109), n. 7.

49.

Planiol, Ripert et P .. Esn,ein, no. 567, cited by Rocliére, Ibid., at 42,n. 1.

50.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 329 (§ 169).

51.

See supra note l02 Chapter V.

52.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 414 (§ 191); See also Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 46, at 181 ff. (§ 1557 ff.).

53.

Catala and V✓eir, (IV) Delict and Torts, 39 Tul. L. Rev. 701,761 (1965).

54.

Ibid., at 762.

55.

An,os and Waltcn, op. cit. supra note 3, at 222-223.

56.

Bromberger, J., Petit Dictionnaire Juridique, item «Dol», at 121.

57.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 224.

58.

Ibid., at 224-225.

59.

Id.

60.

Catala and Weir supra note 53, at 770-771.

61.

Cfr. Winfield, op. cit. supra note 39, at 27:

« ... a distinction shoulcl be taken between injury to the person prin,arily

concerned in the dangerous process and injury to some third persan, like the spectator o f a tight-rope walking exhibition on whorn the performer drops some article». See also Lectures, at 298-299. 62.

, at 161. Ibid., at 29; bu t se e aise Gray, op. cit. supra note 42

63.

Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 46, at 49 (§ 1417).

64.

s in the Section on si vi ro p of s k ea Sp See aIso David, supra note 17, at 238 Where he du droit». m ste sy rs ive «d on d of strict liabilil'/ a s founde

65·

Afro-American d an , d. Lt . Co e nc Bernoldi Marcello v. M.M. Thomas, Elhiopian Insura 20th March, on decicled /62 e no. 41 Racing Club - Asmara High Court Civil Cas 1964, G.C.

66. 67. 68.

See «Draft Art. 60» in Lectures, at 379. See supra note 230 at Chapter VI. Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, at 161.

NOTES • CHAl''fER

270

69.

VIII

Ibid., at 163-164.

70.

at 35 0 { § 174). 2, te no a pr su t. ci . op , er ni on Carb

71 .

Ibid., at 280, 284 (§ 157-158).

72.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 214.

73.

See supra note 164 ( Chapter V)•

74.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 237, n. 4.

75.

Ibid., at 138, n. 1.

76.

Id., n. 2; see also Lectures, at 379.

77.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 410 ( § 190); «C'est le plus vague de la langue Française».

78.

See supra note 172, Chapter V.

79.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 234.

80.

Caïbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 416 ( § 192).

81.

An1os and Walton; op. cit. supra note 3, at 235.

82.

Ibid., at 234; Carbonnier; op. cit. supra note 2, at 410 (§ 190).

83.

Carbonnier, Ibid., at 420 ( § 192).

84.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, at 40.

85.

<<Vous vous asseyez: sur une chaise, qui se casse, et vous étes blessé» ( David, Private

Cornn,unication «B») in reply to specific

question as to the exact

rneaning of

Article 2087.

86.

Lectures, at 380.

87.

Id.

88.

See supra note 76.

89.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 238; Rodiére, La Responsabilité Civile, at 212-14 (§ 1592-93).

90.

See supra note 179, Chapter V.

91.

See p. 6 of appellant's brief before the Asrnara Supren,e Court.

92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

Lectures, supra, at 380; see al so Leage, op. cit. supra note 29, at 326- 3. 33

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 400 ( § 187) an d 407 ( § 189). See note 167, Chapter V. Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 408 ( § 189). Id. Current Legal Problems, in 15 I .C.L.Q. 099 { 196 6). Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, Dt 47-50. United Zinc and Chem ical Co. v. Britt, 258,

U.S. 268 ( 1922), cited b y Gray, at 50.

NOTES • CHAPTER

lOO.

VIII

271

Railroad Company v. Stout ( 1873) cited in Lectures, at 385_

101. Salm ond, Torts, at 582, quoted in Lectures, at 385. 102. David, supra note 17, at 238, 240. 103. See supra notes 177, 201, Chapter V. 104.

Catala and Weir, supra note 53, at 701-702.

105.

But see Keeton, R.E., Legal Cause in Torts, who speaks of « 1 egal caus e» and «causation» interchangeably (passim.); and Amos and Walton, at 20 7 et seq., who interchange «causality» and «causation».

106.

Catala and Weir, Ibid., at 705.

107.

Ibid., at 708-734.

108. Ibid., at 709, Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3 , at 212, n. 2 (especially for title of work), Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 353 (§ 175).

109.

Law son, op. cit. supra note 41, at 55.

110. Amos and Walton, at 212. 111.

Id.

li2.

Id., n. 5 (especially for title of work), Catala and Weir, supra note 53, at 717.

113. Amos and Walton, Id. 114.

Catala and Weir, Ibid., at 717-718.

115.

Lav,son, op. cit. supra note 41, at 62.

116. Catala and Weir, at 719. 117. Amos and Wolton, at 212. 118.

( 118 Mass. 251 ( 1875); see also Lawson, at 62, who cites from Bohlen, Studies in the Law of Torts, 8: «This constitutes negligence and it is not necessary that the injury in the precise form should have been foreseeen. lt is enough that it now appears to have been the natural and probable consequence».

119- Amos and Walton, at 212. 120.

Id.

121·

has Id. , at 212, n. 8, referring to Carbonnier, supra, at § 174, 175. This writer used «proximity» in the sense of «directiveneess».

122· Buckland and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra note 40, at 370. 123. Lawson, • at 53- 54. 124.

Id.

125.

Cite d •1n Id., n. 5:

the Romans to ed attribut «lt i s true that mo der n writers have invented and they have atwhich into », a theory of what the y call «culpa compensation

NOTES . CHA.PTE[{

272

VIII

n texts. lt is an unsuitable name in any case , ma Ro the ce for to tempted . . compensatio), a quantitative estima te of the negli g ( off set ts es g g su 1t s1nce ence on each side, or, at best, our Admiralty rule rather then the common law rule. And it completely falsifies the Roman view. They seem to have ap plied a theory of causation, no doubt a theory of causation which is not satisfactory, but that is not exceptional in theories of causation»; see also Buckland and Mc Nair, op. cit. supra note 40, a t 371. 126.

Pernice, quoted with approval by Lawson, at 54, n. 8.

127.

Ibid., at 54; Ibid., a t 372

128.

Id.

129.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, at 44-46; see also Carbonnier op. cit. supra note 3, at 353 ( § 175) where he compares the theory of «de la proximimité de fa cause» with the «last clear chance» rule.

130.

Gray, at 46, who quotes from Section 1 ( i), thus: «Where any person suffers damage as a result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other persan or persans, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffer ing the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be re duced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility of the damage ( ltalics supplied); see also Jenks, English Civil Law, at 469 ( § 1017) for a brief commentary of this Act and the implications of the word» «fault».

131.

Lawson, at 57.

132.

Lectures, at 358, where an excellent summary of the two opposing viev,.is to this approach is given.

133.

Handbook of the Law of Torts ( ed. 194 1) at 403-407, as cited in Von Mehren's The Civil Law System., at 361-362.

134.

135.

Handbook, ( 2nd ed. 1955) at 284: «Perhaps no one theory can ever expiain the

doctrine of contributory negligence. ln it essence, it is an expression of the highly individualstic attitude of the common law, and its policy of making the persona! interests of each party depend upon his ow n ca re an prudence» ( footnotes omitted)· Ibid., at 363 of Von Mehre n.

136.

See supra note 1 7 7 , Chap ter V.

137.

Lawson ., at 56, n. 5 ( as for text of § 1304 see p. 187). Id.

138.

NOTES • CHAPTER VIII

139.

%73

Id.

l40. See text of Section 254 \\/ith translation at 202 (Ibid.). 141. Ibid.,at 225 for text with translation. 142. Ibid., at 58 and 315 for comments on the Autornobile Accident lnsurance Legislation in the Province of Saskatchewan, by J. Green, Esq., reprinted from 31 J.C.L. 39_53 (3rd series). 143.

Chlores.,A.G.,on Book Reviews, in 15 I.C.L.Q. 927 (1966).

144. S. C. (Div. A) Civil Appeal No. 204/53 (E. C.) reported in I J.E.L. 153 (1964). 145. David, supra note 17, at 240: «L'indemnité due est, en principe, égale au préjudice causé à la victime. Mais ce principe comporte diffèrents tempéraments; dans certaines hypothéses les juges peuvent limiter le montant des dommages-intérêsts dues à la victime: ... cas où le dommage a été causé sous l'en1pire de la necessité». 146. As to the technical meaning of the term «atleinte» see supra notes 7-8, Chapter VI. 147. See Catala and Weir (Il) Delict and Torts, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 663,664,n. 1 (1964) where reference is made to a rich bibliography containing the names of all out standing modern French legal writers, on the law of civil wrongs. 148.

Maitland,Equity, at 19, cited by Russell, in Lectures, at 445. But even nov, «lnterlo locutory Relief» and « Relief a t the Trial», are rarely granted and then only under certain conditions ( See O'Sullivan, R., and Brown, R., The Law of Defamation, London {1958),at 150).

149.

Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, at 65-66.

150. Wade, E., Administrative Law, at 84. lt is true that the learnecl author was more but concerned with injuction concerning public bodies rather than private parties the definition is regarded as still pertinent. l51.

Gray, at 159.

152. Pollock, Torts, (9th ed.) at 197, cited in Lectures, at 443. 153· Salmond, Torts, (11th ed.) at (183-193) (§ 53), cited in LectureS, at 443•446· 154. lb,'d., at 445. See aIso at 44 6 the courses open to the court when faced with a request for injunction. 155. Pollock,see su pra note 152. l 56. Lectur es, at 447. modes e th to s a 157 • But see 1, . n , 0 4 2 _ 9 Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3 , at 23 158 •

of execution in general. R0c1·. iere, op. cit. supra note 89, at 202 ( § 1578) ·

NOTES • CHA. PTER

274

VIII

159.

• 2 at 549.557 (§ 226-228). e not ra p su t. c1 . op r, ie nn bo See Car

160.

Ibid., at 554 (§ 228).

161.

individuelle . . . » is compared with an liberté de la ts 1· ,s • • 1a ec sp d s an gr Id.: «ces can bring a horse to the water but nobody can make him English proverb: None "' drink».

162.

Id., at 556 ( § 228)·

163.

Street, H., Governmental Liability, at 142.

164.

Von Mehren, The Civil Law System, at 256.

165.

· Carb onn1er, op. c1·t• supra note 2 at 552 (§ 227); see also item «Astreinte» in Bram. berger J., Petit Dictionnaire Juridique, a t 40.

166.

Bromberger, Ibid., item «Référé», at 269.

167.

Lectures, at 462.

168.

See Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 48.

169.

Ibid., at 49-51.

170.

As to the technical meaning of this term and its underlying cancept, see Amos and Walton, Ibid., at 19; Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 7 (§ 2).

171.

See supra note 24 7, Chapter V.

172.

David, supra note 17, at 243.

173.

Lectures, at 467-468.

17 4.

Gray, op. cit. supra, note 42, at 145.

175.

Salmond, Torts, at 105 (§ 32) cited in Lectures, at 470.

176.

Limpus v. London General Omnibus Company, (1862) 1. H. and C. 526 arguing a contrario. The facts are in Gray, op. cit. supra, note 42 at 146.

177.

But see Id., where Salmond ( Ibid., § 31 ) specifies that the term 'agent' may bath mean a 'servant' and an 'independent contracter'.

178. 179.

( 1940) 1 K.B. 188, 199, reported in Gray, op. cit. supra 42, at 147-148, ns. 52-53. Ibid., at 148.

180,

Ibid., at 140-41.

181

Id.

182,

Salmond, op. cit. supra n ote 101, at 6 7 , cited in Lec tures, a t 468. Wade, op. cit. supra no te 150, a t 4 0 . Id.

183. 184. 185,

186,

History of English Law, · . V0I • IX, 49-62, c1te d by Salmond, op. cit. supra, at 66, in turn cited in Lectures, at 468. Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 55.

NOTES · CHAPTER ''Ill

187.

Id.

188.

Ibid., at 57.

189.

David., R., «Private Communication «B».

190.

27 S

Ibid., «La traduction ultra vires me parait bonne».

191.

See supra note 169, Chapter V.

192.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 389 (§ 184).

193.

Id.

194.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 229.

195.

See Rodiére, op. cit. supra, note 89, at 97 ( § 1463); Carbonnier op. cit. supra note

2, at 394 ( § 186). 196.

See De Cupis, Fatti llleciti, at 321-329.

197.

Lawson, Negligence ln the Civil Law, at 70-72.

198.

Rodiére, op. cit. supra note 89, at 97 ( § 1463).

199.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 230-231; Carbonnier op. cit. supra note 2, at 396-398 ( § 186).

200.

Amos and Walton, op. cit. supra note 3, at 230.

201.

Id.

202.

Ibid., at 231.

203.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 391 (§ 184).

204.

Ibid., at 391 (§ 184} and at 398 (§186}.

205.

Lectures, at 474.

206.

See supra note 76.

207.

ercial Court No. 2) mm (Co rt Cou h Hig the by d ide dec . il E.C Civ Case No. 258/56 reported in 2 J .E.L. .), G.C 64 19 7. ( . 8 . E.C , 56 19 Addis Ab ab a on Ham lie 1, 202 ( 1964).

208.

Ibid., at 205.

209.

Amos and Walton, at 231.

21o.

Id.

211.

Carbonnier, op. cit. supra note 2, at 396 (§ 186).

212.

60, cited 2 t a ) 5 3 9 1 , d ( e n o See Amos an d Walton I at 230; see a ls o A m o s a n d Walt Lectures, at 466.

213 • Carbonnier, at 396 ( § 186). 214•

Salmon d, at 98 ( § 30) cited in Lectures, at 470 .

215 • Gray, op. cit. 216 • Id., see aise

supra note 42, at 149 .

supra note 230, Chapter VI.

NO'fES . CHA PTER

276

VIII

217.

ures, at 47 3. ct Le in d te · ci ., q se et 3 Salmond, at 13

218.

Lectures, at 496.

219.

David, supra note 17, at 244: «On notera que l'immunité dont jouit l'empereu r d'Ethiopie, en sa qualité de

souvrain, ne conc erne

que sa personne; elle ne

s'entend à aucun membre de la fan1ille imperiale». 220.

David, «Private Communication» «B».

221.

Lectures, at 494-496.

222.

Krzeczunowicz, Hierarchy of Laws in Ethiopia, 1 J.E .L., 111, 1 13, n. 9.

223.

Ibid., at 115, n. 12.

224.

Highway Authority and Eskaniska Co. v. Mebrahtu Fissiha, Civil Appeal 1665/56

decidoed by Div. 1. A. of the S.l.C. in Addis Ababa on Nehasse 6, 1956 E. C. (= 11.8.1964 G.C.), reported in 2 J.E.L. 33 (1965). 225.

Street, Governmental Liability, at 13 and passim.

226.

Ibid., at 14-15.

227.

Ibid., at 15.

228. Schwartz, B., French Administrative Law and the Common Law World, N.Y. { 1954) 268-70, cited by Von Mehren, The Civil Law System, at 197-199. 229.

Street, op. cit. supra note 225 and passim.

230.

Compare the initial suggestion of Professor David in supra note 172.

231.

Street, at 73-74.

232.

Compare here the ratio legis of Articles 2126 and 2130, which differentiates bet ween the kinds of the civil wrongs that would render the State and the employer liable, respectively.

233.

Dall. Pér. 3, 9, (1918) conclusions by Léon Blum.

234.

Reproduced in Street, op. cit. supra note 163. at 64; see also Weil, P., Le Droit Ad ministratif, 'Q.S.J.' series no. 1152, P. U. E. Paris ( 1964), at 115.

235.

Ibid., at 74-75.

236.

See Chardon, R., Du Cumul et de la coexistence de s responsa bilités en matière Ad mini5lrative, Doctoral Thes is, Paris University, Recueil Sire y ( 1939), at 209 et seq. Weil, op. cit. supra note 234, a t 115-116.

237. 238. 239.

240. 241.

Id.

(Conseil d'Etat Assen ,blé Statuante au Con tentieux, 28/7/1951; D. 1951. J. 623, S. 1952· Ill. 2 51 29 (n ote Mathiot). Referre d to also by Weil, at Id. Dall. Pér 3, 5, ( 1874). Street, op. cit. supr a note 163, at 19-24.

NOTES • CHAPTER

242.

See Wade, Administrative

V1Il

Law, at 210, for L at'tn tex t and accompanying

translation. 243.

Ibid., at 210-211 and also pa,sim.

244.

Ibid., at 215 and passim, Street, at 5.

245.

Gray, op. cit. supra 42, at 135.

246.

Wade supra note 242 at 213.

24 7.

Ibid., at 217.

248.

See also Salmond, at 732 et seq. ( § 217), cited in Lectures, at 496.

249.

Fisher, The Law of Torts, Nutshell, at 8.

277

English

250. Wade, E. C. S., Act of State in English Law; lts Relations with International Law, 15 B.Y.I.L. (1934) 98, at 103, cited by Street, op. cit. supra note 211, at 50, n. 3. 251.

Gray, at 136.

252.

Ibid., at 135-136.

253.

Street, op. cit. supra note 163, a t 8.

254.

ln Davis v. Prigle, 268 U.S. 315, 316 ( 1925), cited by Street, at l O n. l.

255.

Ibid., at 13.

256.

David, supra note 17, at 244: «Différentes immunités sont prévues, au profit de certaines personnes, conformément aux règles suivies en tous pays».

257.

Lectures, at 494-496.

258.

See supra notes 285-288 of Chapter VI.

259. See supra notes 28-37. 260.

See David, supra note 17, at 244-245.

261.

Lectures, at 497.

262.

See supra notes 103-146, especially note 142.

263.

David, supra note 17, at 243-244.

264.

Fisher at 20-21; see aise Gray, op. cit. supra note 42, at 143-144·

265.

See Lectures, at 481-485 for relevant texts.

(

CONCLUSION

The Etbiopian Ci,1 il Co de is the pro duct of comparati,,e Iaw. TI1ougt1 the model is patte1·ned after the Contine11tal metl1od , its sources have been dra\vn from many different legal syste1ns. On the ,.vl1ole, however, it still remains Etl1iopian. Law does not live in a vacuttm but i11 the l1earts of men. As such, it is a reflection of the society for wl1icl1 it is made and among wbich it is to find application. Law l1as its beginning in custo1n, in the sense of repeated ntles of conduct having an obligatory force among the members of a particular community. Tl1e Ethiopian Civil Cocle was, therefore, elaborated in sucl1 a way tha.t Etl1iopian sentimen�s of jt1stice, as understoo d and applied in normal circumsta11ces, may be preserved. Fore. ign notions were moulded and 1·e.arra11ged so as to suit a11d satisfy Ethiopia.n local conditions. This is particularly true in the area of Civil Wrongs. Ro1nan La,.v ancl Cam.mon Law had some specific civil wrongs, in common, but they were not so elaborate 001· so comprehensive. Continental La\v, at least as far as French Law is concerned, had a general law of liability but it lacked in details. Wbat law exists today in F1·ance on this topic is, apart from some sporadic legislative enactments, purely the work of courts. The 5 short articles of the French Civil Code (Arts. 1382.1386) have been the subject of a long, graduai, expansion and development. Tl1e ourts, tl1rough a stretched interpretation, tried to caver the whole field of civil \vrongs. On the wl1ole, · . however, this left mucb to be desirecl. Traclitional Et biopian I aw, on the olber band, was suitable to an a.rchaic society. Moreover, tlle line of dem arcation between crime and civil \vrongs was still bltirred. For the first time in its history, Ethiopia l1as novv a n1odem � d detaile d law of civil vvrongs. Title XIII of tl1e Etl1iopian Civil Co de 15 a · comb·mat1o systems. Comc n of concepts insipired by tl1ese different Jegal . at1c syste m lll on L aw 110 of ow kn h whic an d trad itional Cttstomary Law . nent..a1 . Cont1 cod'f• with 1 icat 1on, g on al d ie if· · cod have been fused together ru1 d . . po1nco. r law con cept . tl1e1r . ancl pts s. Suc11a harmonization of clifferent coi1ce

%80

CONCLUSION

ue niq the tech of codifi cati on l1 oug tl1r . le, Coc il Ci,, . n pia llio t E· 1e tl ' 1·at1on in . . . 1a op h1 r fo Et ly At the tune of on t no d an , al in ig or ng lli et m so is, indeed, ed in ang arr Title XIII of the as . ngs wro l civi of law tlle g, ·t· 1n r1 tl11s w y gth d len p1ece of ,.vork in the an led tai de st mo tl1e is de Co il Civ n Ethiopia field anywhe1·e. te in of spi t its originality, tl1a r ite wr s thi of w vie e 1 tI , ver \ve llo ;t is, al ion dit Iaw. It is hoped tllat tra ian 1iop Et1 on is bas its bas , tao II, Title XI tlle existence of custon1ary law, in the tecl111ical sense of the ,vord, J1as beeo amply demonstrated. By tl1e sam e token, demonstration l1as been made to sJ1ow the part played by customary law in the elaborati on of Title XIII. It is true that traditional customary law was not well.developed. But whetl1er the Continental Iawyers call their law delictal or extra .con. . ter.parts, tractual liability instead of tort (s) Iike tbeir Common Ia,.v coun the object is aJv.,ays one - tl1at of providing compensation for wrongful acts. This applies, also to Etl1iopian customary law. Tl1ere may be di.f. ferences in the approacl1 of the subject - tl1ere may be differences of form - but people everywhere tend to be similar in their needs for an orderly society. Hence, the importance of histo1ical jurisprudence, of legal history and of comparative Iaw. In these ,ve fi11d the source,s of the dif. ferent legal systems. Once the source is found, a11 otherwise obscure pro. vision of the Ethiopian Civil Code will be better understood and interpreted accordingly. The importance of these sou.rces is mo re compelling wben, as at present, there is deartl1 of illustrative ma ter ial to guide the new and inex. perienced judge in his heavy responsibility. Equally ,vith those enun1erated above, the travai,tx préparatoires and tl1e legal terminology used in the preparatio11 of the Code , are important sources for the proper understanding and applica tion of codified Iaw, in general. Yet, ail tbese sources, important as tl1 ey a1·e, will not be a con1plete substitute for a proper Co,nmentary, w hi ch tbis writer l1opefull)' a,vaits will be fo1·tl1 comm · g ·n1 t·he not too distant fu tu re , p1·efe1 ·ably, from the learned author of tl1e Draft him self or someone under bis direction.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONSULTED WORKS !-BOOKS ALLEN, C. K.

L aw in the M aking - J Oxford U. P. 4th ed. (1946).

\ ALLOT, A.,

6th ed. (1958 and 1961).

Ess a ys in African Law - Butterworth's African Series, London

(1960). AMOS & WAILTON,

Introduction t o French Law - Oxford, 2nd ed. by Lawson et al ( 1963).

BAUDUIN, L.,

Delicts under the Quebec Civil Code, in Canadian Jurisprudence: The Civil L aw

a nd

Common Law in C anada - Ed. by Mc When

ney, E., Stevenson & Sons, London (1959). BELLON, J.,

Le Droit Sovietique - «Que Sa is-Je?>> Series no. 1052, Paris

(1965). BUCKLAND, W.,

A Manual of Roma n La w - Cambridge, 2nd ed. (1957)·

BUCKLAND & MC NA IR ,

Roman Law & Common La w - A Comparative in Outline,

Cambridge ( 1936 , and 2nd ed., by Lawson, Cambridge (1965). CANEVARI, R. R.,

fetha Nega st _ ( li Libro dei Re) Codice delle Leggi Abissine, Con Note e riferimenti al Diritto ltaliano, I.T.E., Milano (1936) ·

CARBONNIER, J.,

Théorie des Oblig ations - «Themis:i>, P.U.F., Paris (1963).

CHARDO N, R.,

en Matièré Du Cumul et de la Coexistence des Respons abilités ris (1939) · Pa of ty rsi ive Un s, esi Th ral cto Do t f r nis ati mi Ad

o ( 1950). lan Mi le da ra St ne zio a ol rc Ci lla à De lit La Responsabi CONT 1 ROSSINI, C e a - Roma (1916)· r ·t ri E e ll' d o 1 , r 1na . tud ue ., Principî di Di ritto Cons DAVID, R., - (Droit Corn, ora'ns p em nt o C oit Dr de es Les Grands Systèm <1966). ., ed d 2n s, ri Pa z, llo Da is éc ), Pr ré pa Civil Law DAV ID, R. & DE VRIES, H.P. The French Legat System - An Introduction to CIGOG LINI, R.,

DE CUPIS, A.,

Systems, Ne w York, (1958).

RoIV· Vol. Civil e ce Cod i Fatti llleciti, in Commentar•io d 8I

ma { 1964).

BIBLIOGRAPIIY OF CONSULTED

282

DEKKERS, R., ))

))

D'ONOFRIO, P., D'ORS!, V., ELIAS, T. O.,

))

WORKS

Le Droit Privé des Peuples - Bruxelles (1953). Introduction au Droit de l'Union Soviétique et des Republ iques Populaires - U.L.B., Bruxelles ( 1963).

Dell'Arricchin,ento Senza Causa, in Commentario del Codice Ci vile - Vol. IV, Roma ( 1964). Responsabilità Civile e Circolazione Stradale - Milano (1960).

The Nature of Custornary Law ( 1956) - French Translation, La Nature du Droit Coutumier Africain, Présence Africaine, Paris ( 1961 ). The Nigerian Legal System - London (1963). of Torts - Nutshell

Series, Sweet & Maxwell

FISHER, J.,

The Law

FRANK, JEROME,

Courts on Trial - Princeton University Press ( 1948), Athe

GALEOTTI, S.,

The Judicial Control of Public Authorities in England and in

GILISSEN, J.,

London (1958). neum - New York ( 1963). ltaly, Stevens and Sons - London ( 1954). La Rédaction des Coutumes dans le Passé et le Présent, U.L.B.

- Bruxelles (1962). GREGORY & KALVIN,

Cases and Material on Tort - U. of Chicago ( 1959).

GREY, HAMISH R.,

The Law of Civil Injuries - Hutchison's U.L. London (1955).

GUEST, A. G.,

Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence - Oxford U.P. (1961) .

HARPER, V., & JAMES, F.,

The Law of Torts - 2 Vols., Little Brown & Co. - Boston

( 1958). HART, H. L. A.,

The Concept of Law - Oxford U. P., ( 1961).

HOLMES, O. W.,

The Common Law - Paperback ed. by De Wolf How - Ox

ford (1963). HOWARD, W. E. H.,

Public Administration in Ethiopia - Groningen (Nethe.rlands)

( 1956). IMBERT, J.,

Histoire de Dro1't Prt' ve· - Q . S. J . « S er1es . .F., no. 408, PU ·

Paris (1963). JENKS, E., JONES, A. H. M., KEETON, R. E., KENNY'S LAWSON, F. H.,

English Civil Law - Vol. 1., 4th ed. by Winfield et al. -

London (1947). A History of Ethiopia - Oxford U. p., (1965). Legal Cause In the Law of Torts - Ohio State Un. - Co•

lumbus (1963). Outlines of Crlminal Law - 17th Ed. by. J.W.C. Turner, -

London ( 1958).

A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law - Ann Arbor -

Mich. (1953).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Negligence ln the

OF CONSULTED

c·,v,'I

WORKS

283

Law - Oxford U. P. ( 1950).

The Rational Strength of English Law - Stev ensons & Sons ( 1951).

))

LEAGE, R. W., LEGUi'v\, C.,

Roman Private Law - 3rd ed . by Prichard - London ( 1961). Pan-Africanism - A Short Political Guide, _ Revised ed. Praeger - Ne w York and London ( 1965).

LEVINE, D. N.,

Wax and Gold - Tradition and Innovation of Ethiopian Cul

ture - University of Chicago Press, Chicago ( 1965}.

LEVY-BRUHL, H.,

Sociologie du

Droit - «Q.S.J.» - Series no. 951, 2nd ed.

Paris ( 1964}.

LE\NY, C.,

The Code and Property, in The Code Napoleon and the Corn mon Law World., ecl. by Schv1artz, B. - New York University

Press, N. Y. ( 1956).

LfPSKY, G. A.,

Ethiopia, lts People, lts Society, lts Culture - New Haven

( 1963). MAINE, SIR H. J. S.,

Ancient Law - ecl. by Pollock, Sir F. - London ( 1906).

MAREIN, N.,

The Judicial System and the Laws of Ethiopia - Revised ed.

Rotterdam ( 1951} .

MC. NAI R, A.,

Roman Law and Common Law - a Comparative in Outline -

Can1bridge ( 1936} 2nd Ed. by Lawson Cambridge ( 1965).

MC. WHINNEY E.,

Canadian Jurisprudence - Stevens & Sons Ltcl. - London

( 1959).

MEHREN (VON) A.,

The Civil Law System - Cases and Materials for the Compa

rative Study of Law, Little Brown & Co. Boston ( 1957}.

MILLER, V X.,

Selected Essays on Torts - Buffalo ( 1960).

MONROE, E.,

A History of Ethiopia - Oxford U. P. ( 1965} •

MONTEL, A.,

Casi Pratici in Materia di Responsabilità e di Danno - Pa

clava ( 1955). NICHOLAS, B.,

An Introduction to Roman Law - Oxford ( 1962) ·

PATON, G. W.,

Perham, Oxford by · d e d r 3 ce en ud pr ris Ju k oo of xtb A Te ( 1964).

h ed., 4t 6, 60 . no es ri Se . .J .S Q Les Civilisations Afr·1ca '1nes -

PAULME, D.,

Paris ( 1965).

PERHAM, MARGERY, PIRSON, R., PROSSER, W. L.,

· U.P. ( 194S) · • d or xf O ia h iop Et of t The Governmen is ( 1964). ar P z, lo al D e il iv C é 1 1 't Dr oi t Belge de la Responsab'l Series, Hanclbook ed cl 2 n Handbook of the Law of Torts ( 1965).

OLIVER, R. &

FAGE, J. D.,

, A.P. 2 Library African n Pengui A Short History of Africa Middlesex ( 1965).

LTED WORCS SU N O C F O Y H P A R G BIDLIO

20,

Trattato di

OSTINI, F.,

( 1956).

N, W O R B & . R N A IV L L O'SU RODIÉRE, R.,

Consuetudinario dell'Eritrea Asmara

The Law of Oefamation - Sweet and Maxwell, London (1958). La Responsabilité Civile - Rousseau, Paris ( 1952). Introduction Historique an Droit Romain - Bruxelles (1901).

ROLIN, H.,

Outlines of Legal His tory - New York ( 1929).

RUSSELL, F. F.,

The Law of Torts - ( 11 th ed.) and 13th ed. by Heuston,

SALMOND, J.,

London ( 1961) . Jurisprudence - 9th ecl. l)y Parker, - London (1937).

Oiritto

The Conflict of Laws in Ethiopia - H. S. 1. U. Addis Abeba

SEDLER, R. A.,

(1965). Ethiopia under Haile Sellassie - London ( 1946).

SANDFORD, C., SCHLESINGER, R.,

Cases and Materials on .Comparative Law - 2nd ed. Un. of

Ch. (1958). The Code Napoleon and the Common Law World - N.Y.U.

SCHWARTZ, B.,

(1956). Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study, - Cambridge

STREET, H.,

(1953). ))

The Law of Torts - 3rd ed., London ( 1963).

))

SUMNER, W. G.,

Folkways - Boston (1906).

TALBOT, O. A.,

Contemporary Ethiopia - New York ( 1952).

ULLENDORF, E.,

The Ethiopians - Oxford U.P. London (1961).

VAN RYN, J. & HEENAN J .,

Principes de Droit Commercial - Vol. 1 V , Bruxelles (1965).

WADE, H. W. R.,

Administrative Law - Oxford at Clarendon Press (1961).

WALINE, M.,

Droit Administratif - 9th ecl., Sirey, Paris ( 1962).

WEIL, P.,

Le Droit Administratif - Q.S.J. Series no. 1152, Paris ( 1964).

WINFIELD, SIR P. H.,

A Text Book of the Law of Tort - 5th ed. Sweet & Maxv1ell, London (1950) and 6th ed. by T. Ellis Lewis, London (1954).

WISE & WINFIELD,

Outlines of Jurisprudence - 6th ed. by Dias, Oxford (1948).

II - REVIEWS AND OTHEB MATERIALS ALLOT, A.,

ANOZIE & READ

The Future of Law in Africa - ( Record of Proceedings of

London Conference Dec. 1959 - Jan. 1960) Butterworth's London (1960). I

CATALA, P., & WEIR, J. A.,

Colloquium on African Law on Codification and Unification �

of Laws in Africa, 2 J.A.L. 29 9 ( 1963).

De1·let and Torts: A Study ln Parallel - (Part 1) 37 Tul. L. Rev. 573 (1962-63).

OlBI.lOGRAPHY

))

OF CONSULTED

WORKS

285

(Part li), 38 Tul. L. Rev. 22 1 (1964)_ (Part Ill), 38 Tut. L. Rev. 66 3 (l964). (Part IV), 39 Tul. L. Rev. 701 ( 1965).

))

CARNELUTTI, F.,

Diritto

Consuetudinario

L'Africa e la Civiltà

( 1963). COTRAN, E.,

Dir"1 tto

Contemporanea

Legale - 11

Convegno:

«G"1orgio Chini», Venice

«The Place of Custon,ary Law in East Africa», in East Afric:an Law Today, B.I.C.L. 72 ( 1966).

EDITORIAL

Customary Law in Contemporary Afric:a - 9 J. A. L.,

Nun,ber ( 1965). 9AVID, R., l)

spec,a· 1

«Le Code Civil Ethiopien de 1960», 26 RabelesZ 688 (1961).

«Le Sources du Code Civil Ethiopien», 14 R.1.0.C. 497 (1962). «A Civil Code for Ethiopia: Considerations on the Codification

of the Civil Law in African Countries», 37 Tut. L. Rev. 187 ( 1962-63).

«Un Projet de Code sur la Responsabilité Civile», Extract from

Vol. 1 of Studies in Honour of Soriano Neto, University of ·te, Penambuco (Brazi1), ( Rec,, 1962).

c:La Refonte du Code Civil dans les Etats Africaines, in Annales

Africaines de 1962, University of Dakar, Publlshed by Pédone,

Paris (1963). DEREMBERG, W. J.,

«The Code and Unfair Competition», in The Code Nepaleon and the Co,nmon Law World, N. Y.

DON,ENICO DA MAARDA,

( 1957).

«Valore Giuridico delle Consuetudini Etiopiche», in Atti del Convegno I nternaxionale di Studi Etiopic:i, n. 48, Roma (1960).

EDITORI AL

« The Right of Privacy - A Half Century of Development», 39 Mich. L. Rev. 526 { 1941).

FARNSWORTH, E. A.,

«Law Reform in a Developing Country: A New Code of Ogliga tion for Senegal», 8 J.A.L. 6 ( 1964).

GRAVE N, J.,

«The Penal Code of the Empire of Ethiopia», 1 J. ETH. L. 267 ( 1964).

GRAVE N, P.,

1 J. ETH. L. 135 , s» ng di ee oc Pr 1 v·, , C· d an 1 ina Crim «Joinder of ( 1964).

«Prosecuting Criminal Offences Punishable only upon Private

Complaint», 2 J. ETH. L. 12l (l96S). HOLMES,

o. W.,

IMPERIAL ETHIOPI AN GOVE Rl'lM ENT I

JELowicz, J. A .,

v. 457 ( 1897). Re L. v. ar H 10 », w c<The Path of th e La (1960). ures», Addis Ababa «Ethiopia, Facts an d Fig

•

Fault"' , n nal Professio currence on C rt To t d ac an tr on <<C . (1965). 27 e, su Is l ri p A ent, Camb. L.J., Case an d Comm

BlBLIOGRAPHY

286

., KRZECZUNOWICZ, G

))

OF CONSULTED

WORKS

«The Ethiopian Civi I Code: 1 ts Usefulness, Relation to Custom

ancl Applicability». 7 J.A.L. 172 ( 1963).

«A New Legislative Approach to Custom - The Repeals Pro visions of the Ethiopian Civil Code of 1960», in 1 Journal of

Ethiopian Studies ( 1963). ))

«Hierarchy of Laws in Ethiopia», l J. ETH. L. 11 ( 1964).

))

«Statutory lnterpretation in Ethiopia», l J. ETH. L. 315 ( 1964).

))

})

«Civil Code Articles 758-761: A Side Issue», 2 J. ETH. L. 185

( 1965). LARGUIER, J.,

«The French Penal Law and the Duty to Aid Persons in Dangerl'I

39 Tul L. Rev. 81 {1963). »

))

«The Civi I Action for Damages in French Criminai Procedure »

39 Tul. L. Rev. 687 { 1965). LAWSON, F. H.,

«The Duty of Care in Negligence: A Comparative Study», 22

Tul. L. Rev. 111 ( 1947-48). PAUL C. N. JAMES,

«First Annual Report from the Dean», l J. ETH. L. 335 ( 1964).

READ, JAMES S.,

«When. is Custon1ary Law Relevant», 7 J.A.L. 57 ( 1963).

REDDEN. K.

The Law Making Process in Ethiopia,

H.S.I .U., Addis

Ababa

( 1966). RUSSELL, F. F.,

«Eritrean Custon,ary Law, 3 J.A.L. 99 {1959). ({The New Ethiopian Penal Code», 10 AM. J. COMP. L. 266

( 1961) . »

«Book Review Comment» on Allen's Law in the Making, 27-28

Brooklyn L. Rev. 366 {1961-62). ))

))

«The New Ethiopian Civil Code», 29

Brooklyn L. Rev. 236

( 1963). SEDLER, R. A.,

«The Chilot Jurisdiction of the E111peror of Ethiopia).l; 8 J.A.L.

59 ( 1964). ))

«Nationality Domicile and the Persona! Law in Ethiopia», 2 J.

VANDERLINDEN, J. ,

WELLINGTON & ALBERT ' WHITE, C. M. N.,

ETH. L. 161 ( 1965).

«An Introduction to the Sources of Ethiopian Law», 3 J.

ETH.

L. 37 ( 1966). <<Statu tory lnterpretation», 72 Yale L. J. 1547 ( 1963). «African Customary La1,v: the Problen, of Concept and Defini tion>>, 9 J.A.L. 86 ( 1965).

-------

BIBLIOGRAPIIY

CONSULTED WORKS

287

III CUS TOMARY LAW « DEF fERS )) AND OTHE!{ PRIVATE COLLECTIONS ABELOW, S. C.

The Code of Customary Law of Adghena TegheI eb a 1n • Er1trea

1 Ethiopia, with particular referenc e to the Law of Tort • , 1n con1parison with Ron1an Law, Con1 1ncn Law, and Modern Civil La,v, Doctoral Thesis, at Brooklyn Law

School (1964).

DAVID, R.,

Private Correspondence with Writer ( 1966).

CAPOMAZZA, 1.,

li Dirltto Consuetudinario dell'Akelé Guzai, Fioretti, Asmara ( 1937).

CONTI ROSSINI, C.,

Lo Statuto dello Scioatte Ansebà ( Eri trea) ( 1917).

CODE OF CUSTO!v\ARY

Law of Akkele Guzai ( English Translation-Private Collection).

GILISSEN, J.,

Introduction Historique au Droit Civil - Histoire des So urces

du Droit (Part 1), U.L.B. 12th Rètirage Bruxelles (1965). ))

))

Sources du Droit: Eléments d'histoire du Droit Privé, (Part Il)

U.L.B. 2nd Rétirage Br uxelles (1966). HART & SACKS,

LEGGE

Legat Process, Harvard Law School. Te nt. ed. ( 1958). Consuetudinaria del Loggo Ciua ( 1 talian Translation - Priva te

Collection). Consuetudinaria degli Decchi Adchen1e Melgà ( 1 talian Transla

tion - Privat e Collection). POLLERA, A.,

li Regitne della Proprietà Terriera in Etiopia e nella Colonia Eritrea no. 12, Roma ( 1913) (Priva te Collection).

))

L'Ordinamento della Giustizia e la Procedura lndigena in Etio pia e in Eritrea», Roma ( 1913) (Priva te Collection).

RASSEGNA

di Studi Etiopici, «Consuetudini Giuridiche del Seraè» (Part Il) Rome, ( 1953).

RUSSELL, F. F.

Lectures on Comparative Civil Law ( Mimiographed �Aaterials)

Asmara (1957,1958).

SERA'AT

Atkeme Melgà, Silia, Asmara ( 1945) ( Tigrigna Original)· Adghenà Teghelebà, Silla, Asmara

))

SIMONT, L.,

Loggo Ciua, Silla, Asmra

( 1946) ( TigrignaOriginal)·

l)• ( 1945) ( Tigrigna Origina

e lles (1965)· Les Obligations, U.L.B. 4th ed. Brux

IV - CODES, OTHER LAWS, AND DICTIONARIES 8LACK'S BROMBE RG, J.,

ny, St. Paul Compa ng Publishi Law Dictionary, 4th ed. West (/v\inn.) ( 1951 ).

. ue, Paris (1956). iq Techn Petit Dictionaire Juridique, Librairie

DIDLIOGRAPBY

288

DALLOZ })

ETHIOPIA

))

CONSULTED

WORKS

Dictionaire Juridique or Hebdomadaire or Périodique. Encyclopédie. Code Civil _ Annoté d'Apres la Doctrine et la Jurisprude nce,

Paris ( 1959).

The Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia of 1960, Addis Abab a ( 1960). Code

Civil de l'En1pire

d'Ethiopie de

1960, ed.

Française,

Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris ( 1962). ))

))

The Commercial Code of the Empire of Ethiopia of 1960, Ad. dis Ababa ( 1960). Code de Commerce de l'Empire d'Ethiopie de 1960, ed Fran.

çaise, Librairie Générale cle Droit et de Jurisprudence, Paris ( 1965).

Le Code Pénal de l'Empire d'Éthiopie ( du 23 Juillet 1937} ed.

Française, Centre Français de Droit Comparé, Paris (1959). ))

Civil Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia of 1965, Addis

Ababa, ( 1965). ))

The Revised Constitution of Ethiopia of 1955, Addis Ababa, (1955).

HEALTH,

Standard French and English Dictionary, Part 1, ed. (1939).

ROSSEL, V.,

Code Civil Suisse et Code des Obligations, Lausanne ( 1959).

TORRENTO & PESCATORE,

Codice Civile Annotato con la Giurisprudenza della Cassazione, Giuffré, Milano (1963).

APPEN DIX ''A''

--1 r....

1) 1,.'}t: /tOJ• ni.t,. ll'n A 9°'}'1° r111w- °lfn:J• 11.f.'iC Ot-fl· · 'l'�T 01\.t\m- (Jm- ".e, 1•.lii·'} JJ�lt1 hl\fu )lD· e-: 2)

>-. J �. rJ• 9° f..°l 'I° t. 'J 1..· Il OJ• ih 1· 1\ .e, >. '} � ,,,_ oo fi h ·I• œ • h,,.,�. a,f.'J" Ol\,t\ flm- l\f, ,.�:,- fl.ff..Cil rlfl/..l-A .,..li:,• JJ�lt1 t.l\t, n�:( r111m• �,c fitl,"m· t,m• f f,l ','A ::

".e.

3 )

r·t-

0lll1'1J.l''tim•r 01'4-i· rh'J y:,- a1f,9° 11 ih°l DD,,.,1.:i1,. t\ t:, � Il. Cf c Il, I\ (Jm• I\ t.'A on m· l'i t: t-1 i· li if11· hi\ tf, � ;i,, nt\œ- t, m• iii\ � � m· ==

+ 1..t\n:,-- rt-

APPENDIX

29:!

--------

''A''

"'119° ()tD- ht-fl. '1'4-:i· f1-�"i IJ,l,f\ fla,. f\f. r�T bf. t. l\ Il 1-t. "lm- �� i· h. "i t- onh t.." Î'I t\ fi + ::

1) t.rtfl m�'J° t1=t= A-ri;:�:,- O°twt. T°lllC 1'cf•T fl.1.1."l

J!, -:;."À ::

cfl.

}i'}�u-9" t.11: T°IIIC1 OD'-.�r Wf,'I° T°l0C1 }.(\uoJ. � 'J° C If''f, ='f• t\. lJ' '} y;f fa fA ::

2 n:, 30

onfAJJvn

mo.e, ::

I) Î'l11: ()tD« Ïhl\.�1 Wj..�.9"° onAJJ9° lllOf,1 1':J>'P"t lllf� o .e � + r "'If.111 aJ•1 ,,., 1,. r1Pt- w.e, r rai 111 œ-1 t, t lP t r +t. �'},.lf� C 1''f•i• o7f... t_1, )QJ• :: 2) h1,.llU ill\fl m•9° 1-� J!, i·hht\� '1�9°1! Il"� flto t, 1Pt- c o J!, � :,- 1, il"I·1 r :,- . "'l,: 1· 1o. � m- == 3) flt11°1 f'/·� 1l i·:Pt,..).. f:. 1;J7, hl\,t\ o+c 1'4-i· �m .. ,,, ,fli\ 0 f 'l.1 rm ,,,_tD« r 'I',.. i· ii,:� "l. œ- J t, ,:° 7.,r If� fh h9" r:� ·t i-hn1t;;:�:r· 00wt.i· >t�c"l llfloo 111 �m- ::

t..,,

■

APPENDIX "A"

293

'- t r • 1 'fP ' .. "'l. /. .K" � (am• m f!,, 'I° Ilu fl 'fP OJ• f.. I fl f.. Y la 1) A .Pm• f P't• 1·°111?.'} f oY.fh'lf: flm- r1tu• r'lo.r ?'�m rtPf..m,t.nt-1 f..'},n 00111nl}J .e.·,oqiA C: 0 ,., .r.� t n• fl m 'l.1J.1t..m• 'Pfl"n 2) n, �

n.� T011 f...1111· uuw

l '} 1· 1, t\ m>h #1· /\• ()."1t\ R· Il t\ (IV 11114> �' tJ' h· Il ;'J· °l fo :J· 9 l m .e 9° li :FA --� i;: � :i· 'Plf • ,,,.. ç: If 'i {) ,,,.. 1 ·•j 1..11. 1, I\ fu f, If C.'/A ::

1 ) Îi'} f: fi a,. f °lA 'Pcp OD• 1 t\ UD /..1\ °l /Je tr 1 li tTl/ 'i" =1= m• 9'1 r •1: 1\,1\0J•'} fla,- t\ODr-'ii:'f· tl 0 '1fl·n tllPt.W• I"/.- 'l'-i-, V Ti1 �m• :: 2)

'1'l-'i..V•9° h+�l'1lD1- 1·�:'f- ;Jt« °111::i- f/bt\lD·'} ft-ft•1 'r'P?° fl..t.A '?. 'tifmcf» tlttf\m• flœ• I\.� btï: YI\ 1��:r-1 f f..l (a }, 1 f.. 1/'� r: 'l'ti-1·i1 �m- ::

1'11f: �m- illl {l.l\ fla>• 'Pil19° f+fl111ro•'} />'AfIJ'} ll"IA 'r 11'on• = i't'l'k �m>i1�

f un1"1Fi· lPt•"l·i1 'Pil'9° >i·t�.,,, t\°lA n,v t-m- T ( n'fr.ov"I!) f·1·�· m-1 P'A tTJ'l t\"IA 1'Pfla,. 'h'}f. lf� 1'4• tpc},on• mf,'I° 1\1-"f fla>•

== tr� rtr� flm- ll,11+1\f\0>•

r,Pt-n+

�r+r

,,..r �a)• == 1. 2 n: 34 T 11"

0011,r-1·

'?il

ti.e!�:

htt.u O'\f. 111\-.:J· <11 1'r:"f r•/-OD/lh-t:.:J· Y:1;,1.9•1• V fl · i• " 'P f f\� 't /> IJ 1 "1: 11 00 • • 'J ,n 1f •t'J m h : t'Jm• f1 ■ il ,,, t • :i f.. � i· il li 'P. h tb h <i nt r; ( ri! m 111a ) h 01/ 111 t;1: C\ 9° :: "'I °t t. 1, f..te. 'I° li "'11\ ,:'f• or> 1 + �

n�

Al'PENDIX

"A"

:: il fll an ll ll 1 h'11 i T ,f?, 2 if. 35 1) Ji,Y..· �m• lltti'11 ti.(1, lJi·nhl!\ 1-1A?. fi•ooflh-f'a,.; Ar. f:'},:J1, c Af• f."}1l'i" P'COT fllJfl '111. If� 'ftf.1·r im• :: 2) ih '111 itl\"'1 mif> .e-il'c:J• fLf il?� t...e--:f-A ?° :: ,f?.

2 ü: 3 6 T 1)

fl) t\ .f- :r· h Jf1f ::

l)l)t\/, llt\l"Afll'} i•)\Jf11 f"f•t{f.OD 1•'1/lJC Thff H• 9°h1 y:,. lf 'f f,,.,t-W•'} 'l''l• i•�:,- '?.,.. t.Yil+l.OJ•?" ::

2) f,f•f]t\lIJ•'} P' t. IPCT f'f'•1"'i /JOJ• fllU'J P' 6• dl1 !D'Pi-l· 'iiYm+ lJ1•t\.e?11 'Thlf1f �'1J.OJ• P'AllJ'} (l-/l :J•) >i;.e. il,/lm-c; fP't-m-; fOUD/J n1o_e m_er t..ilm:J>7i�1:1 "ttY ffl«f> IPLTT }i'}J'. V1 LJ'tf.rf-'1 �(D• :: 0

�

o�·,?i

nt-11.e?°

n,r�

it'f'tlœ• T11+ 0-1:J· ot,�:iOm>1°1 P':J· 'f ro f, 9° lJm .1·1. t. 'l! �- �-11\..; 9°hJY :,. Il 1' t, ,n m i:t· >i 1111 t\DDht-hC mJ',9° Y'J"} f:I-JIHlD•'} >.1:{ /\,1\ )1C t\ "'If:l '11 li IIIJf.l-A Il:'f· V•>; ;J· a,.. Il T h on 17,t f,f'V/ f.,,-. llt\lD• lPC-f· '111. U'� Ti-i· fI\Oi·9" z=

'111..· �m- Olt;�• ID-A 9°h11i· four1Jfli•1 '?.�:J· t'Jf,� ?.·9° n+l "Lt-J. hw•t\• OJ-61!' /l1r� �"IC hl\6..�TJ f°tf il hTAfli·J 'r4- -i· hJf. lJ.Jt. 1-a.�il'ka'l't.OJ-9° :: 2) h1-'i.V9° llrr� "LtL ftn•A ltl\on&.?.9° f.J,n 11:r 1-&.?ttrlf. t. If,../;\ :: 1)

'J h, l'i

•h•

a: 38 =

TI ,,-: A

A f.. IJ 1 :J· 91 l11

•

t,m-�:'f•"} il/\ on1-�:,- :: (1) OVrJ.J/.•I: ::

i > ,-.�,_. l'i ID• rr� 1111G il. l\m- l'i m• ,., .e..c.-}, ,_. a "7..Yf.c1 a,00 }l) �- (1 li.V (1 OD'}}] 1: Tti ...,. '1 �a,. "

APl'ENDIX

" J\ "

1· h ,� "r'i'• '11 'i. ...,-- � � m-

rDl/ J!- o 111»•

295

a·-

> 1.n 9° ,,,, tr �..-·t ...,. 1a 1) 'â· , n '1 i, 9" C1m• ·} r mi :J m• h t u) h airi ,t Il Yil nm• rar, .e.·:j.A 0D If�- r :J· m"' J, "; r. tr� -r µ

Il) rt-m- f1-t.?iaom• fl"t111 lt\:l,?.·} t\t.fl• w.e'I° ""-" flœ• t\(/Dlll\hA OJ�'I° flf. "}11 flhîf. ,.ellm-1 (1Jf,'J° fY11m•'} 1illi· /IODmn+ fi.A A1,.l1,. If�= th) P' i. m- r ...,-. &. ?. 0D m• .,,.h 1)'i'i· " 1f.1 rti 1.t- A�:"} ...,· 01J t ° m-, W�'I° 1,7ih,;.1 f1 'l 1ll /IOD 1}111JT fi.A fl{Jm•�" I! 4.!!� +10. r11'�01-1 t.4>11J� t.x.·•,o n:r· >t"} f. rr�

ou) h/Jîi• n,.l1,.1'? �11�· 110011•�. 1->;i· 'Ji1-�f f.Cil flll,t\ J'i\:l, :\ 1 t\onhAhA ill\A-t:rt\m•'i 1·h/J7Î· P't-m·1 f&.� 00 a,. Il ◄"l Il 1t ��-; ,, 1,.(1,. If� T

°'

lP) r+hi)'i'i• P't-- lth?0 f! on m- t'lm• air:r· r"'i. 10 �m• rai Yt'l� tl,ft 0'/'i;f-m«?° 9"ti1Y:r· 111--,·�· 1.. tf. V•fr �(D• ::

1) n11: t'lw• m°l t'l.et.�l1�·t\i· t\·'l•m(J� 1..tf. O. V'19° ('fbl\ • J (1: • � 1 tJ ID-"} (IOJ- �,�:r• f�IJÇ }i'}f. rf•t_'f>f.t\i• OD(I]'} � rr f. 1 n t\ h t\ rh -1 .m .� ,a, c: w t ,r u w1. /l,l\ o:J· h1-� f., 'l''i-+;;: )a,. :: 7 If fi. 2) ' V t 9° l l\ f. l.. ,. :, � 1>t } Ji. IJ fi Ir� 'L tL fi h r'J i1"· (I ID-� :i· l\ .e. >C , , >a'}�. T�-1: h1 � .,,.lP t• (IV1:»111,;. h f, 1° ::

APPENDIX: ''A''

296

3) hlJif. t..1f: o��:,- f"lFu :J· P't- h 1�&.x·r fi 1..hlJi}: fl:J: ° -t"lf :f. h1f. lf�c; �,09 tf :f A. filh:'f-Afl-l· f"t'fl\m-1 ° {/IJ:,J IJ r ti"IA ODlf)• h�a1+ h'l� 'P'i-+ l\ t1D t..f..: t\O 1 'f! fil C fi cf! � DJ• :: "?•

a: 41 T

( 2) ,1,., 'P.

rAt1J'}

11.11'19 ° ...l"hf'Jil· _f.U1 f"'ll»'lf.1: Flr- r�&m>to- ll°t1q ° t..�?.1 ih°I ll"tt.,r-'.·I\+ P'IAllJ�- 9 hJY+ li11. If�,; 11 />' 1A "l� P' C O "7..1 � a ID- A\.e, ll''i r+11· h'J�lf� >i1� '1'4- i" t.ectmcn-l·9" == cf?. 2it42 T (3) tn'}'J!A uo()A hA�-l· :: 1) fl\,l\m•1 flm- ��+ r�1J flm• f.01 i�i1: r+)Jit1+1 fla,. Ji'JY: m'}'J!A 1PC1'-'PA 111\9 t\"7'111 f"'lfilÎ-l&lD• (14! 9°h1Y+ ti11· '1'4--twr Affl"f m•'I° :: 2) O. tr 1r t.il1,_..,. ��1:1 r�tin:r -1 flm• wJ',,,fm-'1- t\htj:I\ Qflt>11A11J1 aJilf.. }JftlllhllOJ• n+c IJH.ll• 9°b1Y+ f�m-'} )��+ n ou'J}J•l· At'\��-l· Y1"'i'PA �

-or

+.. 2 if. 43 T ( 4} tp fi :: li'Jf: fla>• 111� fl...l•m,1� 1.1:J· h"JJ',,,'fC floo'}"JF+ 11/l,,.. AllJ'i-:f- fl'Pili·r; itft"'�-l-1 f1.. cf>flt\ fla,. !,V 11lt1J.>.: il� t- :J -"JP. '11.t;�+ou'f' r+ f.l"lto- 11 a, . hH.V llatJ9°t\'r ouli r;�1:1 f"'lfll9°1 114! 9°h1Y-l- JJllm- fH.U1 {ltl)<o ��+ n.�tin:r· r4....,..;;: t.1'f.ll'r == 1

h11-· fla,. fl'J"l°lC::f: flX"d1-C:::iE lDf,9° Ill\'\ '¼.e.�t- ltf:t• 1,Y..=J: fi ih .e m:i:, yIlm-1 rÎi,,.;;:a,.1 fi a,. Ir,-, fi 111/ '1' 4-:r.eu fltllh f m4-ll). flm• >.1�_n11\ m.e'J'1 >i 1·'i.. 'Pl� m.e'J° >i 'J .Il °I :,- fi T 'i" fi >. fi. I\ .e YI& w- >. 9°� -l-«; ouA t1 9" 1f 'i tD• mf,'r rm�"':,. iJf.:tt- >,J�.fll\7i ,.e 1.1.1 >.,"}� tr� '1'4• 1''7 �OJ• ::

APl:'ENDIX

"A.,

29T

° · � 1c r,9 Yn11- A r,1·onm-1 �-,c n1oi"lcc; LJJ/'f1-:'J· 2) llilr (1 �· ,l1-'f: flJ..' t-fD• (Jm- {l tl,U• �- ,11-'): m f,9° 111 °l"l?- ('d1J 119° fi {fr il 9° Cl .,.. Il .e lJ &\ 1t\ K O 1• C il 'r >, 11!. m 4,, 1t .r

ri 'I! 'Pl. tD-9" ::

n >i1f. flu ..rtt ,o-

r il r

l1lJ T IIJ • :,- 1 t1 �· ,,.. 1:r· ,1 1 "l"l c mf,rr O.K",11-fi: f1t\Km• flto• .eu >.1:1,.. 1,.1: "11\ tam• }i'} o-}. :J•

f.lfll 1-'i Î'tilcf>J!..•'!° Annl.�i· on:J= t\· hA"l"1l\� llcf>C 011.u1·•'i � i',1\6.�:i- 11.<'.,'ic n:i·r ==

1.1.f: jja>• t\lh11·0 'r'}'F ll°tlf'} 1·�.e. f\.e 1tt'Jf1•1 flou °lf\?t• 11:F h"rwfJ� �,sr- ,,1�. i,u t,/Jn· 11,1111,n f:'rlJ 0

ibf\m -1 (Jm• f°tYiJm!},t,m• tr'r 11.11 'f4-·f•'1 '1�J?.tt? 2)

cf?.

"l'h/Jif· flhiJÜc /\,e f1/\�m• t./J11 thfl;'J- ovlf)·1 flhC: 0l 'P Y w cf, m• IJA If� Il + C il 9" 1-'i n14. .l' iJ 'I! '11l. m-9" ::

2 if. 47 T 1)

( 4) f 1•�'1 l OJ• 1· •'i -�" >am-�:r-1:r· ::

..,.. h,., if.

1 (Dt- CD-

f iJ 'r "1J 'P '1· :r· 1-P, f, h C "1lll '1 {\ 011 If�

°' ill 'Jf }) 1'î iJ '1° 1t m 42)

t, Y fi-�-OJ· 9°

fl}i1f.t·LIJ Yt\m- o-};,:J• !f.l10J• rll9° Ol/'Pci- i· 1·-'i.e.. 111• l1A1·l..? l\f- flm-r-a m• '} t\ou"J,P,-=J• •n:J� y f.l.10J• "llll flcf>C fli't/1"6�:, - ti.emfi},'/° ::

ovu��-

•

-----------

APPENDIX

298

r li. tJ1 1J .(',�:i· J"l"lC fl T hh Il;;' h C"l'i'� -1!1 r 'lllmm- (1 w lJ hI\ 6,� :r· r "t {Ilf "',O• .(� IJ '} .,,, '? fi C f ,. ?. 0D CD• fi {l)• ro W•'}

t\tlD?"-'i:r· ,0:-r= tiilO

••A"

.e f..l10J•

ovtr�- 11:J·m«t» 1.u. )w,. �:

11;,11.n1 :J•:1-qo r�1·a1t. fil'/° "'l'P4-:1- �1C ,f•f..C1 )i1" rr�c; ,1· tiîi•?° fi .. ,11."l ti 11'lh.e..�:,- r fim-1 il9" Ym4.lD ll"f-".f.. t,1�-1 ()tD• ftOD1•�:,- ltll{l ti_e.trJÇ h<;: Yta TA 1't1�:r-s,a .ef\J?.l.1 t'l:1:itj llhtiiî-� n1f,f!�i· fllr art'P -i,1:"J 1->i� >.Jf. 1'i �lt-1 oP&\fl J!.if>C;J- hntfcf> }il\t{, �1: tm1 J!:h.:J·A ::

,,,,r

2) fh.'I�' 01/114-1: �1C fTl-l"lOJ· hlt1Jt IJ9'11:i· flflltm "LH. n 011.a1f1J , 11°·1.:t-•l·r) :,11.t1J l\.e r11·� t.1.. � If�= fil'/° "'IT'f-•I: �·,c f "t/\ lD•'Pll ;'J•"j f .e«lic:J· oP mf 'i!Y OJ• � �fi: ,11.V 4!m- t-(). fi t11> l. ,n m• ,;J li. t1J I\ ,_ fi 'i! 1'� T h1 �- ;Je1'9° t\ :')• I\ ou lll f «}, oo 11 :r· h lt lD• :s

3) f h9° "'l'r�-1: �1c f"'l.h.w'J'O:'f •'J ;Jtl.llJ mf4!m- fi A ou lm "tif. r11r 0'1'f-... •&= �1c,; f f,ific:J· ovmf cf? �1c rai ;J•1'aom• 011.f CD• 'I> 1-.·'1° fi aJIIJ CD• ;J If.Il) 0 f_�i· �� :=

}'.'}�· fla>• (l,:'J"r•q> flt\flA ODIJ'�•'P1 it.frocf> .et\OA'P & .:11 .e..· QA'P'} :r·:J•m- >i1..e.·:i·t1..· «f?C'I' hliirfl }i'}Y�'rt--1· .<! f. l.1 h'lf. lf� 'rti•1''i: �w- ::

2 ) h1 �,. flm• fl/l al/.ili· ftr � ,o-'} () a,- "'lll :i· h 1>ilt1·m· "h.f m•'I> 0'1.ll'l:"I: 1t:i·t.iJ,,_. .. ,.:t:r· lt1-'i.'L,._.. Y�l"la,. h1t li,� 'r-i-+r.: �m- c: 3)

h1f.tlrJ•?o 01\·Cf> �1�--1 lt'}f.{lll.:Pm90 11••em-,J•m- f(JOJ• 01/.ilT ..,. 'i> "" l\0 }, (1, ·I: .,V li '11 on {Il (IJ .e.. 'r • il,,,.. 'i1f_ }& 1 � li'� � ti,. ·I· ,;: } m• :z

APPENDIX

.. A"

299

��- 2a:51 T (2) f"'i.. 0.P 9°)11,.l1:,• :: ()l\.e. '1m• 'l?TC fl 3 ê1t&i '}}i ..iJ ,,�'r(; >.1f.. ·l"ovf\n--l..m• (}• t\• h'} f. '1' 't-T r "'1 .e I:» 'P {.. :,- ; 1

V) flA'i "'l.iJ•I: ·t·t\YJ?,1·m• /\on'ic: "l"illP/?u·l· m• h'Jf.. If�= /t ) flA r·w. fl°tfl1: l\.e, r a 'J,p,),f:1- ,,. 1nc flau&.�OD• Lfl1.. i'ê1 If'i >iJ f. II'� m .e. 'I° o A r·m• o CI?.il•I: I\ _e., °1 lj': ooP' t-1:"} 1·hl}1Î· fltl1tl.,Ç' OD'}1f.; llhC"lLJ' f)an1001: tl.i·r•'P'} 1" 'f>,f1 fao f 'Ï l•:i• (J 1Jh 'P. L'i&,."\1 () '-'1., <ID/, h:'J• Î't ,:• t,. 1-1• f tr� h 1 f. 1.1·) � m• :: 0

l ) A"} .P: m• Iltli "l 11"l O •fl m �9° fltll 1· oz lPl:i· n t-fl· Î'\t, flt.fJ• 11104!�'19 /'-' C },'}P,. ..J•. �f..C ()1-af../.. .. >it�·r me..'I° r1· mm-1 1\,1\ m-1 fJ m- 11" il·l·-'i-'i &�"I= 9"' 1.r :1- /\. t. 1-·s,u .. IDf Ç' h1"'I a,, :r· hhC � ,, 1 ,., f dl/..,11 fi + Il :, Dl/..1 ll J Il ID-'} i•"J{IC 111..ff,(D« /'1 ,:JllJ"t'i IJA 0'J .�• hlP6• C (}c);;J• o n r"'I/J-'i"l1'i"" tli·9°uc:r· i10 fou Qllm- r:Y:+ aamJ mfl cp'} 1•-'i f, /Jf,t..R·9 °t\+ r+l '1Jf. If� "r'i--1·'i: )m· ::

mil..

2) Il H. V• Il f.l1 m- 1-� t\i· 9 ° 1.e:r« Il P'A''l �.. P'C. f "ï "l•>i f.lm- fJ m- t,1 � 1---'ii:t· f f.l t'a fi:,- li11. lf� tif\/., )a,- :: 3) >1J-'t1J•r htLtJ• 1-�·"i· f-r�I>/ OP'AflJ�- m•il"r lf'i f 0'L l) 11111 Tw• t, w. 11 i\," fJ m• ".e of. lfi m• 1- -'l i:t· 9 n "} Y th1' fu �w. ::

APPENDIX ••A"

300

1,.'} f..• t, m• IJil1 "l ta K, &. 4> f: ft i· 0 t\ 1,n t.1: If J!,&. ÏfJf:Ili· c.· t.ft.oo'i"!if>•';-1r l)t/lldJI\�- fi. 'i"IC Il f. 111 01,.:( flf� m-'} ft\t\OJ•'} lim• ,1,111..:i· rm().� '11� 11'� 1''i-+'i: �m. t.. l.1 ,_...C,_.C f , .. :r· tG, Il °l : t.. 5 .e:· 5 01/ if. 2 h -IA lD «f?.

=�

r.:

ii'} t'1 to• lbt1� -:f- t'1?11· h fl. ,:Jt- ID-/A >, 1 Ji. f f.. C1-.. Îi/J ° " � 19 ll:\l\çi'l?>:f m QJ.. h 'l.ttf f. '1 tlrJfl•J h1i\?al\:1:mC1· ll"ltJ,11:t=t=m• h1f. If� 'l''tw"l"ç- �a>-::

1) J-11?: t"ltD• llo -A+ t'l?>"f oohh/A lD·/A oalj'�'} 'iif mip a,.A t1�t.1•i· i'1?'1· ovhhA b'}f.rm• lD1i ,:Jt- lbl\ m lA i'tt:C:1 + 1:'I° f�flt.m-'} lD•A l\oP�& ?° � '}f.."7 t:rA Yf..t.1 h1f.. lf� 1'4:-i'êJ �m- � 2) lltr1?° f ov�uo�f m- a>-A ·l·llJfi·ll� ·tltt- ftlil Ji(l,1::J" f°îf+Cfla,. 'l'il+êl m11 m-/l� h'l-'z.&.&9° iiil�l\1.m•; . r = = 1'1 :Pt 11 1 A., ;;:�:, '11f..C"l +c,r. '1 ·1 .f!. t � .eu f:\i\ fm ° +'P'P K, llJ..I\��+ iif.,111 f if,9 ::

}i'}f..• (J(l}e d1tl·l·êJ fllJ'� Ul/i1:J-a14!f m.e.'/° q>'} ACl·'î1 1·:l>t-% 11,r� 11"7'i=t= m-9° tbi\ o.e.�:,- 11 1..·t.. 1+ rt.1-�.; 1..·fi�i1 r rt- r,:t» ( /J � ) m_e, 9° rii "},: f 1 °l.f: CL :r- '!°&\ 0 0 r ilr '1.Ym4- il"Oi1·1· f Y-.t..1 h1f. lfi LPti,rêJ �ID-:: h?

t, 1f..• t'1 m- Il l t'1 a1 m- r 111/ t.. .'11tmJ. ;,A II m or- IlAht.'}. 01

m�� Ill\ "7�t.1-.. fh.JJ!: fA1·01t,� �7C 0•1:J- OD'i�1 I\ll-- i· t'J?>:y.. mJ!. 'r 11'l -'i 1�· Il /Jf..';f las,>l- h 1�.V9° � 1 '?

Al'i.' E NDIX "A"

301

01/19° (Ja,. If� 111\0 m_e9° {l:"f!A 1·'7�:r- t\t).,I\ fi� YA..I· hhft W/o fOl/il·l•f\t\lj': 'l'ti-1· h'}.')f..t.1 r 011.tan1t.m- ! 1J) 11}tC{)• m6>m•J rfl01Jw• m.e'J° ft"tim• flm• .e.uJ mfu Offl/ "' OI> } ll°tlP�OJ• I"'/.• 1-�:,-- f 0ï.r1·1,·a,. ontr �-1 sw,11 {D.e9° .,.,mèf> ftn/."lfl(D• flf� }i'}f. lf� T t\) llb\ � 'l° Y I'-' t.a,- 9"ti1Y:r· :i·nht\'1 m� ( OD/.1{) hJ-'t fl'P f0 t1 llm- }i'}f. If� �W. :: cf?. 2 it 6 0 T ( 2) A�� :'f· :: .. ill..P, m 1) .eu'} YA ..l·l1ht\ o,?a f {)m ilm• n11,11m• ,n� '\.f. r O'/ :Î-A f t\ovb".A OaDt\•'} 1 1� tJ.�:J·?1=t:1 fla,. rti . on u� �-'} 1·1\ :J" ID-'} (1 on 'i" 1 C /\ J l. O• fim• 1i1 f.: F't. mf.. 'I° h9°�-l· Wf,'I° 111111 mJ!,9° f.}"lf.: {J:}> h1JtY·1:-ti Offl/ fl·n h.e:·c11r h 1 ..e. rr� 111\,{.�:'f· f/\n:r·9° 0

2 ) t. vJ1 � r iTD "l11 filiJ. .41 t\• 1 o R· t11- � ti .e:·c1 t-fi· hAt.. l.. 00 ll 4>C lii\��T l\.. ool\ h"l·to· h!,7Î'IA'J° ::

1) '111: �1 c ODt.,Koo-'} m f,'I° Yt\ out. Koo•'} ro.er t.11: n ll 9° m r · '1 t..? 1 "'l . r ?on 'i t\ 9° œ y r, h f: t-1 + oo 'i?-1 {. f\t J. �• tJ' oD lit\ 'i: "lm C :J h e1- f�m•T f?1'ilnc�:i 'A SJl1· 'i":1: m- :: 2)

Î'lf\ ,{.� :l':1= OJ• 9° fii t. ;J "l ,n-:i· 1 n lD•� 1· ..eG\ V'� :l'A �ID•�..,. ;;,: Il "'Ion1 Îi "} f: � "lC /\ 1P ?- � y,:f. � OJ• ::

APPENDJX "A"

302

'11..

9"lin�=t: _e,,u·} y.e.1.1-:i· ot1 An•ç.,. :i· "'}-'i,1 ()• llf..t.�=r-m• "tD- f\f, hi) f•f•mo�J> �OJ• ::

a: 62 T

�TIC wf.,,9° f J--af.t,.

Jï} .f.." �œ- l\t\l\ m• llm� 1'4-1-r t.J!,.f.l\'r

,P..

(i: 63 T

{1/1

0D .C' 1f

:,,A,

sr· tic

r1r� >.1� u·� 11;,. r"'l +l ..O 0011:J':1:(Dc

lift oniJm :,. ::

ll�'P mf,r t.�t-- Q/l(l}c

.. f °7. ·i Il tD•'} 6-'S fi "7 iJ h� �· t\ fi 11 >i � t\ .. l1 t;: a, 6 ·1 t � li t1 A t. 11...A 1\, '11 f1A h07.1'11D- 'J"} H•n ;, t- i•ODJf}f � J'A.If) h'i! .'lll �1C. hil&.i\1.i /J.e tr'} r/JI }t"jf. lf� 'P't•T'1 im- ::

,f?. 2 'i): 64 T f �C.1.." '} i·>"tJf 11 llfl ouJ.� 9° :: 1) t.15!: C,:C:J!: 1,ilt.?i 07.. >s'i:m- raa1m• f'f:C-'." ID-°!� :'f-bn t\'1 i'trPt..?-'l r ..rn ( i-:c9°) hlf� f"f-omm•J i·'t.11,-1 flt.. &" r 'ft;.. ..,. 'l 1, .e f../\ 'I° :: 2 ) �"lC "}'} .:J·>at·f tl" hf..11) '1ID• itlP 6· ,: f:.S:C9° ID-6/!i flf� }.'}� lf� : (Df,'/° t;:C�" hilt.?itll/.tD- hTa. mm- :i•htf1f rll6 • . C aJJ!,'I° i•hJfH•'} ,11°1} '11l01Jhl1C rt.. Koo }.'}f.. If) 'P4-t-61 �m- :: «f?.

2 Q. 65 T

fit\ �{; ;J ::

1111..· ti m- n n" ,,, t• :J• � •·1: m 1.. ,,., n J.!. c;, 1..111 -r-A ;;:b\ 11 fl0 li. t1 t-. TI C 'P�.1� r- 1tf,.f. Il'/° ::

b � iJ .,,c

t1 'i: A 2 :: t,'Pt{. 1r.err1 ""� /Jfl ovu'J :: cf?.

2 il: 6 6 1)

T J-1 fi 6.1\ 1. U•i; :J. ::

iï} f.: li m- t-.fi."} mJ!, ?° �1\ ro-'} u .0 1: "} m f.. 'J1' fi\,,'\ m-1 fi W• U"0 :,. Il C °l "r "·� C il O �· h°7.. :f. A h 1.. � fi "'l � "} il h,'\ -

APPENDIX

hA (IJ\,i\OJ• fim• ht\ t, f,, If c,·A ::

l\.e

"A"

303

If� ·fl/\ 1-�:1- .Vf..lflO=J· 0

2) �1C CIJJ t1f..t.fi.œ• 1•-'i"I: fl�lflfl1 • flm• 'P • 1-i c,· ?°t)'}y:1• 11 '} f.. If� it l\ fu � ·1· J;.f {/llfl} ?° :; ,�. 2n:61

ntiID• t.hA l\.e.. 1-�:i- ili\

111.:1.ô

.r:

= (1) OD,J.Jt.•r: ==

1 ) 1,J fi<»· tl lP t-m• P't-. n lbi\ nm • t1hA lfl hJJ-1.. !f� ht\6, �w- ::

i\.e..

1.�:i·

.r f..

2) tltf19° = .r.uJ 1·-'i:'f· Yf..l.flm• l''t- fl,11°1 ri·&..4 1' r:J•1111 h '} .e. If� m .e� 9° ,,.. t-m • f,,.. &. ?i unm• t- lt 1 t\ O"f �J 11 °'L 1 tJ il. ti i\ hA >i1' .r.. 1r � m .e 'I° f... ai '1° t.f.. ;Jm• /\. r. c fl r ;1:flm• ll1•fJ."î- rrt,.:J· 9 u hJYi· •n:J = ),1-f.. lfi nt,�·1.,.1.m- f\(', • fflJ'i T OJ• 9° hi\ 6, �:1- h .e.. C: fl n :,.. 9° :t 1

r..

Îi1J?.: fiœ• fiP7"C.:J· F't. flon/"�t-.;'J· i\� /ifi !lt·Lti• "hrt7" ci· 1·h1-.?:1 r,,·�m-·t cn ..e'F' "l"UDt:\t1 =f:1 11.1,1�/J/\w• flîr7" Ci- ?1 t>"Cl}-=l · fll1/..ont\hi"m•1 f..1•fl 0 °1A?." t1All)O m .e... 'I° r 1· '} ho A P' Ira 11 A &. � ou '1 11 C. fi li i\ 6. � :, hK, m � ê/ 9° :: �

1) t.J?: ôm• r"'l..�.�.q .. a1.e9° aoC"Jl rai,r�- '11f/lJ01J:i• 11/"'t• t6TJ =1= :i· m r. cr h � 1· '1 1-A o i:t· I\ ,r, n Ol/ '11 A w J!.. 'I° n 0 f (1D t, i•; ? J!. Ytam• r tb {l, :1- t oo?'uac. ,1 0D11 c :i :i· a, r 1· &.'r � OlJ An 11 ov 1t œ ir ,D f, 91 n ·f 1 taf, t, � 1 '1 r lf� r h 11 f.. ,,'J fi "f, m· 0 "'" rt mt1 P' .e . .e.· t '1}) · o 1 ·t -�-il :i t ,µ t Yf..l. fi 1 .. e.If� r ft f.. l. fi t»· 1·>-i ;'J· ln i\ tf, .e U' ',' A ::

n n

"'ln

2) .e111- h11.u fll\ ..P, i'"f--OD/\h1·m·1 1•-'l:'J· .Vf..t.flm· O§iJ°ll"' OD I"' :,v t. f,. '" l"6 '} f" fIJ A l t\ :1·?11 n.rr, w .P.9° .eu P ' 6• ll · -· h -lD 'f fl (]D ,J r C: 'l' 'l? »• t t\ ff t.� 0,:1. 0.1J'1?'° � h11.U fll\.e. f-111 f, ?i 'i' A ::

APPENDIX

304

••A"

"J :: , f,. 1, 1A . :; , : 'I f " h 2 l. 1: T /ID fl 0 ) 7 ( th. 2 a, '114- i" flt.11·1· IJAlf� ll+C 11.fLi• lltr�•'T 111t.-r-:Y. ti_e nt.f.;J 9'1h1Yi· ff.t.ll ODOf\ifi· "'"��:r-1 h1ovf11'1° :: ,f?. 2 il: 71 h1tii'J?>'f flf../.1•!'f- "Jw�:'f• f°7.nna, hl\L�:i· 1 (1) f}1J ta ilm- Il t\ O.+ :: f'11Y: h1/Jta Ot\U11i· h111: .,,_�1:1 ,,r f.t.fJw- ll.f."11:'f· llaJJ9°1l'1'9" 0.trJ 11.C,:JA ,Jw,fJ� !A:J•fJOœ•J� 1·>i1· t.f:ct, U:1� f,U h1iJi'JtD• flf.t..fJm- 1·-'îi· htitl �m- ::

I) h'l-'i.o -9° h1J!: /Jm• ll°I.A .:r,J,oo- 'tt1Jt!m•1tm- fJt.flc n1f1,f!�T tD-il1' f0l/.."1·'im• fihl\ {Jw- h11i· (J�C& >i_ë. l]fl(l.i• "l.11. l\�t.{Ja,. 1·�T Ît'l6, )lD• :: 2) >t1-'i.rJ•9° f..'? cF >.,llt,m-; Ob.t-.e mf,r ll"t-m-t, mf,rr floom(li}> Wf.'1° /tOD«fit\11: w.r.. r J!. °l'i° Il "?C.rtD-9° t\,l\ o.e�:i- o-�:J- f·f-t.hfl I Ot-& mfl4!�·1· m•il'J' ,,r1tœ. 1t1ilt, 1·-�i· llf..1./J "lf·L ht\'l! fOJJ..11,�m• .e.liw• 'h"}fli'J n>i:( f 01.11· m- Ilm- )m• " 3)

«k. =

h1J!.: h}ili'J 11:J·111r�+ f•l'lhl1 Wf,'I° ftll1'l1111: m.e'I° fa 1\,f\ ID• /J ID• f°7., lPt- l) :,.. (J lD- 1 }i 1 iJi'J ID- ff./.. {J QJ- 1-� T flCfl• 1'1-i· hAU') 0 'l>C hl\6' hf.11'1'1° ::

2 if. 13

(3) rt.." '-�..y,.1. '? '}•�� :,-

1) r>.,�tim• fllt.0011:i· >.1fJ1J • m 1-�+ ff.t.l'it1:r-J 1·n-�.e hh� O�t\ f1i1'1/Jm• mfl4! f�Ot.œ-1 t1m• i\.n1.e+a,. _e ':1" I\A :: 2 ) h'l � '1 m- 1•�i· ,.'! f..l. fJ. OJ• fi fit\ u11"f: 1' �. m f, 'I° fi b' fi' i· h"'-� :r· m• Il 'P o °1.1• >i .r. 1. w- Ill\," 11 w- T4, :i· 1, Arr� n +c = OH.U 9°h1Y:'f· Yf..l�Oi·'} h.''tt.. flOD•A· )i'})touA/ll):,• fllfl"I! r�nt..m•·} ,1a,. l\oomr+ 1111,n+ hltlD• ::

A Pl'ENDIX

" 1\., 305

1) rt,(l}« Ji1A:JJ�, r,r� f(l,.:'f• 1'1flft fliht\ flœ• u,o:r• l\e 1" ,'i :i· .e 1.l. li >t 1 � 1r � : f Il (J h11'1 fi Il t\ Il,:,.. f lf� QJ• (1 � >&1 fi /J (D• "} :·•'i-l· t\.e..1..t,11:i· flm• ft\«f>rf1 }t'}f. u.. � ht1t\.{.�•1: l\ OD•'i 1- .e 1· i\ A :t 2) 11,. lf '}?'° '11llt,m• 1 ·-'ii" Y.P..t..flm• lit.fi• Lf'4.:,. m.e'J° 01'1· 0 li P'A flJ 1 P' C. '1.. ..,. >i.e..l. m• li œ• 'r «i-i· h u· � "l '} f, u [Jl),n:r- Ji.ec:t..m•9° :: 3 ) fn,:i- h1 liff ':'t: ç fl1i· li t-'l! t- 1·il l\ a,. r 01/.1� ,11 ?-:r· Il J!.. l'IT mJ!,'J° h�h« 'f'c}>9°'} t\lPJ°li'T }.'}f. rf•t\rrDf.OJ• f,œs flfl/...f'ft ..;t=m• c;=t=� :: {IIJ

1) f>t1(11Jm• m'14! ( '11..ç:) f'"i.1f.�m- 1·-'i1: h1 fJ t, m- ll � n 1.. m• oir:r· Ah 11 :,1: �m•

11..e.1.fln:r· 1.11.

2) lf'i9° f�l.tllD· ·1->;:r· f1{1,i• }t'}t,,-,,; fl(1.:'f• Jit-'e1· YA If� 1'1f. tr� m.er '1•>i•I: 11&-fl• w.er nt-fi• Jii\tl�i· P'C fi °7.,11·OJ• t,m- 'l'«i.. i· r .. ..,&. ?i t7D '11f. If� t\h'} fi '1 a,. n1f14! T1>if.·�·l· wt,1 fltlD•<r ::

) f"'l.e.14>1tcf>lJ 1,nt..i· 11/tfl,T ft\,t\ ftm- h1flffl- fl"'if, '} 4' lt 4> ft OJ• 111t..i· ·111 ·I· ID• 1•-'i;I. Y 1-l (J. li i· h ·tf. V'� illl f.lrllli· r>i:'f• t\.ht../tOJ<i f"7..10(D•·} h."i� tlf1t\h•n1= l\f, hhh.+llA �:l.fl 1i1ttfi1·1 ODf"'r t..r:,:1 n>ai. /L!'�.e �'fl\A ::

2 ) A1Ji�u•r- h>i1ttt,m- oir:r· {llJm1 n/\.e. rir �ar .,. 1-�:r ta CP/ ,� <f>l :,- }i1t, 1J (D• '} Il oa °l f.. /,\ li ft1.. fl.. If1 >,'}Il(I:,E '} ft 00 °1 f.A 00111- t.flm - =2

fi"·

APPENDL'C

306

"A"

u-t:J·v>:f· ltJ ,111.e. 11>11i1ta:i: Ot\rt i· 111/h 3) fJv..f\1: 0 } :J•m if:, .e. 1 n 'PA nt\ LL"I= " ? 11.rm• ,,) œ• t\ari ai�)·i· r "'l. ::1:A 11 :1-1 t. iJ &. "1. m•1 tl'J Y.: 1.. ai l'i II li:,- :: Jt,:1rr, ai1.

., · 11.e: ,l11� ot\u,11:i a1f}j'J flt\�11;1· ,l11�a,- l\.,rf.clJ • . •e."1"· " A rf-·(l Il-- , A :J tz 11 ,_.. '} 1 , . r � 1 C ll. y,. c: r, 9'1 f, V dl "}� noi.v ic�w- ·1-�:r- ti1tt1, �m-

=�

° : 2) ,l1 '}�m-'} fr.1•t.fD•'j m.e,9 fllJ.IJ J1"}:{ OJ•il4T t'<fl/.1.)"m•·} m.er .eu ,l11� llf:lflm.- 1-�:1- t,T6' f lf}m.; �m- = flll fi fi, •I: .rIlaJ• f ODli) r ,}> oo ,n :,- f .,,.{Il fi 1> � ar ::

fd11�{D• l]t\(l,1· .eU"} fL1:'} 1"�:i- t\f.l�n:i· (lm- fft'P'P > i• fl h'}f. u � hltitfu�"I: œ•6J!' 110011·1 _e,. +i\lA t:

2 ) li. If"} 9° 1-�•I: r .e.l t, m• >t fic b• (}.. (1 f- l 1 lD• .-p4- :r· OJ.e '}° l.Cfl• 11/V/All}�- P'C llOT/.flJJ!."lOJ• (lm- .-p1.+ hlf� .e1J 0011:i· t..e'i/..(l)·'F"

hlbl\ flm• '1:1- ''/!, 1··�:,- .f.�Cll11c;:A 11l\<O r 011.w;J t1m·= fllU f'1P'"lc rtr)lO• ,l1"}� IJ(l a.:i- ,.f;U 1·-'i·l· llOD�·lfl.. fl.l:'f• f,{),f» ,.-. '11> f,?''L W• �•,c: }."}�_W1,,�•l\i" /ifJ.&.fl1_.tT,•"} > 1 � :J '/! 7,·1 .&;.Yf.. c 1 t\. ,11.e ,1, 1:,n ..n •l· 1, f\ a1• == 0

Oiï}�• ,l,1� ID•il'f' r r''l.'ïC tlm• iJtlU ,l1 '}� ,u ra,rf.,f? fit), f\ œ- l\.e. 1·�:r· n °7. .. (lf.c fl•:'f· 1· "} +l'J :J'7i. '11�·:;� t. "� �m- :;

A PP EN DIX .. A"

r h '} f:

av h, 'i"

307

t' h1.� fi I\ '1° ..,. C: ·l·7i h Cht ( t\ fi. ;'J· ] flf� li (lJ• iif.;J lD•'} .r .e.1. ,1 œ- .eu·} ooh.'i" (l J f,?° f, U'} 0 ft'1° •f' C •f•7i h C JJ& ft DT/ 'J cf> li tf> /) OJ J!,. 'J° t\ lTD '} >i i• {] A •f• t. cf> JI f.ft-1•9"' li (l}• fl. lJ '} � 1l-.\ on li.,.. lD • O J.e?° '11\ q0 1•c ..,-1; ti r.lJttD• llf..l.OiD• "1•>i·1· l,t\t, r"'Lrr�m- llt\U•n·I= �m- ::

fl. lfJV° h.e..,m• llf.l.fl 1.lf. o0h.c;m. mf,?11 1·7il1Ch tœ • Ill. cf> Il :r- {\UV IJJI �- 0'1 ill>i:r• \7 :1=1\ �1 � 11'� (]t\U•fl•I: Î'tf\ fu� :i · I\ tl :i· ?° ,;

r-�

if?. 2 [ 82 T 1)

OJ J!,. ,,-

(2) (11 {]4! OJ f,9n

'.,, ,,.,.�: ,. LA•

••

h1-'i. lJ•?° ooll.'i lD· '} a, .P..'/° (]t\'l°i"C ·1·7ihCfJtw•'} I\CIJA IJ 0) fif. (D• fi ID• 'P ip ou-- Il.11\1 A O i· 'i" 1\. m4, � 0 :rOAfi.'i" m.e'l° llft'l0 --l·C ,,.·iihC}J&OJ• flh)f. ll 0'l..1·f.fl-1• "LtL t\f.t.om• 1·-'ii· ""� �(D• ::

= .{',

2) hUPh.'i"tD• mi.r 1Jflt\'fP-tC .,.·nhct·1tm• ,,,t. CIJ'}"f.�·l· ° il tt. I\ ,1,·1 : aJ .r,9 11 Il i\,t\ fi m- 1,, 'i 0D t1. Y ft <D• :J· ,1 TJ ° 1.,Pt-fl:r• ..,.,,. f,IJ 0 :h&m-r7il1c "·l·C {3flfl'l 'i<D-- ml',9 • 00h� Ç' m .e 9° ll Il 'l° ·I·C ,,,...li }1 C t,&m• .,.. .c� :i· y f.. l. (J ID· fi&-fi· iit\� '1'4-i· 9° h "} .V-l· hAtr� fi '11 C t\ f.. l fi OJ• 1·-� '1f.lf19° ::

·1r

r n.

f. 1 .f..: 1· 'J ,,,. •li� fi :'f· t\ lL Il • (D t h . C 1i ,. ... m h (1 llli '111 ,,,.. on 'i' hh1P ll�ft mfJ'I! f� 11 l 0,-1 (la,. n h."it-m• l'i li '1· &. A n1 _e.. cf> m• f, -:f" &\ ::

� 1 1: f f.. .. 9° f, ro &2) hfl• t.� 11.e..lfJfD• 1-�:r- 1 ''i,:1- hAlP 1· �: 'l l. 1• f.. fi · m l.. • f. li m � .. , ,,t . , "' l f fJ l t, aJ. IlC� P'A flJ 1 li� 1J l\ {1D -', 'J h 00 · ·ft 0 t �l .' n t\i• h Arr� flcf>C fh&./ilD• m fi(� W• '} fl l.fl> fil r ,}, tJ1111 i· h "- (D• 4

APPENDIX

308

«J?.

Btt

f "'f•7ihcn&911 ·

011;, ,ti.

v-t\!'J· llt\'1°1·C i•"lihC'1�$111· t'J. ;JtJ,è >-Y1-'S1� 1·7ihCht! o r t- fi• it1 -�- oit"} J¾. I\ J!i, it f..'.'J >i 1>. ,. t. � f,, ,,:. ,11 t- A ::

.,fli• ,J·7ihcll& -'î1-'¾ OJf,'J° lllif..;,0r hl\� 0/lU 1t1 t\f ° .r :r· h f: 1. Il lD• m � QJ• li QJ• Il t, f.., OJ• 9 1·-'î i· 1 °11. t,. J av &.A Ji t\ li :'f· ::

,,? .

"A"

n '}

rir

+""

f,O t.f..:i ff:t.�m- IJ·l·l\f, mf,,,r nmcl1 1\l\m• nt.11.ç: w oun.c; �:{ il,h1"i· nnlf�- ll"'lill.:tf f"l""ll\� h'Jf. lf� °l'J ta Il u fi il .e .r fim• .e..1.,n J-1 J!,?. c,· 9° :.

:,-c:�

t\"'l"l·�·:,. fi.A /J:J 911•'} ftll/.1Pt,.c; t�llU�- il:11Y1"f t\tl11111 r 0'l Y+ C. •lJ fi OJ• li /J:J> 91 :,E 11 '-"i.. 1 li fi.m4> VU Il =1: a,. O�I\ flm• l\f, '1·-'i!'J· Y.e..1.1- 'hJf.. •r� Jil\"' �a,.::

fl.lf 19°=�u /J:J> OA"'l� 'h.Jf.trf/.f.t.1œ- i·OI>C9°f!' Q.1rJ 'i[!> 1•-'1 "I: '} y ,1nrq a,. ,.�-I\ :,- ,, .. ·1 À� fl. :J· (D ip r °t 1'" A htr� ?°J'I° hl\611�:,- fl\11"1"9° ::

2 it R 6

ht." � � :,- m• 6e, 11"

011

rr1 ::

llh1fl/J!'J•: llif11�9':f c ( 11'1TT) fJoun.c;.?>f m.er llfll\ 'l°'t- C ,t-7ihcti&!'1-:,: m_er 114-·rl6JJ 1·LPC1·m• llmm-1· �1c�l- ?°h'l!i· = t.r..,"J IJ'-"i..&.mco:i· w.e'I° OUIJ..f.(:ilfl-r > f Il. 1,. it I\ u? :.1·• foiz.. Yf.C."J lD• fi 91 T h 1-'i 1: 1'4-:'f· "t ;,, Y" f.1.1- on rrc;=,=m•J °1 r, t. -'i :,- w J!, r r 1--'i 1: 9° 1.<1 :,.. l'Jf.:J·aJq, IJ 00 t}>t.:'f· lDf.9° 1·-'î--1�'} t\Ol>hAhA h11·A9° c 01 f, cr 1-->; 1: rf.t. fi,,>.. nt\./\ 'I' /J 1· ,;: w ·11 1l 4-:,- � m· 'n·A tJhl\66�:, ,0(1• IJ"'lilt.-'it- 1-�"f: 01!.lt'IO!'J· flm. ft "'19° t\� >. .e ·:;. ft· y- ::

�n

1,.<; ,,J: r f.t.t,m. llhfuA Wf,9° (JOD•i\- ht-11-'if,. 1'4-·r f'i" J O �U/ DfJ �• JJA rf• t..'.'J •Jf(} lltJ>C l lhfuA9° (f� 1)0D•{t,t hlil\6, � "f: ft un-'i "} 1t f.1·· ft· 9'° ::

APPENDIX "A"

309

it1 J.!." �,c llftfbi· m�9° n10,f! fU'} ()m. 6.(). 'l''i-i· ht\f. l.1 m.e. ir lJ 6• o- h t\ fu � :r- a,. {l tp f''l ,,. �f.c ()m• ti t\ ,11-.. fJ +c htl U O l\.e. Il ft·i· 'i?'PC'°i: hi•ovAh 1·m• itll1·Yri· "l•�f. nt..t\�..�:i- i'tf,111rït,r m•6Lb

ntr�

m.e,r h1fl"1 mf,'J° ,,e/lm•'i n,1,'? O'n•A?° ti�

h1�-r»:i-� .. 1) 1..�1:1 JJf.t.llm• h.�1i1

ai1� m .er lbl\ �1c "11"��:rtl (J• 9° hf\ fu � a,. h .., . ,1 Il lD• () a,. ,;J 6 - ...� q> OJ· Yfl U• f al/./\ (D• (lm• ht>'"L ('lf�.. �-,�-:,:1 l)ou�mc mf,'1° 01t1fl/J9'1:�;. ro f, 9° '1 th'l �?1 :f m .e:.'r IJ lb I\ � 1 �1· fa 01.f.C fi· 1-� ,f.i• f }it\6,�:r-1 f..1111· ()OD'f''f,i) h1'1t\6,�:r i\OD�') Jif..":Î•IA'J° :: 11

2) ,i 1-'z. u n w� 1.H. -,.� ..,= r °îY F..cl'I m- �1 c f..t. 1m- ('tD·/A f..'}11 ODLPli" �m- ::

r 01t.0Dt.m-

01·

'11�.u-,- m-A 11.f.'iC9° lt"}\;I, 1-�1: fli•1..l1 "l.tf. llftU 111: mf,'J° mfl'i!tD• h.1 � 1'f 9° '1Y1:� fllt1i1'1m• llih 1 �m- m f.. 9° n lb" �1 c 1,1 ta1 A r � ,1 1. m• fJ m• c 1t, il /J w• c ih1�m- wf,'J° t\,t\ �,c ll"'lYf.cfJm• 1-�:r- fitft��:r-1 f..1111" m+fl ftouht-hC Jif,1·/A'I° �

2 )

h1�.u nrr�

"Lt·J. 'ftf.+ JJl\�l1· lli\U,fl'I= m.e,. 'I'' ni fJ,f!OJ• h,.t., �:,- f Il 11:1:m•9° ::

••A"

APPENDIX 510

f h ''i

( lJ )

t. h 4- t . A 'i

°l A &·

f If �-

h ::

1� .li -t'·

l· ::

(louf.(l• 01·-'ii: 9ph1 Yi· Tll>if• r"thlPW- t\1--�1: 1•onJf If� rlf� h.Uft- fl(mh&.IA

�CD- ::

ft,9> :f ��:,- ,; fV'iJ1•ï;: llJ"J'}

00,n,r-1: ,,,.� ..,.mn'I? lf�lD•

O"l•>i1: h.Uft. 4-1:J- mf,'J° llh.Uft.œ• 111\.e /\1--'i� h .. 1'it- >i1�_ 1,,1 mJ!,'r, t\'1·>i1= mt,1 ll"'l�-.:t.°l ith&.t\·1. flfi- )1

e l1 li• n·

.e, 7f l

" ou n f ...} ,::j." n..

t\�t.o m• "l·>i:'J· Îtt\fu av1J> �- n,"h°l r :J·o1+m• fla,. r°lh� t\m- r1-- -'i :i- 1,.,, itf\fu�-i: 1 y ovllJ� 1--'i .e. 11-1--11-'ir.

h�t.i'Jœ- 1--'i:'f· ,;Jt. }in-A 11''r ooovtt,11 ttt\nt- ::

"r,

t\m�fu:'f· /\.�Cil f.:f·t\A 1·111\• f 0'l.•1ou·i·tIJ• "1'->i1• r1·l ;J1n1 11. tr·} C >,hh.t.?.9° f..•1..r, 2111-f t\.1J�ll� f,1ll1A ::

1J.e,,1n+

APPENDIX

,J!. 2 a. 93 T

"A,.

J;fi..t.1 ll r1 o ..,.. n -'i.e

31 1

1) ·l'fl•'if.. �f..t.,1()0:,· 1"-'i'T h .•'tl� ,,J.tth&.t\m• .. 11 îi-t.'}IJ fJ 1 09° Aîi·t-1� '11-'iA.10 t1m• u-n.· t\f.t.fin: i· 1...'):i• t\{IDm r L}> � 1·1t A

ti:,,

2) hâ·t.'J/) hJ!.:t-1.m- '1l1tï:t\t\1J• 1)(1° 01fllD• rt-.îi-t.. "}ô· m·IA ODZP/. ·1· r li 6..t\ a,-, r la 71:t..1 ri h.•'f t. J', tJ1 1...-'i :,- h .e.. fim• t\.e llt-fl• il'/° IJ''f "'l'i=t=m•'}'/° h.•''lt. /lm .eè/> h f, 9fA. 'I° ::

t.nm«

3 ) �1 C '?'} r h Û·t. 1 i) ID-/;\ Î'1 J!: t. "l.,(D« {\ f. t.. fi m• 1·-'i :,. h" /.. h t71f. lf � tD• fi m• f\ .e f 1 ·1· 11 >if.. il 'J° ..,� •'i t.1. lr'i f 1" Il -'i i 7 0D ,n ,f 1: f ao ,n r iJ, 1-,· A r11 "} "1 �.'r1. m• i't (} ,1 'l° t\ov 'P cp1A .e-:;.. f\ A 1

.. ,._

1} "1'0-'if.. flf.l.'111 :1- 1·.li:W· ?"n1Y·1· or1 t11&.r rOl/.cf>fJ/A h1.e. lf�: OD(lltf }11f."'/�<1 fl/;\ fi.a,• O•i\• t\f.l.f'lfl�• 1•-'i:'f• °I t. t\ 0D m rL}> .e l-tt A i: 1

2 ) m· t. :l" rai h �A /J m• ., .. n1cp � ".e f.t. ô w• 1•-'i :i· 9" 1/:'J· llT1�.m- m•t.:J· rJoPTiiC. fl· ,n-1.:J•m•, llDDti&.&\ Y.� t.fim•J f "1--'i:I. 1-"t• r 6.?.ova,.J fia>- Ol/'i:,= m•'J9° h. ''i t .e h i{ t\ � •n t\ 11 t. � il r "· lll .e, ,,, (D• tif, 1·A 9° :: 0

3 ) h . Il� ., f.. ;J b• (l (111.. .r /J .,,.. /J fil. (D• '? '} "�:� :i· � h1.,V :i· fl ..,.fl � f.. /J'I° ·t--'it. "l. lf'f f1'11-'îf..1 oo,n:i· t\.t11f,,}1 .e,-..'f l\lA 1•-flll" t, /J«f> J!:'l° t\ av iJ a, O'/ i· �;1·:'l A ::

!-·

2 a: 95 T

lit\ qo:i•

it f.;J _ ( 1} 1,,-'i 1.e.· r«l c•n 11{1ll P..1· Il�

ht\:-1:O J• OD•fl,f :f

APPENDIX

312

"A''

rr�m•

()oo'l·�1.&1 t.•11.: 11°7..f..Cilll:t:a,. 1·�+ JiUf /tonm 1,l-1111• �

2) iJt\ H.tJ 1·-'ST r 0tht.t\lD· hllf 9°"1111 ( ,,.,.,.��C'}) O on fl mi· 'iaJf."'l.f..l."llD- m•t.:J· r OJJ,(\t)', o.e�+ 1'tr'i&\ :: = m• ' t = fOl/.n1f,cJ: ffODp.-q. O.tïIr 3) t1/Jii·:1; tJ,t\·fl 1i l-'t'1f!l.�t» :Pm- 'ia'J�: f,1J llr"/11 1.1,: floo{ll&f f°tlPflJTCD- Il°! f.'IO=f'PA ::

tf?. 2 ü: 96 T - (2) t\,/i

f1SJ19f ::

lbftoi- ,191:f. i'1f.�' ff..l()fli• '1m- f,,l.�=f-m• mf,9° Yfli' .es r.· t.=1=m• >i 1f. � o 1. 0.11. .. 11 °lm• >.1� = 11 ,,.. n � f. I\ f. n � t.'1m« r'l°+ Jif.,:J 9° h'l! n1•1 t-la=f-t11- il?° tr�m. "'lt;ï m-Jr n."it- t1Lo1f,t1? hJ!,9:J-. ll·f" == ,J?. 2 ;i: 97 T c/>J /Afl•Ç :: l)

t\f.l�tD- 1-�T f"'l.. h'.t\m- 11 1'1 ll+'l A.fl•t; ,,,. !11t-t Il If �m• ti�:\1 IL ,11 r-r, hfi. 8:f-A. 'I° ::

2 ) +ll�f. li "7111-'PA. O.IPb' tïC: rf..t. 11 n :i··t r� :i- tt.f '?. J . f..a, Wf.9° t\.Y4'�lD• f"'l.l-lA 11.U "} r llf.l'1 n+ ?-�:r OD m J fi oo• 1\- t1 ''i I\ (Il) m f«}> Ji� 8:(- A. 9'° ::

lJ1•fl.�f. l\f. ff.t.'1m• 1·-'ii· 1111�/r t1111 t,.(}. T�T }.J,e. "' IJ � t\ ..,. 11-'i f. f Dl/..h"·t\ aJ• f1"-'i :i· JJ "/ lJ h ,{. I\• il :r �m- :J

2} f .. J•-'i"I: 1J''i IJ).'J1ui· 11\ u-1;1• ar>l)p . f"t"lOlD• ODlf)· 00 m).J /l on m,1·} fl..l1flQS'11■1' o-1:l-91T o-1\•: lli't\t9° r�T },J.&;_f. c fi Tti-1'•:i: f1- () fl �IIT 00,11 '} 't.'Jf. ri. 0-9° r�11. u '} 1,4,...y.':): rr111�1�=1=m-1 tifl-'·�+ O(ll)"JUD:'f·

�m-==

APPENDIX "A"

313

I ) fP't.m•'} 'r�--+ t\on•1on:'J• fin/ .e ·:;. A llœ• hl\t:,�i•J rai Y {)h+A ,,., 1,. �fi'fP r-1·1·�- �1 .r. rr� n ttu• 1->; .e /\ e . itil"f'.fr+ >i1-tt.r..1. d1n-1· c·l•t) ti.Y1111:1..· >i7f-"i"· l\ h4'.À . r ai1 om•1 r t11'/m. "} A av mfi1 .e :1:/\ tt· ::

2 ) /) t\ If.U -'i 7f':'f- f11l i· 'i1':'f-"} 111 l :1- V•>.. :J• 1 ?11 : }1 '} f.. flU• 9"° Il -'if.1 lJ "t n on)J t . I\· f °1. "C il fi i· '} r-'ii· "'I aolf ,,1 J-it\fl=f a>· :: cf?. 2 a: 100 T - (2) fflt\_e. i•�fi1f :: J ) 11 -'i..,t-�-lL1 ro � '1° (J :J· J 11f �:'J· r 1· °l li C + 1 (l) :r· ri ai i· 9° TI J Y i:t· 1' 'f··f•;;:(De 1' 4-1: 1 '11 �.. .<.fi• ?11 1t -'."C1 �- fl °7..1:� n -1· 1«tt. 11 c :'f· b ( li t,1n 11 J n 'Il«A t. r.1,;"-..-:. ,r 'f fJ.1:,i 1 >i?f1: rti"fm-1 An t\onwti1 .el·/\1\- :: 2) t\H.r.J-9'9 �1C >;i;1· foo:J·111t'1 1--10.�-l· tfYl�il "'11'1·1 001 oo + lift li:,:a,. ::

1 ) 1\. �l1 11· li "'1 f, :1: 1\-- li;,l1J "t ,,. i:J• 91:f. 9° TI1Y+ f1'l. l1 lD• 1·�+ )iflhll.U tir,: !Il �1C Yhh:'f·"A --f'111l- Ot.'ttf"C: :i � rc = 1 1r ,t rf1 •m r:J l �O f. >.J ,, A lf · fll'lJ 1 "lr:i l\.:19ti1 f fl l\� h :'f· � 1U Jl t\ · 1 ?; � : tl. 1. f� l 11 • : U•):.;I f"'l.1h11.:1 {ID (D li ; /\ · lD t\ 1i 1i h n A / '' h � w- fi OJ• lLh �A r "'l.1 _'1 ID"1 f ,,1· 1-tfi· =: 2) '1f\L�1: r 1.ll'llD• If� -nl\ hi·f.l1 'f4-:'f· f{}IJ�QJ. rrr� 1A I"' IJ H.. Il 1 If O.. :r· '} h'} � If� °l1 11 tll/ 'i 1:1: CD-1° 9° t, f ::,:w- l\. lP?.11 :,- li� l- ll· 'I° :: 0

��

APPENDIX

"A''

314

: : :1 � & .,? 1: .: r t. I. : '° 9 "1 ll T /I 2 ) , 0 (4 1 a., ,f!· 2 °

1 ) illl 1-�-J: 9 1 ftJ/A h.. •J/t• >a 1f. 01. h'i=IA li i·hbA floam r t 11 1 yAi" :Fil >i 1 f. � = "'1r:1: r�1�:1:J -1-t. u->.:J·si1f 1r; T1o1f.m•� y �l."IOJ<,1 �r1 :J•'k t10Ptf 1J�m- 00 0100:,• rn. V/t-a>·1 � b oc:r·b !,mile; Il· :: 2) fi/\ V'�?°: r°t1lt./llD• t1•� Ul>/111 "11:r /Jf,lf} f1-�·l:s, ODt.?i'I° r"t.,,r mt-1'C li rr� 'LH. "'11�:Pm•1'1° r1-�:,11,., li1 Jt ht. A Il Of/ f..•l. °l 1t .e:f/A'J° :: 0

"'11?0 fi Q)• 'r '1· •l• li 1 f. C °l t-fl.1 /\ a-,� ·t OJ f,9° tl, Il°f '} h '1· -'i ;'J· m f, 'J° h ,_... }1 .,. t1 f.,:J li «'J-� '} Il 1A li il," fi lD• 111 t. -f·:1. t\ .e, 1-� :r· r} .f f.t. fi i\ 1f. rr� r P, 7r 1· l'if.." t- "l. œ. r OTJ. htï:ltm•'} rh 11l 1111•(1 /Ab Il c:r-� .ew{l(j I\• ::

rhti'â• OD•fl'T flonf..t_{. 9°TI1fi· Wf,1° foofl}[D• itft""��· n 1· t1ti'il: � b..}.r:r· ov tr�-1 "°'hl.�:,, •fl :F = r n11 1·"111c 0"7.,aic-on:r- "1.11, t\f.'}fl• •n:J� f"l-�i- h.''it-?>l· fl..m�}. J!,1·t\ fi· ::

Ta•

n: 105 î

ODIJl/.1: ::

l) t\�t:(Jm- 1-�:,-: IJ•J, l\01>h1'.A ..,..Olllfll:l lllf� 1'1:t-·)i· t\. tf..� 9° fi ar/. :f-A O i· 1.. If. U• ft � 4. ·I· ;;: � li t\ t\ 01/. fil t1·1· · I\ W• f,lit\.,, 1-�:r· lJUf "} (JI>)16'..t\ f.1 '1 tp /A :: 2 ) r,lit\.c; '1-�:,n,l,1• ll t\X- l1A 1·nnl\11T ll+C il� 1-�:J· l1Uf r1·1t1•n n.''lt - 1.Yhhfi:A?° :: 0l

APPENDIX

"A"

n 11 /J Yi• ".e.

315

:J· tt n r ,1\ "·r, 1, � :,. n °! � t. 111 :1- 1..11• .'-j li•=,: ° 9 (1 tl. V,, fl f.A }1 l'-/ il "l' ll Ir r,: ô Îl l} ÎÎ· ll C :1-� Îï} f: f '-"1..1 {} IJ 1-'l �1-�. li 'î: A (IJ f!, 'r Oh fi r,: /\ rn>/\ h 1• ID· t\ fl ·) }'1 .l�: t, 1i • -�· c.e.·-1· t 1-t;.. 116'.A l\ {J'D 'i= t. � .e::f· I\ n.· :: 0

,,. hIrâ- fl h/J U· I\ .e la f1 <jl .(' "'1.. OJ J!, '}0 r au1. S l) lll l\ UD 'T �-: ov'} nt- .,�-c.-) 11,,,,,..,i 1.11.: t\ht,if. OJf,'f° i11Jîf• l\OD"l1·f·m• 01 1 rJ• 11 J!'Cl··r t\11.. 0 .. �A (lhV-/ ilr f1C·l·b (' /.111 l)v-[ }i'} :i -'t h � A JI, 7, -:,: l\. CD li �. f!,,-:,_-.1\ fa· ::

h'}>;__ (Je?° --1· l1 l'i if. dl 0}1 ..,. :Pl>b• � Il li'� l\ �\ :\.} f t1'} Îf:"} �,, 0 · 1 � :r· 1, '?P.. 11--1·11 .. if. : Il hl} ëi· mf, tJ titi il· I\ UIJt\b ·f· m• 111 -'-'cl· :i· 1i ,,• u• n f.A n 1'-/ r19° n c :,. ô r owz.1 n n,,., "· ,,:. l 'Pt\ !'J· .e :1=I\ A ::

hti îf. 1" iJ �-·fl a, f. 'J° il oo- ,n � ·Y.. fi °t ·1 �� fl i:t· 1. 1-f,: t\hti ïi· (D�'J° ht'JîÎ· l)ODt\h1--œ• n1 �-r.:é·:i· t\11. rJ• fl�A (])]'''/ il9° 11c:i·o r"t1c1 11°1 t1 1-'l.h�A l\.f.t.."l r 0•i:1-nœ• =(u) hti â4 (J m 1-)!t\;;: l"D ,}1 61iJ. ,11°l r dl/. .r il tf ll) m 1lA wc:J:A flO'Jfl;I. {10D-�} (16'7'1'4-i· r11.e. nm· h '}f. li') T u

516

APPENDIX "A"

(,h) ) ,r?� lf'Ï b�OJe'} 1t 08 ht.A t.f,,-:f-lA'I° 0°11\i· tifloviltr.- t\ a'Ji}uP'} fil'� '111. U'� T (ou) i·llll� fJ7i :J· ti�•f!IJ :J·A 110'/ftt- t,hooflfto t\'"1 /} oo'} (' "7.'I'C '1 "} .,e. If� T (rP) till�'P� f lf� mflf- t.llm• fl°'ll+ t.il ooflft t\"'l /Joo1 r"7. 'I'c: "1 .J!. u· � �m• :: 0

�h/Jif.. f OA�;'f·J m.f,'J° f "7.lli· �:r•"} 00,11-Jt'f �h·f IJ 1·1·,; 1.H. /lh l»'if· m,-'J° h'1if. l\(ll)hi-OJe 01 -':-C:é'i· llH.o- 0 f. A flhut 119° OCi-b f°î."1'1 tJvt A.'tl'r f,:r"A ! (t. 2;tSO)::

fAi. mll'l!�-t fh/Jil: rr'i +htiiî- Ai.1 �1'� Ooum-,1�.. '1'4-1•;;: lf'i IJ m'} lA n "7.+flJII ;'f· "lH. = flh()if. m,-'r >ifl. "oufln1·m- n1 �cl·+ /ltt.v- o.e.&\ OIJUf 11r oc:i-ô roi 111 t,u-1 i\.'l:.l1' f.:J:I\A. ::

h'1a- }11�'-J!.CIJOi· O°IA�· 111:J-m+a,.J Ooo:J>m9° Th /J'ô- n.e.1-n o >i�: m'-"° tJ .e 11 :l' m• rai1 ·�· m-1 111l-l- fm oin:i· >.1.e. rr�= w.�'l° oc11-1:.-.· nct1: r111n+ >.11. ,r� Ohr"l'G- ti_e fit\ .e.lflm- 1--�+ llH.rJ• 0,-A }J•>f l\.lD/J1 f.TI\A �

t.'11\• 11 00'1--f..A. 1\-1.. ll�t\m• t,w- Wf,'I° fla,•fot& f'l°T >,1.e. lf� 1 t\nov� f1·�:'J· tJvt �V,:f, 0'1l1r.er+ 1·'lfL h.•'t t- t\.t.Cm• f, l-lltt- ::

i\PPENDJX

"A,.

317

1) "'/'}�OJ-9"1 (Ja,. Ouo,,P.:t:.C ,,..1.. mJ',9° t\ti·nt. 'Jf.•,l,r; ..l·:J• t-� f)lfi ..t"lOC (laJ'}:�A r ..,.,11,11 >.1..e. 1/'�: �7,à:,: t\·l'"f.t. ° n h9 ,::i-m• ti.·l· ,l1l\..'î' Of..b\ >1•i:1 "l"ht'lîf• PCP/.fJmtD•'J n� 1· ô r "t 1 fi n >/ t\ un 'I! t.. Lf .e f\ t\· ::

:r.

2) '11.J.'.llrJ•9° fllI'� '1.11. t\tl>'t1: flA m}!,'J° n ..�,.A t\..,...,lPlP i-m,, A)f 11..Y.: n,..,. 11ovf.1". IJllf l\.'l!I..T .r,:Ff\A ::

l) atJ19° fiOJ• (Jtl,f\ �lD• °7.ll:I. f\f, itlJA 1·�1· flt11J.�•t.(J. fl1·Jic lih·A t\ !1� . f9°i'�mm• 'r,},9° m.e'I° ..e.h:J· >t'J-'t cf>}il !f..t..1 >.1-f... rr� hll Of..A hvt �v-::,: on�� "·e t\fl fi (L :t lJ Ci· 6 ,,,.. 1 ll. flf � h. Vf t.. l\. 'I:» Cm·t\1· f,1"-f\ ft· :: 2 J fi H. v

rn1 Yi·

f1 ai111: l\f, t\f.t..fJm• 1-�:i- flA rai..r,i,c ow- 'tlil "'1.111: t\f..t..ôoi· 1·-'ii· /Ill hUJ 'l'if'?° h9'1;J•+c Il œ,, tJ il f 1·t\ f �m• =

cf?. 2 a: 116 T lit\ 1i1 c A"',: = I) hfllJ llt\f, Ot-uonh1:,t, l?'l'C-1· ODLPt.:'J· fh''JOJ•1 An 'l°J YvA ou1J'�-J oci·6 n1i11,1,1f:i· t\(ft]wfl•}c; >i1�. v•?° r a, ..,.. ,, OlJ.<;.. >a'} .r.. t.t)ll rr if "0D� ;11c f ail-1A t1fl1 h 1 .J?. lf� {\ al/ (D p P, 7f-:;. r111 C A J!..•'} Oi) lPt.. "1· t, -�· C. ., m· f,J!,IJ � :: 1

(1�

2) >i'T:Y. }i�Jf.. lJ'} flt?C AOl/�1· hi'l·ntt 'e Ji 'h r � ..,• 4•t. 'J 11 t.�1n:1:m•9° i:

,,,.,.,.,:,=m· {111

,.r,,t.. 'i hiht\.'i 1

rr 'i :i= m· "} 00111-' :i·

• :'J .. li f 1 ,1 i • ï J! • ; ti - "� � "",� 3 J r1->i:'f· h•'tw•va 11"'lc;:1:m ·r'' '11'1, "• 11 r-1.·1 ,ne f Ot\m l\.lf1 1te lA'I°

Al'Pl�NOIX

318

f!•

•• l) 7 2- •Il.,,,

O I

{Ill,,. liOP,_.

"A"

", .. e..t-� _::

l ) (1 P't- I\ f,, r dl/_.. OJ· /t• f l,1 C A IPJ f. ·:;. f"1 I\· h1 f. lP�: r n,.,. Hou f:: 'h'} f. t-1).� T l pA flJ 1 'l, 1� t\ :1: OJ• f Ul/. t,fil 'ri· : -

u J r ,,.. o f.t\m• 11 m• oA w� "° °7. 11 :i- T

") '1�11.V lltl,t\•-11:'J· w.e'l° 1"/lp :J• ft\,I\TtD- ).'}f. 111 1 Oil f.•oi :J•l\t}:t r11·�t; t\OD/"t-+ 1·/l0 : J· f /l(JJ• Af.· T "• ) A;<! :1: fi .e'i� w _e l-tr-:J• rIl." =1:m • >i 1 _e. rr� 1t fJ :i- T ) 0 ) lJ Î't fl ·l· fl.f,'iC 0) f,,? ".f-ta� :J• ft\.fl OJ• h'} f. V � }i r.i" T O lP) l1'i+ 11:i·tïc m_er 'ftr-:J· ft\.l\i· h1.f. rr� llm'}?:'fP:U m f, cr h }1 --i-r- :1,; :J·" ;i> r li' � ç t\ Ul)P't.. :,- T lt :J- fta. W• 11:F �(D• :: �

"°

2 •.••

1) P,7:}: hhfr7f. !Il l'11'1•f1 fi'l·m�.l;.flrr /J�9J9:fc; '1�11.U•?"° il:l'P)1· t,,J,mô�-Oi· "l.lt l9° C.- .. rt.Z:.=Fm•1 'P'/ '1°1· tih '1if. >i1-�-- ov l\ ô I\ i· YIl il._ :: 1

2) fl:l1!P:1: n1�,t·m• }1'},.e. 111 c i10,}>SJ8 lll\.f', l11f1 '1J'•&\ fl1r1° l1 "} � 1' hii 0• '? ?'l) :J·:,: m-; OD )1 &..A h t\ ll :r- :; �

l'i ,

3) ..,.. tJ ti a·• fl. (ïD A = = (D• t\ a7_·1 Il lD• iJ ,,4:,9>:1: w m 1t r: C 11,1f.. ll'� h1f.. 11.. lJ Il lit � ·1.11 Y/\ 9»n1 Yi· fil\ ovn (1 C f--t-.e. �1 1-:i· m-t,19;:1·• _e.7.,,·n·-r < 11,f?• 2 ï1: 16s hlli1 2 il: 17s J '1!• 20:119 1)

llOJ!)f�"I: Ill\ llD"l·l1;'J·::

mJ!.?° r·l··i .t;. t, :P91·:;.,,. f '1'1 fl'lîf"I: w.e'I° f 1· îj Î'tlt"' h (J'�lD• �w- >i 1.1z_ ..,.. h- a,l!-,'I° () tl..O- li œ- n_•'i/.· .. 1:

r-,-n "ü:

APl:"ENDIX

"A" 319

2) }i,f..tlvr ntr� '1.tL P,7fl- y t.. -nn-1 mj!,'}° y,J.Jt-�1 o f. � :i· .emli c; Il·

3) lita rf�?° h1-'î.h�A f1•mfl�m- flno1"JP'i- l\f, r,r� >. 1f.. If� '??1''f:1 .et1�"A }i'}:{ tJ.e,�1:J .<1•1"t, 1"•(lfl t'\.Wfl'} f1 i" h.e ?J:A?° :: 0

noY,i: n,nc w J!,'I° {lt11>Ah?° 11c; ".e ,,,. :J1t-% rrr�- Ft ?11· fT6..&(1D• }i'}f. lf�: Pz7t-:f >a�tl.V f�<f1&0:J• T°lil�"f f f.. l fl.:,-} œ-(11T Il ov 1Î C li T' b /J if. tl.°I t,. 1-1 Il. fU'� r ll9'1 "'If.. 7i "'i {) :1- lD 'è Y h1-'i."l t\ R" ç- h 1 .';,.'{li= l\ OIJ H 'li J!;:;. f\1t� ==

V'+

Thttû- 11 i1ttîi· f\.e, 1•� t1 rai.r uva, �1 c ,, 1� .r. 0 lP� Ooof'-'t.- :1-r il.B 11. 11 h"jJl,_e,f>'PA m.e,? ):a'}J.1,. 1'i h1>;.e:P:9° c f orz, y °l,: + >i111-J /\ nv il m :,- .e f\Il·

1) -'i

:r.

2) r·1->;i- 1-oioc 11 htiif. l\f. 1•-'i"l:1 r°tYUDlll UD1r)-1 """ 001 114! r ti 1..r,r-1·· ftl,/\m• h1 f.. If� = >a 1f..tt. u•9° htiif."t r"'l.filt.t.1& 1--�:r- h.•>ft-m·1 llUD'n&.A ftJIJJ?,hP' mo.e, .P/l(JJ« lJAlf� o+c fO'/'l� :r•hfl1'1 i't.efJLf9° ::

1-hitil ·· /\c}>J Aflcc; i·�t-i fllf� t.�:-\1 ftft/.!f..<:1m•"I f1·1hoA œ•f..•1.:C h'J�� ..•·tD- >i"lfT .:,-1, Jf 11 ,\aviltn:i .e1" I\ Il· ::

"A"

A pPENDIX

320

tk• 2 il: 123 T l)f-OD/J'\A ilflat/.t.?.'I° T°lllC :: y, ra,,. 'i: ,D 1'f-:,·. 11 fi. (Il) il I\ A h r ) :i· ti ,_.. c1 m• r '--?. oo-t- ..,, , V•1:J- hl\l. l'if� oc flt.�t-1"f: mJ!,'J° tJt\n,,ç-1{. t\JlrJ• ... . " : A lt · l m• ,; f. tf :1 'i t\. e ,, <flJ. m :11 av lD· "} fi t1Jc h 'î! A 4 t\ t\," Il t1Jc ..,. °l OC Ji/\ t{, Ir Il or>rr '} � -1?•

2 il: 124

11.fl

t.o:r· """'):r•

t.ht\ OD ,11 '} Yf\.e.lfl Af: t./\,�T'} f°7..11Jhi"A I"Ir rlPt• >.Jf« v·� Ot;:i·th ilth.C llh•A l\1·lP�m- I"t. hi\ 6. f"t 11' '} Î't {) :,- � ID• ::

ft) t.Jii\ OD(ll'} Yf\f«lll Af.: hlill1: 0,:,- ID-� fi.'iC OA?°�T f+llmtl)« fAîf. ,11Q4! :: ,l1) A!· h'l'"'I& fb:i· lit\ WJ!.9° f'l.°1 P't- 11<fl/.OIJCl1T 1.H. f41ft?" mJ!.'J° f'I° Y P't- t.il-t· 0'1&m- u nu) hlJ.U 001/�hT/i·i• •f?1'f!1" ODIPli• /l/;\� tait'-, �tIJc 11'1.IJ A 11+ 'tlL ÎtrJ•tlD· 'iTlD• t: ,f?, 20:126 T il/1. OD'}<'J,,.,i· ,.,.,� :, (l) ODlPl"I: :: 1) r 00 JC1Jr-1· a·-9° mJ!.r 1Pt.,1-� ni.fi. 1'4-+ 1111," ft(Dc l\f. 1-�:i- ..v..e.lt, >.·i� If� ll"'l'i:,:m•9° S"'h1.e:r• ftV'1 h�Uft.w•--} flooht.t\ J!.'11..11,&\, ::

,\l'l'ENDIX "A., 321

2) f·l·f.t..101• 1' i· rou'}"J/"'" l: J I"'&.. il.u•t. ff.lo t'P't. � 1'4-i - r�lf }i )f.. If� f"l.. 1-'im• o m- h..•"tl� honJ°lP'T l\t,. t\ODmf'P .e-:;-."A 1r 'f ?'° � �" ht.t\œ • 1·}11•0 onJ°lP'i· r ..,.. n Il a,. J LPt-- ,,.. ,;- m 1' 9° i1•1° aDA(1 �,,-.et..h <;�t\m• t\uv m fi}> {JD,f}T iit\lD• :: 3) lPt-1.. �m- .r J?..t.?m• 'l'�.!l- f"l/A 'P 'l• "i fff�>t11. tri0b"} : "1 ?' 'T ii I\ t{,� :'f· ii 1,'iCfi i· 'J° :: 4?. 2 if.127 T

(2) f,V 6- T4 -:'J• ::

1 ) 'r4-"I : h '}f.. I"" t. T�i· lJ''i f l11J.r1?,11t..m • 1J14.. :,.. h.� t.."l,.m• OtllJ 'P4-:i· l\fi, fmf..4-m• O«}>'} AO•c; flP'/AllJ).. c; /l/Pt.m• ti fi:A OD AfJ 9° .V f.. l. "1 on il 1\0 i· f &.K on iD" il.tr 1 �m• :: 2) hll.U l&c6/!' OlI'�lD• () 0IJt, =t= m•9° 1\,1\ 1·-'i.e °11 }1 11.. °1/A 'P 4--i· 1.r 'Ï !-cf!mt. A :: 3) ll1>1 Ali•,; YATlPt- tttIDlf�- 1·:J•crai a,111.� YA+t.n h 1 f.. rr � r ilr � m f, 'I° fLPt-,,,.. ;;: w• i't,,., t• c. 11 ,1, 1 Aa- 'i" h '} 1-. TlPt• fi, 100 ;J· A ::

htf.lJ fll\f, 111\-T l}•I\�· ik'PC:':J":. f•l"'1�.. (D• 1...1:ii ll11•lP -. �1 P'"f: ooJ"l ,,.,:, n�I\ t.,�-:,:c, l\a,11-11 t.1A"ltt•:i· 111.. !f:!f:ou• li ih °1 f (J m· � ,t ou " Il ;'J· liT (J t1J :1: OJ• f.• C f ,f.. 1" lJ.1 t--1' 7f i-9° l\ ,e Tt. 7- "t f, li' 'i lt- r.

+.,

2 if. 129 T

". :,.{.� hl\ 1• .. .f :P. f.• OJ• :f «, f--{l C • orf];'J D•Ï (ll v f" T o f

�=

-{J 1" f · 1 V> 1 11 uv m f. .e OJ 9 :1: no . h f"'i1li? , >i "} ,.e. t. ti?11"- lD i ·A h ll .f "11 f 1 :r .� t l\ h tl. �l 11):Pm.J /Pt. (l °t1h'i OJ•}.fJT . ; : t. l\ li fl ·A 'h ll C .h. 11 h •, :-l tj !"t,. l't.Kao- �'}� If�' fl . lD · :f t!' ll 1 ll'J J• O f lJ= f -fl ,t r f"tmf-1? Oth°l f (10,. OIJ,11:i· :: :lD 'i. 'i :j f: ·, :({. :c 1. · i l 0 :'J· fi' or> J.1.ll" 1 11 A 1\ A °1 1 ii � " °

APPENDIX

32%

,,.,t-.,.;;:

"A"

, t-tD·", ll °ttPt-11:'f· 1..IL h"��T'} fO'L 1-a 11: 1 iJh;'f·A 'rti,-l· fo•t• )i1f. If� IJfi:i·tft 11.-fLC 111'.l\��:, f°1llll (7 'IJID• Ji IP&ID- � OJ• ::

hlf.lJ (lt\J?- fl�:,- rJ•l\i· +.'PC:1"' 1\-too"hi=i- Y..·1:J"L?Jf i't&".�is,o tif\��:,- r_e.lflw• P't-m•J ll"7hr.m1 l\f, �m t-:r· m� "° n I\ 00,,.,t- :i- r.e.1. fim- 1 'f � t f"to t\ m• 11 P't.1 llOJJh'i"m•'} th'1·fl 1-'1.?i'l° h"Jf. IF� �m- ::

on'°'

2) l)ovf'"'t.T Wf,9° 01\oop-'t,.-l· ff.t.flm• 1'«i-+ P'A"l11 flm>•f·/tt\'i! lf'f w&w• )iJ�f,LPt- ll°iA&· 1·11Ah/\• fl 11 �"}�. = 1--�:r- ff.t.fln:r· flm• 9°b111:J bf\m+ m_ecr Il.Y J tD--'l>tD• f.1lltD• �ne fat/.A JJ� IJ ) 114>C IJ'i!i·dt 1lclbC •�f\fu�:,- f''îmfcfJ m-, hAhf\m- 9"bJ1:'f· II''Ï h1/\fu�t 1-aYf.:�tn•'J° :�

1) f(ltD•�:'f- OD1}:'f· fTflmm• f"'110C }i'}�t-t,, OJf,'I° mn.A mf,9° h11..' f.oom11'1 h1f. � Jll• 11°7..rPt-ll+ o;J·t; 1.H. filih --1-- i· --l'°lllC f&.Kan >t1f. IY� 1·�1:1 P't-tD-1 001/h Ç' W '} I\ f, t, fl }i'}f. IP t- œ- f,'f! lll 6•Â :: 2) fi H. V °19° i· t\ .e

...,-- !11 'P Dl/.. f U' � a, il t.. :cf t\ "'1,}, t. --n f, t..+-�A :: '

f'r4-·I!'} rfw "JOC t\ov&.K9° m.e'I° f"t'Ill W•1 t\t\or,J.�r' fi-- t,,11lD• P'A"JJ 9°b11-l· --n:1: lf'Ïi· A,� lJ'� lJl"A "I �- J1h'i"m� m- � w- t\. 'l A li J!,, ;1:A ?° ::

APl'ENDIX "A"

323

1t1 J?.: �a,. f ·f· ,n r œ-'} ,,.,t- n °î lP t-n :i- 1.. 11. ta lPtw œ 'P4-:'t· 'r4-"f·'7m• ()F·'t,. ()t;l,1.m• F't\fl}'} F'C -�Alf} >11f. lf� �9�·1:'}9" }i'}f. Y11 0011'�.. 11:J·a1t1J i'11P &m• lli'1 f\k�i Î'l.e m r iJ>9" :s J

if?. 2 71: 13s T

"° '}

11" '"l 'l'ti-:i· ::

f;Jtl.llJ ovG r/,'}.P..' "l'llt-6 °1JiJ:J·m,1!Y m.e'I° (T1�t\,:,•) itlt�°t ou&-,h� t,m-[Xl �t-11.m• t\�&.œ• ril?° tfl/'J'�.:,. Ilfi:T,11 ,n ,h. C Il ·n·A 11t\ 6, 9' 1· f, lf 'i 1t◄ :: '

1) '111: �a,. t\lt'}f..• 1•.fi-1• n tr:i·,I, •fl,l1:.C llh·A hl\6' �lD• T1lfl0 fJil1°l f1•1.."J 1m DDlf� 1·�-1· t,t..·t.'L<D• l\f.l1m• 1->;+ h"t tn>TI�A 1 itf ll 1liCI\T9° == 2) 1->;-l·'} Yf.t./J.m .c,· {)tï:-l•,f, 1ld1:.C Oh·A ttl\t, llf OJ• 11 h 4. t. A fii1 .f!·� -l· °l fo :J· 1t Il Il =1 = lD• ::

r1r�m- ft}J

3) llihr J.11,1-Yr-l· /."If.." fJ�:'i-d1 11,li. C lln•A 111\6, �(D• r,,. Il fta,. /J.m- lJ li b· l\- 1-� -1· .e f.. l. Il. m-1 'P � m•'J h I\ � fl4• l. 0 (l-1· TI il tD• li 'I' 111 )t"/ li il 0� /11f. f: .e i-/\ A ::

5 ::

h ij-: A h ->t 2 if.. 13 7 T · �

li il Of/. 111

r ifJ n -1·

h 11 ::

:: 1· ) L °' � ;J 1 ..f· ( ,fl f"'1 ,. f.. t. t;. ,l1 ,:J '1! (JI}

n 1..:i· r·,..f "}1·,P �

'P4--1· 1 9 ° h 1Y:,-- n ,.., ,_ .t." f•�ft.l �-l· hil lt�tfiC•n?° ::

t, r':i- � 19°

APl'ENDIX "A."

r:i·

• l\ T 1• fao . ll h f, ':, P °I ·) ov �1 1P 1• 0) 111..:r·r•�"Y 1 t\) flii• .:'f·r•t"f 11·1P �1r:i· DD1°lt°'T l);rCl\"'I hfli\0 1· l\.e T ,., :, - PiV-1· l\f, 1 , di) nt..:r·r·tï111-IP �., y . .,,.°lo c f-1 I\ .{. � + h r. il.+c11 n =r-m a, � 1, o n � • r ,,.�t-:fm t• .e, :f-lA 9° :: if?. 2

a: 139 T

Â��-t ::

htllJ 111\f, lli"�1la>- f?'f'C f.1·fl f,f-hfl?..:'f· �9>:f ll?'t.. :,= m• 'J°h11i· ll�l1,;'J- i•"IQC flm1J!A i·+'l'i•'f>A ·fltt hfiif. m,}>fiQ=t=m- }."}f.. Il'� f,V f.1·tl hf,?.'i'l\:1:a,.r = 1

niJ

001"1?'.:'f· 01,,.fu�T ll"'tmr+n+ 1.H. 001/J ".e {/l)'f 11 l11 roi1nm- t\ODV ).c; '11f.tlrJ•9" r-1•;;:m. uvr&! lLT OJf..'J° tl'i!t\ (loafJ.Ll7Î Of,�:,- hh�&'.A Wf,'11' (l}i'}fo:'f l't\l,�1 6-'îm-1 oont.Â f°t1fla>- fluo11'�. YiJi'�f.C f.1 0 "f f_.W flCj ft• ::

f f.lilO.:'f·1 1·�·l· A h'ï >. 1.<;_u-sr:- fJthnO.. v-i:J•?J1· dfllP l:'f· Il "'I J.':l°1 "1-11 ltif.1 11 ut h1 � b 'i!t\a,. .l1 I\ Il i-J '?fo;J Ol/ iJl� .:'f· Yt\11.:'f· 1•>;.:'f� ff.lt)fl.:'f.· dLD• �llJ• �

l) h,ntl· fl?l "f· oo}]t1A 1--�•I:'} f &'..K.arom- "'l'} h1f. If� {)C °l'f' t\0'/m,-p OA-1·:rt\ 1.. tl. OC.:'f.-ô l'tiJ&'..f\1. 1r'f fL:J•f, 1'1: C:�A /\01Jt\;'J· f°'l.;Ffta,."} il·OllQC,' Il H V• oo}]hA Ît'f'6'0J« fi C °l'P h'} f. Dl/. "1:� f :J· w + œ.1 JI, 7ii 1: Il 1· Jl, 1: '1 '}-'thI'"' 1\. "-C .';. fi :,. .e fr C

:r."

.APPENDIX "A"

325

1 ) ..,. o >i f. n il "'i i},1..11 r Cil/.-:;.Il ,»· h,,-, r m1 mf, if> 11 :i· ..,.si :i h 1- l.. fi fi i· 1. H. J!S'°l� >, {) 11 V•Il ;'J· '} ov :,- �·1.. il � m• :: ◄

f ) l 2 {)Il }SJD 1-�"f.: flmJlA fOIJ• .,filtJ.>flJ rr'i ff,,C;J fll.1V�. C1irn>i· rnttm '11..e.. t1'� rll 'ltD• 1·-'if,, hil rf,r.:i tfOD' J I'.!\ TI li tl_ V· 0D l /. :r· f,, lf'Î/A 9 1

3) i"ll>i� rt--1\c rrr�-+1 �1c::1- rtrtm.e..<l lli·c; .ei\ '110-n /Jll out1G\K"l OT�1�:i- t:1,;11,?11· oo,p1..:,. rmtht.hcn:i· OIJ,n1: f1"m0 + �m- c: ( h+.. 2 7i. 162 hl)h 2 ;,: 178 ) 1

,J?.

2 '[ 144

T flft 1•f1>.i OJl,."(i-:f

1 ) 0TO>i� l\f, t\f.t. fim- tt1111-fl 1·•'i :,- mt. 7•-,,}"· h '11 Il rmm fil> t,-:fl\lt• T ilfl lf�?'1 Oih1· l\f. ..,.. _;,t.% �•"};J1, ht'\,t\ 1

n+c ==

2) fi'fl>i� mt--7;:7. 11--l·ll>ii f\f, ft�t.tJm• /l,l,fl.', 1-�:i- h•'i t\oumrél> r "t 1· t\«i· ..,. li>i f. 11 '11 �m"'I= /J t\ i\.e.. t. fi w• Il il1 fl.'i bll lrr: }i'}f.. lf� rflfF �OJ• :: 3) f1..>;1: }î/tt{, flf� (JOJ• mt-7i'-,,1· A TI h1f.. --�l\"-OJ• "l''g'I' /.lD• tif.t..llm- 1-->ii• h"t }i'}�h,.:t\c f,11.Pilr :: rh 2 a: 145 T , h ..,. li >i r-

:: :19' l't ,f? f, ,n °'· /\ .e 1"} tJ•n r

1) 11n11 f°tmf,4? f19>:f. .eu ot\t)Pi:1=m• 1->i :i· .r.r.r-n:i } ' ?rfl tJ 'I° J!, OJ "} • t\ h li Il • h'}f,. lf � : 1·Jii irJ: 9'° fiOJ• �1: '} (ID · t � ti · · :i -� , :i O fl l.. f. t\ • OJ � tf f"t�ÏJ h1f. u,� 1 0 � iJ9° 0 m t\. .e+. 1t .e 1· fr 'J ::

A l'PENDLX "A"

3%6

lll\?'}tlfJ:11 JJIJ.f.�(1:'J• �'} li'-" llflt\o�lD• l\.l', r1 1,111 = ° 'J'tJ>9 '} 11:1 ft.11/.�JJ 1·�:'f· ..e..l�IJ:'f• h1f. If�= fi•flft-i· lll\'1'}1101· lllf.V J,'? ilt\ lD•fl�� llmil'l\l\tD• 11"7.lt� h'} 4,7'· f--t•a1��:'f•J o-�:J· ?J°:j• ll 00 h1· A f lllto>i m• '} fhlJ uv ..n:'f· i\.. t"�(l:'J· .e-:i·•l\ta· :: ( fl,f?. 993)

cf?.

2 Q. 146 T f1 '} JI ·fl

OD •fl T

f"'If.,,"f-1\ fi fi: fJ fi

or>l/' 'i•

t\.,,- o >i � r "'l. h4'.t\ m- tJ °i av 'it;. 'i i!\ b• 9° Il li! C-" h il 11. :J" œif>'i hiJh.• m�'} 1:1.. il -1•1)�� t\1·-'i"f: Îtl\tl 11°1.lf� m t,a,. f\.f, Yl\m-'} f?1H11 oomfc}, on-fit- ll.Yil"l·I\At;: t.f:1--A 'J° !

Ofi:Cf: h:J·mtJ>t\:'J·'i" A'n·V° hi"mfl�t\:'f• ll:\I\ IJH.V "1'? il t\ m· ta.. :1: fi m,}, I\I\ m• 11 °t t\ m• '1.1 + fi• ov lPl fl.Yil..,, lt � c;: f,fl\lA :: ( fJ,f?. ;,: 962 �ilh it. 975) ::

1 ) } },: fla,. t-ft. flPt-m- 'P'Î-T f "1.. 1 lJ.h:'f·t\a,.'} lit\"�+ t\ "'Ili m t« f..• ft III/ fi m 11.: QlJ 'P 'PA li .e &. +�Il :'f• 'J° :: ï

2) t\.l\m- llal/.LPt-m • '114-i" fltj::'f•d1 11dbC O'n·A IJÎtl\6',�t t\.,11r�}> f0Ï"llllD• t,w- t\°t1Pt-m• Ti-:'f· ilt\tl }i'}>j.f,lfJ ...... l\ontptpA .e1•t\A :: 3)

IJH.U lt"}cf•X· ODJP '4:'J• '1'4-:'f·9° 11.e'ic 11°'1.�c:t,m• tif.,,?

0-1\.• t,,,., ODh &.A f a7.. 10'I° tr'i ll. "l� 'r4-:'J· JJ/A-t 1.l1 +c t,°' it.e)tht.A9° f"t!A 119°9°�:'f- floo'P'f>A .e:1:1tA ==

t, "} ,.. t, f..;, hrf• f. I. "l O:\l\ IJ• h ,1: OJ '1 'i �-- t\ tl V• t.. f.. ·' (IV 7i 1i Y t, °' r,,., f. h&.A ,1 :i- "'l rr �.1 /\..il'"' ou• ,1 :,- 01 f!, r tu t.�;J n 9" 1 o .e.�-1- 'ti1 f.. °1.J1 il Il il 9° 9° � :'f· Il. "l '1 '1 fl� f, -:,: l\lt-

�=

A PPENDIX ",\"

327

flfi::r•m "0,h.C fl'n..A 'l'�,:I. 1•f.c:}/,\ "01\ floom(J' } Oo J'} ° OJJ?.9 .';. lA tj::C rf•htio: �� ovft,1•,f? flm'}J!'f.\ i'iYilhiJ(I m•9° "t-111\0 oonr�. J.ia;a:1:1 ti,ai�=,=m•'I° =: 0

1) -�'1':f: n1·n-'ir.. l\f. ff.llJO=J·1 1·-'iT ft"'/OfllfH'} f'f:C.f..• m-vt� f "'t{J m•n T1 cf> '} llVlPl :r· tir..·c1 QJ• tnJ ..e,, 1,t\ll=t= m • :: 2) t\,�Cil f"t-:,:ftm•'} 1·-'ii· fi:C.f..• (l"?_mi110i· '1.IL /ltm'1 = e oui· f Ill/ . :1 A on h Il... f:J· STm• h1f. If� : ft1. lt m• 11 :f f °t ?a 'i" i· }i Jf 11 lj:C .f..• fi 1' ,,,. a>• � IJ fi: Cr,,, li 1f,1 ç h'} ,';. :l' J!, 1' Y 'P. if> l•n y, 1· f\A f 01/.A &. :,, ,.,, ou il m :r· A1'ti t\- ::

°'

3) f,U �C:�· 't.1f.1'i' f.;J•f,A"} f"'lfti• 'rf'P. t\1..ll.OJ• f1"ll mm- :,•}iJf1-J 'i!C.J!• h1·mfl�n:i· ,�1 l9°� �l)h o,.ni· � tnJ :i· htl 1 f fton if>l•n h .e :1-A 'r ::

1) htllJ flftf, (11·�4'_(1}• cf!'f'C f rf•ODfth1·m· �1C: hl\,I\ fl-'i 7r-:;. r,,.f. 1..1 f ..,.� :i- °19°:i· r{/D lJJ. I.. "li �m· ::

2) 1,.-'i.:i,, r f. lc) n :,- t, m• r ..,. n ttm- 1•-'i:i· 11 '1onllJ ,n- 9° 1 Y :i· Ail cf> f...• 'l° 11 "i hm f cf> Il :,- 1• -'i T ;, t• °l1"f..�:,,, flb/\m- tJA If� Il ,JiC Il H. o- l\ f. l1'111 i· 1•-'i :r· Il '1Jt il il tJ Vf /\ 00 m fc}, Jtf,i-A'I,., ::

A Pr EN DIX

328

if ! .

1 s3 T

"A"

-.. == ·si> 1 :J -i o +. r--1·111 fi

a., If 19° htl.lJ 111\.e lli\m• cf!'l'C f,f•oo/1 h1•a,. f,,'}1J A� i'tilTyr:i· fOl/.t'lmm• I 0) P,7/' 1- "·1r1::1- r '1:1n:,:m•1 r�1?- J t.;1a,ai u-1:J· Yl\1 1)-fl flon111 t»- 0/); t'l'rTtD• h'Jf. If� lDf,'1° t\.'1�1: fOI/. 111=,=m-1 :i·hhft i1 (IJ•'} UD' }?j!• i-TOJ• ,... 'lfl"fi fIf �ID-'} ■ f Y1"'1oui· 00'}1�· f,IIOJ• f1•1"j h11. l � ! "'

•

r. )

nP,� l- r 1-m 11� ID· r ta.,,:, t-- 1·1 ,,-n A n 11 "lA g· h1t >i 9°c "l r :r· ID•611' r tr� ,; r..,-. m fi� ID• cr Il "'1 j!• lt :a· w.e r 011J ..

11/b cl1)

{T1J

lf�. >. C"l1' If'Ï f 1· ,,,.� h 1 f.. lf� !

n � 7t:1: f,f• mfi �tIJ• h '} � If) �ID• ::

f1· P,1: 11 °/ f1 ,h. if11 01/ l) li i· If 'i fT11·

ftl� V Of.�i· fh.•�t- ,h.'111 1th4-t.t\ >t'l1. '1.H.m.- }i,;J 11J ai o-1:J· .,,.. o"' ai on u� �-1 r ai yti h 11 fi 4! van 1 y:r- n ,,. 1"). '1.lt P, i'f·:;. flJ"tm• ,h./Jil fJf1.tLID• h1-'i. t1&.A /lOD m Il 'l .e.1·· I\ t\· ::

2) f!,V t'llfJ IJt\�P,m• h.•�t--m•'} fJf"ltLw• l\.h�A fOT/..TIA lift ov[f). f 0'l.Y l.:J°l'r 114! 'PilT'i ao/}mT hl\ IIT ::

1) ·fltt- ?1:1: fl9li· h'l� llrr�w- r>i.e,, i\f.l(la>- 1--'i+ hr>/1 h'l-'th�ft· f"f•?f...,c;. }i ..)f,, rr) flh.1��"f' h11>i1�=r-m· '�l\t(, Y.lf'i ft· :: 2 ) fi fi Y.� ..,. °l lJ C h.�"i 7i Il rr� OJ•c,� ll 'P c; OJ• lit: t-1. Il li � 1\.. 1•"lfJC ..,-. flOt!?11· aol1hA A f..�:1· h.J?,f..l °19° ::

APPENDIX

"A,.

329

3) hî.vt.u•'I° r'1fv:1"ro• 00 �7i ttf t,1.e,·'}f..=t: hm•A m•il'l' "r J 6 ' 1i;.e,1.e,:r-m" l1m•A tD• i! ru � J.l\t,�:i- �m- ..,. ..01\-" Af-�:, /J.ef:l"l hî?..• i\U'� 1·-'i;I. hî� . i11J.J• dJf :J- 11/\0:f-m.. t'J91 ":î· {11)hh A ..rli ,1)• t,1\ J,,� t- rt-a1.��:r- t," :i,. � ll}e

"'� 0

it 1\ "'91i' 11 II'�.. fi?1i' a,- il'I' h ï>t- •n ;F If4,. :,- 'lIJJ t- >i1 .r. li'� n ou lLL l7Î ID• fT' œ O � W· '} ô.e, }, C (J.. t. (J . ·Il :,: ao;F A tttt o:i·

fOD1'1!'"':'f• lPt-T� rflm-�:r- ou4)i• r,,.. ,.,(110}« f t,'J�• 111J1 ne h'Jf.t-fb m�,r mh.A m.e'J° f.ovwntl 'l'�-•1:1 rt..K OD(D- I"' t-m•'} n °7.wt..11 :r· 1.. 11. ,, '} f.. w� = 11 av lJJ.l7Î m• 1.11. ô>i ID•'} n 00,, I\.• m f!,,'}'1 (lhi.A 001 °1 P'i· wf, 'I" .,,} n c m.e 'I° hlPtm- .et1 r;: I\ ft· •nt\ a•• .e, 7f :1-:. t\ "" w ,., 1 f,l-" ft, ::

2 } .e, 7f:,: m•.,, �y =1=m•1 11 °1. fi m·n :W· 1.tf,, r1· rP t-m-1 'f�.i· h O J!·�:,-ç 1',:t-1.m• 'I' 4-"1= 1- Il. lPt- f·I· t'J ,n-:r·1 P't. ?> 1· 1t 11 A (Il t\ ao t.. ?. 9° fi. A f � (] l lD0 1 '- :P � or> 1 oP i· hftO:Pm- ::

.e, 7;:f 'P�T t,?.· t•�lD· ip�:,- 111,f.l"l (li· 1.tL l.:JJ.�. P't W•'} 11ovAh9° t\ 0''1t1c,·m; ODIJ,'i•'}', Yf.l'llD·î'1'1 'fti•i· 11 fi-'-'�:,. ! tn>J-f 11 c; {\• ::

=f-m•'} ff Jt'}.e,1.e,:i ll f " 1 ?1 /1 · •:W · 2) .e,?p:,; ''l "fu 'i=Fw· frf•Of\ 0 " 9'° · œ �r1 f" · 1 Y (ID 1 c. f. ta :i· " ' o 1. V�1 u •n:, o

APPENDIX ".A"

330

O-'i 7;:1: lin-A h '}� 1· f•�.-.��:,- ht;:f f"'I 1''.+�a,. ï 00 ,,. � T f T � l.1 fi t\ il · ;I • b I" • OJ flJ 11D .r :'} 1 6� IJ) "'la\' �1.e. If� ;

+a,:,-

-t '.Cf.

lDf.'I° f.U ·1-"lfJC OJ'}lA lf'r 1\1.·t-'LW. Ili· >i1.e. If� ttD- ::

111f•9> 'f ()?J'f h1Y: fllf� 1•�f, fT4-i- ·t- "lflC't f)oo�.Kf" �f., f1•()fl� >.1.e. If� f ��'f l)ODQ;l.l7Î tif'11�1-'i=Fm DP}JhA i\.h'-.A rai1Qm•'} 6� Oc-1·6 �mil)•fl:P'P/:\ ::

2} -'î�:f fl°tflm·+ m•ut>. f�fllTJ 9°hJ,,V�;f- v-t\- ll+h J!,'I° ffh1-'i1�-1 llf.t\ç: '1'4-+ 11.lllm-J f1·--S+ T"lllC ovm'}'i" f'1'4-1 :"}9° hQY:�i· ov100:S· ht\fJTlD• ::

+.,

2 if.161 T

ilfl OD�ld/ ::

1) AJ�• dm• h"t<n��m- t)� fh'i!,,Va,.'} 1:C7im-1 oahl..A r"t1om- �trJ b�m-1 1100•1\c rht..fl >.1� tri h>ir.� ;Jt. 6�m-·t >t"}-'lh'i!t\• °lfu:J- 111\Q=Fm- d?Jl- ftf, foum fp OD•fli• }.,\a,.. :: 2) T1'11m-'} ft"'l+lil ll+lll!.t\t&i dm- oni).f-T >t1f. 111 f-1:.mt-A ::

â&#x20AC;¢

-> AI PENI>IX

,, B ,,

Tll'LE XIII EXTRA - CONTRACTUAL LIABILl1,Y AND

UNLAWFUL ENRICHMENT

CHAPTER I EXTRA - CONTRACTUAL LIABII..1ITY Art. 2027. - Sources of extra.contractual liability.

(1) Irrespective of any w1cle1·taki11g on lùs part, a. persan sl1all be liable foI' tl1e clamage tl1e catises to anotl1e1· by an offence. (2) A persan sl1a]l be liable, wl1e1·e tl1e law so provides, for the damage be causes to anotl1er by an activity in whicl1 he engages or by an abject he possesses. (3) A persan shall be liabJe \Vl1ere a tltlrd party ·for whom he is ans\verable in law inctrrs a liability arising 011t of an offence or resulting from tl1e law. SECTION 1. LIABILITY ARISING FROM AN OFFENCE Paragrapl1 l. - General 1"11les

Art. 202 8· • - eneral Princ1pJe. G

cl. oo g it e ak m l al sh ce 11 fe \VJ1osoever causes damage to anotJ1er b y an of

APPENDIX

"D''

ce. n e f f o f o s e yp T _ . 9 Art. 202

consist i11 an i11te 11tional act 01- in mere 1 1egligence . (Z) An offence n1 ay consist in an act or failure to act.

( 1) An offeilce

111 ay

. ty li a r o 1n c li b u P _ . 0 3 0 2 Art.

1ce v,rl1ere l1e acts 01· refrains from 1 offe a11 nits 1111 co on pei·s (1) A acting in a n1anne1· 01· in conclitions ,vhich offend morality or pt1blic 0 1 ·der. ioL1r of a reasonab:e man. 1av bel tl1e to l I1ac be all 1 sI cl gar Re (2)

ce shall be as'Sessed offen tl1e Ia,v, y b icled prov se e1·v.ri 1 otl ss Unle 3 ()

,vitllüLit 1-egard to tl1e age 01 · mental state of the persan concerned.

A1·t. 2031. - Professional fault. (1) A JJerso11 JJractising a professio11 or a specific activity shall, in t11e practice of st1cl1 profess�on or activity, observe the Iules gover11ing tl1at p1·actice. (2) I-Ie sball be liable wl1e1·e, d11e 1·egard beiJ1 g had to scientific facis

or tl1e accepted rLiles of tl1e practice of bis profession, he is guilty of imp1·ude1 1ce or of 11egligence constituiting definite ignorance of his duties.

Art. 2032. - Inrtei1t to injure. ( 1)

A pe 1·s011 commits an off ence where I1e acts ,.vith L-:itent to injure

a11otl1er notv.rithsta11ding that l1e seeks no pe 1·sonal gain fTom l1is act.

(2) A persan con11nits a11 offe11ce wl1ere, with full kno,.vledge of tl1e facts, l1e causes st1bstantial damage to anothe1 in seeking per. sonal ga.in disJJroportionate to the da111age caused. 1

Art. 2033. - Abuse of powers. ( 1) A person con1mits a 1 1 offe11ce ,.vhere l1e tw,1s to his own adva11. tage povve1·s co11ferred llJJ011 l1im in the inte1·est of anotl1e r. (2) A ptiblic servant com1nits a11 offence vvhe.re l1e tm·ns to l1is· o,v,1 advantage or to tl1e advai1 tage of �1�t l1e1� individual, po,vers conferred 11po 11 l1 in1 i11 tl1e p11blic i 11 te1·est b)' lus ofice. Art. 2034. - Pur1Jose of 1·ig l1 ts. · St1bject to tl1 e P 1•ovi· s10 . . ,· 11 s of tl1e 11reced 111 g A1·t1cles, tl1e manner lil . \vhicl1 a rigl1t · 1· s ltsecl 1nay 11ot be cl1allenged on the ground tl1a t 1't . is coi1trary to the econo1 nic 01· social pt11·1Jose of tl1at 1·ight.

APl'ENDIX "D"

33S

Art. 2035. -- Infrlngement of a law. (1) A 1:>erso11 co111mits a11 offence ,vl1ere 11 e m · f1-i· nges any specific

a11d explicit p1·ovision of a law, decree or aclininistrative re. gtùation.

(2) Ignora11ce of tl1e la,v is 110 exct1se. Art. 2036. - Hierarchica,J order. (1) Tl1e fact th at an ac t l1a s been carriecl ot1t on tl1e orders of a

lùgl1er at1tl1orit1, sl1all no t necessarily relieve (2) Tl1e doer commits an offence ,vl1ere be is natw·e of tl1e order, in particular by reason petence o f tl1e person giving tl1e order, and of the act orde1·ed.

tl1e doer of Iiability.

a,vare of tl1e illicit of the Jack of corn. the criminal nature

(3) Tl1ere is no offe11ce \.\1}1ere, in the circun1stances of tl1e case, and

in pa1·ticulai· l1aving 1·ega1·d to tl1e strict exigencies of achnirustra tive or military discipfu1e, the doer ,vas placed in such a pos·ition that tl1e could not disct1ss tl1e order received or act otl1erwise than he dicL

Art. 2037. - Non.performance of a contract. (1) A persan sl1all not connnit an offence involving l1is extra.con. tractual liability where he fails to clischarge his obligation under a contract. (2) The provisions regar·ding tl1e no11.perfo1mance of contracts shall apply in such case. Parag1·apl1 2. - Special cases

Art. 2038. - Physical assault. - 1. Prlnciple .

. . 1a:kes conn lly na io nt t e e ,, I m 1 e 1er I ( 1) A persan cornm1 ts an offence vV · tact witl1 the pe rso n of another agamst tl1e Ja' tter's "vill dily bo le tl er tll he w of ss le i·d (2) An offence sl1al l be committed 1·ega or . ct conta a! person by d harm clone to tl1e oth er pers·on 1s catise by the use of an object, rutlmate or inanimate. t assaul al pl1ysic . of . - at (3) Unle ss otherwise prov1clecl, tl1e mere t·hre, on another shall no t constitute an offence.

Art. 2039. Justl.fication. . where d roitte · corn N0 offence shall be deemed to l1ave bee11

Al' PEND IX

'' B"

336

e hav bly ona 1·eas foreseen that the not ld coti nt ncla e f e d ( a) the 1 is a c t; o r l to t c je b . a ld ti o w ff 1 p Iamt' reasonable manner, in legitimate self. a in iie, do ,as , ,. act (b) tlle nce of another, or to safeguar d fe de e at tim gi le e th iil or e, defeilc the ful is law ant end def owner or passes·. tl1e cl1 wlri of ty proper sor; 01·

corporal punishment inflicted by ble ona reas in sists con act (c) tlle defendant on lus cl1ild, ward, pu pil or servant; or atic whom it was necessary to lun ous ge1· dan a was ff inti pla the (d) restrain fron1 doing harn1, a11d the act was done in a reasonable manner; or t11e

( e) tbere are any otl1er circtunstai,ces such as to justif-y the defencL ant's action in the eyes of a reasonable pe1·son. Art. 2040. - Interference with the liberty of another. - 1. Principle. (1) A perso11 commits an offenc·e ,vl1ere, \VÎthout due legal authority, he interferes witll tl1e liberty of another person, even for a short ti1ne, and prevents him from moving about as he is entitled to do. In SL1cl1 a case, an offence shall be deemed to have been commit. tecl notwithstanding that no injury is done to the plantiff's per. son. (3) It sl1all be sufficient for tl1e plaintiff to have been compelled to behave in a ceitain manner by the tl1reat of a danger of which he could not be una\vare.

(2)

Al·t. 2041. - 2. Lawful authorltr y. No offence shall be deemed to l1ave been committed wl1ere the con. straint has been imposed in a reasonable manner on a pers'011 in t11e legal custody of the defendant and for t11e pu1-pose of enforcing tl1e authority conferred t1po11 the latter by lav.,. Art. 2042. - 3. Criminail offence. ( 1) No offence sl1all be cleemed to I1ave been con1mitted ,vl1ere tl1e perso11 wl10 lias inte1·fe1·ecl witl1 tl1 libert of anothe1· l1ad good )' e reason to believe that the latter had con 1IDitted a cri ininal offe!lce. (2) :1'11 e pei·son interfe1·ing vv itl1 the liberty o f anotl1e1· s1I1all be liable 111 tlie case pro,,iclecl fo i· in sub art. ( 1 ) ,vl1ere he fails to liall<l over fortliwitl1 tl1e J)e1 ·s011 ttn(le1· l1 is constraint to the police.

APPENDIX

"D"

337

Art. 2043. - 4. Bail. A person who has pr·ovicled bail for a11otl1er, gua c: rantee.u1g t o th e au. • • • • thor1t1es tl1at tl1e latter \vrll res1de in a certai 11 place, n1ay . a 1 w fu ll y . in . . th lib w1 e ert th y of the perso11 on ba terfe re c:il wbere l 1e has good re. • • aso11 to bel1eve tl1at he 1s prepari11g to abscond. Art. 2044. - Defamation. - 1. Prlncip·le. A person comn1its an offence wl1ere by llis ,vorcls, bis ,vritings or by any other means, he acts in s11cl1 a ,,1ay as to make anotller living person detestable, contemptible or ridiculo11s and to jeopardize bis credit, l1is 1·eputation or his f11ture. Art. 2045. - 2. Absence of intent to injure. (1) The intent to injure shall not be deemecl to be an ess·ential re. quirement for defan1ation. (2) No defamation sl1all be deemed to l1ave been committed ,vl1ere

the author of the utterances or writings alleged to be defamatory l1ad no intention of 1·eferring in s11cl1 utterances or writings to any particular person. (3) In such a case, the author of tl1e utterances• or writi11gs shall be

liable only wl1ere in the cir·cumstances l1e ought reasonably to have foreseen tl1at his words or writings would inflict injt1ry on another. Art. 2046. - 3. Matters of public interesl. (1) A person shall not be deemed to have committed an offence ,vhere he confined himself to exp1·essing his opinion on matters of public interest, notwithstanding that such opinion inflicts injury on another by bringing h1m under publjc obloquy. (2) In this case defamation s·hall not be deemed to have been com mitted unle�s the defendant has made against the plaintiff charges wllicl1 to his ce1-tain knowledge are false. Art. 2047. - 4. Truth of the alleged facts.

where tted commi n ee ( 1) No defamation shall be de em ed to l1ave b s. charge llis of cy a t . tl1e defenda nt adduces• proof of th e accu solely acted has ( 2) In this case, he shall Ilot be Il.able. unles s l1e with intent to inj11re.

APPENDIX

"B"

338

ty. i 1t u n u 11 l . 5 _ . 8 4 0 2 t. r A shall be inctuï·ed i11 respect of utterances made in. liability No (1) JJarlia111enta1·y clebates 01· i11 tl1e cot1rs·e of legal proceedings. s11cl1 t1ttera11ces u1 their exact form shal l re11eats ,. v I1o perso11 A (2) be liable o11Iy ,vl1e1·e ]1e l1as actecl solely with intent to injtire. Art. 2049. - 6. Justification. (1) Wliere clefamatio11 is comn1itted by vvay of publications, no Iiability sl1all be incur1:ed \'vl1ere the defendant l1as acted without intent to inju1·e ancl witho11t gross negligence, provided that at tl1e plai11tiff's 1·equest l1e publisl1es immediately a withdrawaJ ancl an apology. (2) Where the defamation is committecl by way of a periodical

whicl1 appears at intervals of more tl1an one ,.veek, tl1e p�aintiff 111ay 1·equi1·e tl1e witl1clravval a11d apology to be published im. med�ately i11 a periodical of bis choice.

(3)

In otl1er cas-es, the \'vithd1·awal a11d apology shall be published in tl1e 1Jeriodical i11 vvlùcl1 tl1e defamatory matter was pub�ished.

Art. 2050. - Injury to rthe rights of spouses. - I. Prlnciple. ( 1) A persan commits an offence ,vhere, knovving l1er to be married,

be or sl1e induces a woman to leave !1er husband agains·t the b11sband's will.

(2) A person commits an offence wl1ere, kno,ving l1im to be married,

l1e or she ind11ces a ma1·ried man to leave l1is ,.vife against the ,,-.,if e's ,vil!.

(3) A person commits a.n offence wl1ere l1e receives , l1arbours or

detaÎ.11s a n1arried woma11 against tl1e ,,,ill of her husband, in full lcno,v:eclge of tl1e l1t1sba11d's opposj tion.

Art. 2051. - 2. Justification. No offences sJ1all be cleemed to be co1111nitt ed in tl1e ca se provided in Art. 2050 (3) wl1e1·e: (a) tl1e l1t1sba11cl ancl wife l1a,,e agreecl to live a1Ja1·t; o r (b) tl1e l1t1sba11cl l1as been gi1ilty of c1·t1elty to I1is '"'ife or tl1e de. fenclai1t liacl goocl 1·eason to tl1i11 lc so ancl bas 1·ecei,,ed tl1e ,vo ma11 ot1t of l11unaneness·.

A PPENDIX "D" 339

eclucate a11cl to su1,ervise. to Dt1ty 2052. Art. (1) A person com111 its a11 offe.nce \vl1ere 11e ·fails to ta . 1<e 111 respect of persons entn1st. ed to lus cl1arae or S'Lipe.r....v,·lSlO · n by la\V or 10 • • . confo1n1 1ty \v1tl1 tl1e la\v tl1e 111 easL1res of eclticat'i on a11cl super. . . . , 1ch rnaJ' 1·easonabl)' be ex1Jectecl of liim, 11a •. v1s1on ,vl1 v111g regarcl . 1 to tl1e C1rc t1msta11ces and c .1 sto111. b

(2) He sl1al � be liable \.vl1ere, as a co11seque11ce of llis clefault,

clarnage 1s sLtffered by tl1e J)erso11 in l1is cl1a.rge.

(3) He sl1all be liable ,vl1ere, as a co11seqt1e11 ce of his clefault, tl1e person subject to l1is super-:visio11 cat1ses da1nage to a tl1ircl party. A1·t. 2053. - Trespass.

A person cornmits a i1 offence ,vl1ere, \.Vitl1out due legal at1thority, be forces ltls ,vay 011 tl1e lancl or i11to the l1ouse of anotl1er, agai 11 st tl1e clearly e.x-pressed \.\rill of tl1e la,vful O\.Vner or possessor of the land or house. Art. 2054. - Assault on property. A person comnuts an offence \vhere, ,vitl1out cl t1e legal a.t1thority, l1e takes possession of property agaiJ.1 st tl1e clea1�ly expressecl ,vil! of tl1 e la,vft1l O\.'.rner or possessor of tl1e property . .A..rt. 2055. - Pre.contractual negotiations. A person commits an offence \vhere, l1aving cleclarecl his intention of entering into a cont1·act and l1a,,ing inclt1cecl otl1ers to inct1r expe11se ,vith a vie,v to conclucling a contract \.VÎth l1in1, l1e arbitrarily abandons his intention. Art. 2056. - Disregard of co11tractual Iiability. •ste . nce of a contra' ct between t,vo . exi (1) Whosoever 1s awa1·e of the n o c a . . to in rs te n e e l1 · e other persons cornm1ts a11 of fence ,vl1er · the le ib s s . o p im a in . er l · en O . 1 c . b e Y tract w1th 011e of tl1 os e pe rs an s tl1er performance of the first contract. breach ·ncr e, of tl1e · ni ai 1 p in co y (2) H e sl1all not be Iiable vvl1 e1·e tl1 e part res meast1 y . . necessar . . e 1 tl of tl1e first con tract has fa11led to t a1(e. . . . tl1at . of nce ' ·for1na r pe e tiv ec whicl1 wotùcl ]1ave e11surecl tl1 e eff contract.

Art. 2057. - Unfair competitio11.

or s, cation IJt1bli ' . l1 false A person co1n.mits an offence ,vl1ere, tl1.rotig

APl,ENDIX

340

"B ''

by othei· means contrary to �ood faitJ1, he c� mp1·�mi�es the reputa. tian of a pi·oduct or tJ1e cred1t of a commerc1al establishment. Art. 2058. _ Shnulation. nc sa ea by nf or t no e, a pers on uc nd co or · 115 tio 1·a cla de Jùs by Wllere, , to believe in a certain es rti pa ird th in rta ce 01· , es rti pa rcl tltl induces ch e, in er ea br wh of good faith, e nc fe of an its m m co lie , irs fa af of state rties based on the true state of JJa rd tl1i l1 suc t ins aga ion act es tak he affairs. Art. 2059. - False infonnation. - 1. Prlnciple. A persan who, intentionally or by negligence, supplies false in.forrna. tian to another commits an offence ,vhere: (a) he k.no,vs that the persan to whom tl1e information is supplied or another given persan, will act upon tl1e infon11ation and the1·eby suffer damage; or (b) he is bou11d by the rttles of l1is profession to give correct infor. mation. A.rt. 2060. - 2. Exception.

( 1) Tl1e persan sup·plyi11g the incorrect information shall nat be liable wl1e1·e the statement made by him relates• ta the qualifica. tians, candt1ct, solve11cy, competence or unclertaking of another persan and was n1ade \vith tl1e object of securing credit, money or goods f 01· that person. (2) In sttch a case tl1e author of the statement s11all not be liable unless l1e l1as made it in the forrn of a si gned document. Art. 2061. - Witnesses. ( 1) Witnesses ,vho testify to the occurence or non.occu1·ence of a given event or to the existe11ce or non.existence of a given fact shall guarantee the accuracy of tl1eir statements. (2) They shall be liable to thi1·d parties I1aving acted on the faitl1 of sucl1 statements, wl1ere st1ch statements are inaccUl·ate. (3) Nathing shall affect tl1e rigl1t of witnesses in goocl faith to bring an action against the persan wl10 lecl tl1e1n into error. Art. 2062. - Advice or recommenda tion. A Perso11 sl1all not be clee1necl to l1a ve con1111itted an offence ,.vhere lie _ · · ed l1in1self t0 g1vm conf,n · · g aclvice · 01· 1naki11g a recon1mendat1on t° another.

APPENDIX "B" 341

Art. 2063. - Distraint. A person commits an offe11ce \Vl1ere, i11 order to secure pa y1nent of . . . a debt dt1e to lum, he unnecessartly se1zes goods m· tl1e posses . . sion of his debtor to an extent d1sproportio11ate to tI1e am ' oti 11·t of· t1 1e debt.

Art. 2064. - Exect1tion of a court orcler. (1) A bailiff cloes no t commit an offence by exectiti 11g a cotirt order

,vhicl1 is made in tl1e prescribed fo1·m.

(2) An offence shall be deemed to be committecl ,.vhere the order is not in tl1e prescribed fo1·111 or tl1e baili.ff exceeds l1is instructions or carries tl1e1n out withot1t due regard for tl1e provisions of the la\v.

Art. 2065. - !..imitation of action. A persan does not commit an offence by invoki11g usucapio11 or tirne. limit \vhicl1 has operatecl to his benefit. SECTION 2. LIABILITY IN THE ABSENCE OF AN OFFENCE

Art. 2066. - Necessity. ( 1)

A persan shall be liable for any clan1age he cleliberately causes to anotl1er in 01·der to save hims·elf 01· anotl1e1· from an imminent damage to person or property.

(2) No liability shall be incurred '"''here tl1e clamage is due to the victim's fault. Ait. 2067. - Bodily llarm. - 1. Prh1ciple.

( 1) A persan sh al l be li able '\Vl1ere by l1i s act l1e inflicts bodily harm

on another.

rm ha e th g in us ca t ac e th re (2) No liability sh al l be incurred ,vl1e or , e c n fe e d lf se te a im ·t eg1 1 • was ordered by Iaw or '\vas done m t. where the ha rm is dt1e so le ly to th e ,,ictim's fatil

Art. 2068. - 2. Sporting aetivities.

. tl1e exei.c ise of a sporting No liabi lity shall be inct1rred where, in or , ity tiv ac . . same act1v1ty, a persan injures another ta·Idng par t in tl1e . . gross in01 1 t clece . · ·is 00 re the present as a spectator, pro v1d t tl1a ed fringement of the rules of tl1e sport.

APPENDIX

"B.,

. le ip c in 1. r P . s le it v ti c a s u Art. 2069. - Da.ngero another to abno1·mal risk, by using or exposes wllo persan A (1) storing explosive 01· poiso11ot1s substances, or by erecting high. tension elect1·ic transmission lines, or by modifying tl1e lie of the land, 01- by engaging in a11 exceptionally dangerous indust rial activity, shall be liable ,vl1ere the clanger l1e l1as created materia.. lises, thereby causing damage to another. 1 of st1b.art. ( 1) sl1all apply notwithstanding that provisio1 The (2) the autl101· of tl1e danger is tl1e State or l1as received an au. tl1orisation from the public· authorities.

Art. 2070. - 2. Potentlal danger. Except in the case of fattlt, no liability sl1all be incurred where the value of negl1bouring p1·operty is 1·educed in consequence of an abnormal risk being created. Art. 2071. - Liability for animais. 1. Owner. The ow11er of an aniinal shall be liable for any damage caused by the animal, notwithstancling tl1at it has eluded his co11trol accidentally or the damage caused \Vas unforeseeable. Art. 2072. - 2. Custodian. (1) A person \vho has taken possession of an animal for purposes of persona! gain sl1all be liable for any damage cause· cl by tl1e animal while in his custody. (2) The provisions of sub.art. (1) shall apply \.Vhe1·e a persan has hired or borrowed the a11iinaI, or has taken possession of it in order to take cru·e of it, or foi· any other reason. (3) A11 en1ployee attending to an a11in1al, or n1aking tise of it for the owner's accot1nt or for tl1e account of anotl1er perso11, sl1all 1 1ot be liable for any damage cat1sed by tl1e a11imal tmless it is due to his own fault. Art. 2073. - 3. Transfer of Iiabll ity. ( 1) TI1e owner \vl10 has paicl co n1pensation to tl1e ,,ictim 1nay recov er from tl1e perso11 i11 wl1ose ch ru·ge tl1e animal vvas. (2) 1-Ie may clai1n to be inde111 1ùfjed i11 full, unless the clama ge be clue to l1is ow11 fault ' or tl 1at of· a pe1·son for wl101n l1e 1s · lia · ble.

A PPENDIX "B"

313

St1rr e11cler of a1umal by tJ1e owner. 4. 2074. Art.

• causecl by a clo111estic an (1) Where <lainage is ' imal ' , tl1e O\V11er of the . . . m ma rel1e,,e

y h�mself of l1is liability b "'::i' s ani al . t1 n . e 11 d e r1ng tlle • • o,vner sl11p of tl1e a111m al to tl1e perso11 vvJ·10 h as sttff · ·erecl tl1e clamage.

(2) I-Ie may not 1·elie,,e l1in1self of liability t111cler sub.art. ( 1) \.Vllere tl1e da1nage is tl1e cons-eq11e11ce of a11 offe11ce cominittecl by hi in. self or by a person .for \.\1l1on1 l1e is liable. (3) Only tl1ose ani111als ,vl1icl1 it is ct1ston1ary to kee1J for purposes

of pleasu1·e or gain sl1all be dee1ned to be domestic a11imals.

Art. 2075. - 5. Surrencler of ani1nal by custodian. ( 1) The person in c'11arge of tl1e animal sl1all only be liable to the value of tl1e a11i1nal at tl1e tin1e whe11 tl1e clamage ,.vas caused. (2) His liability shall not be li111itecl where tl1e damage \vas causecl bj1 an animal otl1er tl1an a domes tic animal or ruises from an offence committed by hi1nself or by a perso11 for \vl10111 be is Jiable.

Art. 2076. - 6. Victim's gi1a1·antee. ( 1) In or. der to secure co1npensatio11 wh5cl1 may be d11e to lù111, tl1e O\ V• ner or possesso1· of la11cl n1ay seize and ta·ke charge of a11imaJs belonging to anotl1er JJerson vvl1icl1 11a\re ca11s-ed dan1age to l1is property. (2) Ife may kill them \Vhere circ11mstances requere tl1is in order to prevent stibstantial clamage disproportionate to tl1e anin1al's value. tit ,o itl \V s a! im an e tl1 of r 11e v o, e (3) I-Ie shall in bot11 eve11ts notify th . e th e k ta ùm I to n w n o k 1111 delay or , where the ovvner 1s necessaD, n1easures to ascertai11 hin1.

Art. 2077. - Buildings. - 1. Principle.

. tl1e . to due dan1age n'\1 J a. . or ( 1) The owner of a bu ld in g sl1all b e lia ble f eable. buildu1g even w]1e1�e tl1e damage was t1nforese built . \vl10 1 1 l)erso (2) The owner may clai111 compensat1 on f.iom tl1e \V11ose by . person · t]1e tl1e building, fron 1 tl1e occ11p1er or f rom fat1lt the clamage was caused.

,,.

APPENDJX

.. B"

g. n di 1N t b f o r e d n e r r u S . Art. 2078. - 2 y by su1Tendering lit bi s lia l1i of f e] ns hù ve lie 1·e ay 111 er (2) Tl1e owi1 san wl10 has· suffered per tl1e to ing ild bu e 1 tl of ip 1 i·sI 'ne the O\.\ tl1e damage. i n1self of liability tu1der st1b.art. (1) wli J1 e iev ere 1·el (2) He 111a)' 110t ce committed by hirn. fen 1 of a1 of e nc ue eq 11s co e tl1 is ge ma da the 1 om h e is li ab le. l w r fo an rs pe a by or self

Art. 2079. _ 3. Threat of damage. A persan endangered by a11other's building may 1·equire the O\.\rner tI1ereof to take the 11ecessa1·y 1neasures to avert the danger. Art. 2080. - 4. Objects falling from a building. The occupie1· of a bttilcling shall be liable for any clamage caused by objects falling from it. Art. 2081. - Machiines and motor vehicles. - 1. Owner. ( 1)

TI1e owner of a maclti11e or motor \1el1.icle shall be liable for any damage caused by tl1e 111achine or vehicle, notl1\vithstanding that the damage was caused by a per·son who was not authorised to operate, l1andle or drive tl1e 1nachine or vehicle.

(2) He shall not be liable \Vhere l1e p1·oves• that, at tl1e time \Vl1e:1 tl1e damage ,...,as causecl, tl1e machi11e or vehicle had been stolen from him. Art. 2082. - 2. Keeper or agent. ( 1) A perso11 ,vho l1as taken possessio11 of tl1e 111achine or vehicle for purposes of JJersonal gain shall be liable for any damage caused by the machine or veltlc]e while in his possession. (2)

An agent who l1as cha1·ge of the machine or vel1icle for tl1e 0\1/ner's accou11t or for tl1e accot1nt of another person shall not be !able for any dan1age caused by tl1e n1achine or vel1icle, ex. cept in cases of fat1lt.

Art. 2083. - 3. Transfer of liabliity. ( 1) The owner who lias paicl co111p e11sa tion to tl 1e victi111 111ay recov er fro111 tl1e pe1·s011 in wl1 ose kee1Jin g tl1e macl1ine or vehicles \vas. <2) I·Ie n1ay clai111 to be incle mnified in ft1ll, unless l1e bas committed an offence or an offe11ce 11a s been con1 n1itted by a person for wl1on1 l1e is liable.

APFENDIX "D.,

315

Art. 2084. - Collision between veltlcles. ( 1) ·Where t\v. o n1otor vel1icles are ï 11 collision , eac 11 of tl1e vehicl es . shall be deemecl to l1ave contribtited eqtia c. ll':l to t_11e acc1clent. (2) Tl1e o\.vner of eacl1 vehicle' or tl1e person respons1"ble for it, sl1all . 1e total an1ot1nt of tl1e <laina bear half tl ge reSu 1t·ing f1·om the ac. . c1clent. ( 3) The JJrovisions of this Article sl1all 110t apJ ' )ly \.vl1ere 1·.t 1s • proved

. 11t \.vas clue, entireI,, that tl1e acc1de .) or cl1iefly, to the fat1It· of of the drive1·s.

011e

Art. 2085. - Manufactured goods. 7}10 manufactures goods ancl sells tl1em to tl1 public person \.\ A e ( 1) for profit sl1a;l be Uable for any damage to another person re. sulting from tl1e no1·m.al 11se of tl1e goods.

(2) No liability shall be incurred wl1ere the clefect wI-1icl1 has caused the clamage could have been cliscoverecl by a custornai-y exami. nation of tl1e goods. Art. 2086. - Exemption from liabillty. ( 1) Tl1e persans declared legally li able for tl1e creation of an ab.

normal risk or foi· a damage ca11secl by animals, builclings, mach. ines, motor vehicles or manufactt1red goocls•, may relieve thern. selves of their liability t o tl1e victim by proving tl1at they have committed no offence, or that it \Vas in11)ossible to establisl1 tl1e cause of tl1e damage, 01· that it was not \.\ri.thin their po\ver to prevent tl1e clamage 01· tl1at the dan1age \Vas clue to tl1e fault of a third party.

(2) They sl1all be relieved of tl1eir liability, entirely or in part, only \vhere the damage is due solely or party to the fault of the victirn.

Art. 2087. - Othes objects.

tbe s, le ic rt A g i1 ecli ce re p Wit.I1out prejudice to tl 1e provisions of tl1e d se u ca ge a m a d y n a owner or ·keepe r of an object shall be liable for offence an or . offence bY the abject only \-Vl1ere he bas com1ttecl a11 . le b lia is e 1 l m o l1 \V r has been comn1 ittecl by a person fo

Art. 2088. - Contractual obligations.

or ris. k , r1nal · abno of OLtt g 111 1s ar (1) Tl1e 1"t1les relating to liability by a ked invo be not may s, ct je b o out of animals, buildings or . •

.,\PPENDIX

3i16

"13"

co11cludecl by �· he pe1·s01 1 legally ct ra 11t co a r de tiii io, ,,\rl pei·son 1 tl1e clangerou.s 111dt1stria] activity, itl ,.v ed ct 1e 1 1 1 co is respoiisible, ed tl1e d.amage. t1s as ca li 1 cl l1i ,1v ct je ob · 01 , 1g 1 cli til bt aiiiii,a1, (2) Tl,e coi1seqt1e11ces of tl1e clan1age s11(:Lll in this case be settled i i1 accordance with tl1e rules governing tl1e agreement reacl1ed. Art. 2089. - Disinterested parties. (1) 'flie ru.les gove1·1 1ing liabilit)' a1ising out of animals, buildings or objects n1aj' not be il1volced by a JJe1·son wl10, even in the abse11ce of a co11t1·act, ,vas at the tin1e of the dan1age mak.ing tise of the tl1e ani111al, bt1ilcli.11g or object ,.vitl1out tl1e owner or keeper there. of cleriving benefit from sucl1 t1se. (2) In st1cl1 a ca.se, tl1e o,vner or lceepe1· shall not be liable unless he l1as co1111nitted an offe11ce.

SECTION 3. l'vlODE AND EXTEî-JT OF COMPENSATION Paragraph 1. - Da111ages A. Material damage

Ai·t. 2090. - Modes of co1npesation. ( 1) Unless othenvise p1·0,riclecl, tl1e clamage shall be made good by a,\rarding tl1e victirr1 an eqt1iva:ent a111ount in dan1ages. (2)

Tl1e cot1rt n1ay, st1bject to tl1e Iibe1·ty of p·ersons· and to tl1e 1·igl1ts of tl1ird parties, orcle1· in liet1 of or in adilition to damages ai1.y a1Jprop1·iate 1neastu·es to 111ake goocl or lin1it tl1e dam.age.

Art. 2091. - Exte11t of cla1nages. Tl1e damages due by tl1e 1Je1·so11 legally clecla1·e d to be liable shall be equal to tl1e clainage cat1secl to tl1e victin 1 by tl1e act o-0ivi 11g 1ise to tl1e lia bility. Al·t. 1092. - Futtu-e cla1nage. .. t A ft1tt1re da111age ,vllicl1 is . 1•11 to occ11 · ce1.ta r sl1all be 1nacle goocl \VItl1ou • <: wa•1t• 1• 11g fo1· it to n1aterialise .

APl'ENIDX

"fi"

Art. 2093. - Jns1u·ed victi111. ( 1) vVI1ere tl1 e victiI11 is i11st1red, l1e 1nay clélim com1Je11sa . t1011 for tl1e . . • 0 clan1a e h e l1as st1fferec

· bee11 1nsu1·ec1. 0

l 011 tl1e sa11 1e ter111s 'as, tl1o ug11 l1e l1acl not

(2) Tl1e insure1· 111ay not clai111 co111pe!1Satio11 on Iiis

O\v11

bellalf from the perso11 ,v110 by l1is act I1as brot1gl1t abottt tlle ris·k covered b11 tl1e insurance cont1·act.

(3) Tl1e inst1rance contract: 1nay, l1owever, IJrovide for tlle sttbroga t�o11 of tl1e rnsti.rer to tl1e victi1n.'s claim agai11st the person liable.

Aït. 2094. - Victim pe11sio11ecl off. (1) Wl1ere tl1e victi1n 1·eceives· a pension as a rest1:t of the act whicl1

causecl hin1 da1nage, l1e may clai1n compensation for tl1e damage l1e bas s11fferecl on tl1e sa111e terms as tl1 ottgl1 l1e l1acl recei\1ecl a pension.

(2) The perso11 IJaymg tl1e pensio11 111ay 11 ot clai111 con1pensatio11 011 his· o,.vn bel1 alf f1·om tl1e person wl10 by l1is act l1as ca11secl tl1e pension to fall due.

(3) The bond joining hiI11 to tl1e victirn n1ay 111ake 1Jrovisio11 for subrogation to tl1e victim's c]ain1 agai11st the perso11 liable.

Art. 2095. - Fatal accidents. - 1. Rights of certain 11ext-of.kin. ( l)

In tl1e case of a fatal accicle11t, tl1e spot1se of the victm1, l1is· ascendants m1d lus descencla11ts 1nay cla1m con11Je11sation 011 tl1eir behaif for tl1e 1naterial cla111age they l1ave stifferecl as a rest1lt of lus death.

(2) In tl1is case tl1 e con1pe11satio11 for tl1e clamage sl1all be in thè forn1 of a maintena11ce allowance. at tl1 g lin nc ta hs 1/it t\ 11o 1e dt l be al (3) The maintenance allov.,ance sh . m 1e tl t or pp su to k as 11 ca y 1e the plajntiffs l1ave re:atives vvl1011.1 tl

Art. 2096. - 2. Other persons.

. 1 i1 lf a h e b n vv o ir 1e tl Other persons may not claim con11Jensat1on o n 1an e r ve v y 1e tl t 1a tl . v \ 0 11 cases of fatal acciclents, even ,vhere tl1ey s terially assistecl o .r s11pported by t l1 e victin1.

Art. 209ï. - Good faitl1. ( ! ) Compe11sa tioi1 for tl1e clamage gooc1 faitl1 .

IDélY 110 t

.. 1necl Cl,,,i

co11trary to

APPENDIX "B"

348

The victin1 may not clain1 compe11sation for the da.mage he lia.s (2) sttffered in so far as, by acting in a reasonable manner, he could l1ave avoidecl or li1n1 ted the damage.

. m ti ic v e th f o lt au F _ . 98 Art. 20 due partly to the fault of the victim, the (1) wi1ere tI1e clamage is latter shall be entitled to partial con1pensation only. (2)

In fixing tl1e extent to winch tl1e dan1ag-e sl1all be made good, al1 tlle circumstances of tl1e case shall be taken into consideration, in partict1lar the extent to which the faults committed have co:i. ti·ibuted to causing tl1e damage a. n d the res1)ective gravity of these faults.

A1·t. 2099. - Powers of equity. - 1. Unawareness of offence. ( 1) Tl1e cotrrt 111ay, where equity so 1·equires, reduce the compensa.

tion awa1·ded where the offence giving rise to the liability was con1mitted by a person who was not in a state to appreciate the ,.vrongful nattrre of l1is conduct.

(2)

In this rnatter, regard shall be had to the respective financial positions of the parties and the consequences for the author of the offence of l1is liability to make the damage good.

Art. 2100. - 2. Hiera.rchical order. ( 1)

Tl1e cotrrt may, where equity so requires, reduc·e tl1e compensa. tion av.ra1·ded where a sense of clt1ty deriving from discipline or obedience moved tl1e at1tl1or of tl1e offence to commit it.

(2) Regard shall be I1ad to tl1e degre-e of imperativeness of the duty. Art. 2101. - 3. Unforeseeable damage. (1) The court may, where equity so requires, reduce tl1e compensa.

tio11 to be paid by a persan \.vl10 caused a dam.age wltlcl1, in conseqt1ence of unforeseeable circumstances·, expanded beyond wl1at coulcl 1·easonably be expectecl.

(2) No recluction may be ordered tmcler sub.a1�t. ( 1) ,.vhere tl1e dam age arises from an intentional otfe11ce. Art. 2102. - 4. Difficulty of ass essn1ent. (l) Where tl1e exact amotmt of tl1e damage cannot be calculated, tl1e cottrt sl1a' lI f1'x 1·t equ1·· tabl y, taking 1nt · o account tl1e or di11ru·y course of events a11cl tl1e 111eastires taken by the injured party.

Al'l' ENDIX

"D" 349

(2) No inde1n11it)1 may be a,varcled in respect 0 f a dan1age of wl1 .• . ,. ich the very existence, a11cl n.ot o n ly tl1e a' m o t111t , IS · dOllb tftll.

Art. 2103. - 5. Necess:ity. The court sl 1all �ix eqt1itabl)1 tl1e an1ount of compens ation dtie from a person ,vl10, \VIt l 1011t co m mitting an offence, ca ' tised c1amage to tl1e . property of a11otl1er 1n 01·cler to s ave l 1 in . ' othe1. from an 1m · 1self or an . mine11t clamage or danger.

Art. 2104. - Nominal clamages. Damages of a purely no m in al amou11t 111ay be a,.vardecl wher e the action lias been brought solely with a vie,v to establishing that a right of the plaintiff ha s been infringed, or tl1at a l iability I1as been incurred by the defenclant.

B. Moral injury Art. 2105. - 1. Principle. ( l)

The au tl101· of a n1 isdeed shall make good tl 1e moral harm rest1l. tiog from his miscleed wl1ere,,er adeqt1ate procedure exists for su ch r edress .

(2) Unless otl1erwise exp1·essly p1·ovidecl by la\v, moral l1arm may not be made good by way of damages .

Art. 2106. - Intentional offence. Where moral harm has bee n infl icte d upon the plaintiff cleliberately the cot1rt may, by way of 1·edress, order t l1e defendant to pay. fair compensation to tl1e pla.intiff or to a charity named by tlie plantiff.

Art. 2107. - Physical assault.

ulsive contact p re or nt sa ea pl un Where the defendant has forced an e th r e rd o s s re ' d re f o way on the plai11tiff's persan, the court may, bY . . ty r1 a h c . a to r o · ff ti defendant to pay fair compensation to th e P1 ain

named by the plaintiff.

Art. 2108. - Unlawful restraint.

tl1e by ty liber . s I1i of Where tl1e plaintiff has been tmlawftilly depri· vecl to dant defen 1e t defendant, the court may, by ,vay Of i·ecl ress' orcle1· . .1 t11e by d na111e . ar1ty . 'ff 1. t 0 a cl 1 pay fair compensatio11 to tl1e pl a1nt1 plaintiff.

APPENDIX

350

"Il"

. n o ti a un r f e D _ . 9 0 1 2 Art. Fair con1pensatior1 may be awarde·d by way of redress to the plaintiff 01. to a cl1ai·ity namecl by hl1n, in tl1e case of insult or clefamation wl1e1·e: (a)

tJ1e iiljLu·ioLis or clefa111atory cl1arges a1·e tl1at tl1e plai11tiff I1as corumitted. a crime 01· an offence }Junishable uncle1· the criminal Ia,v; or

(b) tl1ey allege tl1at the plaintiff is inco1npetent or dishonest in the

exercise of 11.is profess.ion; or

( c) they allege tl1at tl1e plaintiff, if a business man, is insolvent; or (cl) tl1ey allege tl1at tl1e plantiff is suffering from a contagioL1s dise. ase; or (e) tl1ey allege tl1at the plaintiff is of Iow morals. Art. 2110. - Injury to the rights of spouses. Fau· compensation may be awarded by way of redress to the plaintiff 01· to a charity named by l1im, wl1e1·e tl1e defendant ha.s injLrred his or !1er rights as· a spot1se (Art. 2050). Ar·t. 2111. - Abduction of child. Fair cirnJJensation may be a\varded by \Vay of redress to the plaintiff or to a cl1arity narned by hjm, wher·e the defenda11t has been sentenced by a crimi11al coUI·t for having abclL1cted a child ,�I1ich is in the plaintiff's Ia,vh1l custody.

Art. 2112. - AssaL1lt on property. Fair co1npensation 1nay be a,va1·decl by ,vay of red1·ess where tl1c cle. fenda11t has, against tl1e clea1·Iy eXJJressed ,-,rill of the plaintiff, forcecl l1is way i11to lus lancl or l10L1se 01· seized p1·01Je1·ty of whicl1 tl1e pl,1intiff is· tl1e la\.vf1.1I owne1·. A1:t. 2113. - Pl1ysical iI1ju1ies or cleatl1.

Fair con1pensation n1ay be awa1·cled by ,vay of 1·eclress to tl1e ,,ictin1 of boclil)' iiijLiries o.r, i11 tl1e eve11 t of l1is deatl1 in co11seqL1ence there of, to l1is fan1ily.

APPE!'.DIX "B"

351

Art. 2114. - Indecent assattlt. ( .l ) Where a pe1·son l1as been sentencecl by a crinlitlal c o urt f·or rape . . 111de as

ce11t or sault, tl1e court may av ' va 'rd tJ1e pensation by \Vay of reclress.

· t·1m VIe

f·a·1r com-

(2) In s11ch an e\rent, con1pe11sation n1ay also be a\varcled to the h11sband of tl1e vvon1an, or to the family of the girl \Vllo lias been rapecl. Art. 2115. - I11jury to a wife.

(1) Fair compensation n1ay be awarcled by vvay of redress to a husband against a persan vvho, by inflicting bodily injury on t11e \,vife, renders her companionsl1ip less useful or less agreeable to the h11sba11d. (2) The action wl1ich tl1e hus·band may bring on tl1is ground sl1all be inclependent of the action for clamages whicl1 tl1e vvife may bring in respect of tl1e i11jury sl1e l1as suffered. Art. 2116. - Custom. (1)

In fixing tl1e amount of tl1e fan· compensation provided for in the preceding Articles, and in establislting \vho is q11alified to act as representative of the fami1y, the co11rt sl1all have regarcl to local usages.

(2) The court n1ay not disrega1·d s11cl1 11sages unless tl1ey are anachro. nistic or manifestly contrary to reason or morals. (3) The compensation a,�rarded for moral injury may in no case ex.

ceed one thousand Etluopian dollars.

Art. 2117. - Representative of the family. . e on al l al sh g in w llo fo e tl In the absence of a11y applicable 1 usage, 1 loca be conside rd as q11alified to represent tl1e fan1ily:

( a) the victim's ht1sband or \Vife; or

. eldest . 1nca s victim ' tl1e ble pa (b) failing s11ch or whe re he or sl1e 1s child who is capable under the law; or fa s victim ' the ble, ( c) failing such 01· where he or Slle is incapa tl1er; or or r; mothe . . . . 's victim (d) fa1l1ng st1cl1 or where l1e 1s 1ncapable, the

APl'ENDlX ••B"

352

t es e eld tl1 , of tl1e victim's ble pa ca in is 1e l s· re J1e , ,,.. 01cli sti g lii1 (e) fai . w e r la th de e un bl 1Ja ca is l10 w ·s ei st si -· 01 brotliers ParagraiJl1 2. - Otl1e1 · Macles of Co1npensation Art. 2118. - Restirtutio11.

( 1) TI1e court shall orde1· tl1e return to the plai11tiff of p1·operty \Vl1icl1 has been impro1Jerly taken a\vay fron1 him, and of the emblen1ents yielclecl by the IJroperty si11ce the date of its removal.

(2)

Where tl1e property l1as been lost 01· destroyed the defendant sl1all repay its vait1e, notvvitl1standing tl1at the loss is due to fo1·ce majetu·e. •

(3) Where tl1e defe11dant has i11ct1rred expens'e on the property wh�ch l1e is 1·equired to 1·etu1·n, tl1e provisions relating to unlawful en. 1 ·icl1ment shall apply (Art. 2168.2178). Art. 2119. - Restituti011 in kind. (1) Tl1e cot1rt 1 11ay, wl1e1·e it tl1inks fit, order tl1e p1·ope1~ty ,.vhich bas been damaged or destroyed to be replaced or put in order at the expense of tl1 e person responsible foi· the destruction 01· deterior. ation. (2) In tl1is case, tl1e cot1rt sl 1a11 fix tl1e \Va)' in ,vhich tl1e property is to be re1Jlaced 01· pt1t in order. (3)

TI1is mode of con1pensation n1ay not be prescribed where tl1e duty to co1npensate falls on tl1e State.

Ai·t. 2120. - Honour ancl reputartion. In the case of dealings cli1·ected against tl1e l1011ot1r 01· reputation of a11 individt1,Ll or incliviclt1als, tl1e cot1rt 1 11ay 01·der st1ch publicity to be 1.nacle at tl1e clefencla11t's ex 1Je11se as is Iikel)' to coU11ter tl1e effect of tl1e deali11gs.

Art. 2121. - Injunctions. (l)

TI1e cotirt may gra11t a11 i11jtu1ctio11 1·estraini11g tl1e defendant from comn1itting, fro111 co11tint1ing to co1nn1 it or [rom rest1IDing an act pi·ejticlicial to tl1e IJlai11tiff.

•

APPENDIX "Il"

353

(2) An injtmction sl1all be grantecl on ly ,,,1 , 1e1.e there are good . . ieaso:::is . . be tl1 . lie at ve th to e ac t prejticlic·' ial to tlle l)la111t1ff is li kelY to . e . b . ou carr1ed t an.cl vvl1ere tlie ÎilJ ttry ,,v1•tl1 ,,,1 1i. cl1 . . l1e is tl1rea te11ecl 1s sucl1 that it ca1111ot be reclressecl by an a\.vard o f cla1nages. A1�t. 2122. - Unfair competition. In the case of t1nfair competitio11, tI1e cotlI•t m ay order the ab andon. . . • . .. cl1sl1onest J)Iact1ces t1sed by the cle fendant. ment of the Art. 2123. - Silnulation. Acts done by tl1ircl parties on tl1e faitl1 of 'a pi·ete nce may be declared . demu1·rable aga111st tl1e person ,.vJ10, by I1is belia, v1o · ur or by non. feasa:nce, has created the pretence.

Section 4 - Liability for the Actions Others Art. 2124. - Fatl1er's Iiability. Tl1e father sl1all be liable unde1· the Ia,v ,.vhere l1is· rninor cl1ild inctrrs a liability. Art. 2125. - Otl1er guardians of the cltlld. The follo\\'Îng pe1·sons sl1all be liable in lie11 of the fatl1er: (a) the n1other, ,vl1ere she exercises tl1e pater11al a11thority over tl1e child; (b) the persan in whose cl1a1·ge tl1e cluld l1as bee11 placed, where tl1e

cl1 ild lives outside tl1e family l1on1e; (c) the headmaster or the employer during the tin1e vvhen the clulcl is at school or se1-vi11g a11 apprenticeship; ( d)

the ernplo}rer i.vhere uncler tl1e te1·ms of tl1e follovving Articles, his liabi1ity is i11volved in conseqttence of a11 act co1nn1itted b,)' the child.

Art. 2126. - Liability of the State. - 1. Prlnciple.

ocl any go e l< 1a n ll 1a l s· ee y o Jl ( 1) Any c iv il servant o r govern111e11t em 1 damage he cattses to anotl1er by his fat1l t. airn cl y a m m ti ic v e th , (2 ) Wl1 e1·e tl1e fat1lt is a professional fa11lt sub1nay State tl1e at . 1' · le d tl compensat1on fro1n the State, prov1c t. fat1l t a ployee . sequ ently cla.un from tl1e ser,,ant or ero fault. a! person . a ' 1 5 · lt . · (3) The S ta te sl1all n o t b e Iiable ,.vl1ere tl1e f au

APPENDIX

354

"B ''

. lt u fa l a n io ss fe •o 1 p . 2 _ 7, Art. 212

to be a p1-ofessional fat1lt where tlie cl rne dee be ll slia t fatù A (1) person ,vI1o co1nmitted it believed i11 goocl faitl1 tl1at he acted ,vitltln tl1e sco1Je of l1is dt1ties a11d in tl1e interest of the State.

(2) A fault sl1all be clee111ecl to be a pers·onal fault in othe1· cases. (3)

u111ess

tl1e co11t1·ary is JJroved, tl1e se1·vant or employee shall be clee111ed to have acted i11 goocl faith.

Art. 2128. - 3. Assimilated cases. The provisio11s of Ar·t. 2126 ancl 2127 shall ap1Jly to th.e liability of sen,ants or employees of a ter1·itorial subdivision of the State or of a public service witl1 legal statt1s. A1:t. 2129. - Liabllity of bodiles corpora,te. Bodies co1·po1-ate sl1all be liable t1ncler tl1e la,v vvhere one of their re. 1Jrese11tati,,es, agents or paid ,vo1·kers inctu·s a liability in the dis'Cl1. arge of his dt1ties. Art. 2130. - E1n1Jloye1·'s liability. Tl1e em 1Jloyer sl1all be liable unde1· tl1e Ia,v ,vl1ere one of his en1p. loyees incw·s a liability in tl1e discha1·ge of his duties. Art. 2131 . - Discharge of duties. (1) For the JJw·pose of Art. 2129 and 2130, a liability shall be deemed ta l1ave been incurred in tl1e cliscl1arge of dt1ties• \.Vl1ere the \.vrong. f11l act 01· the abstentio11 was committecl for tl1e pttrpose of car. rying out the duties. (2)

Tl1e fact tl1at the wrongft1l act or absention was 1tltra vires, or tl1at its autl1or ,vas s·t1-ictl)' fo1·bidde11 to commit it, shall not release the person who is legally 1·esponsible f1·om l1is ljability 11nless tl1e victm k11e\.\' 01· ot1gl1t to l1ave kno,,vn of that fact.

Art. 2132. - Presumptio11. (1) WI1ere tl1e dan1age is cat1sed by tl1e 1·e1Jresentative or age11t of a body cor1Jorate or by él lJaicl vvo1·ke1· at tl1e pla.ce ,vl1ere 01· duri11g tl1e time wl1en l1e is 11ormally e111ployecl, l1e sl1all be deemed to I1ave cat1secl tl1e clamage in tl1e cliscl1arge of l1is dt1ties. (2) Proof to tl1e contrar)' is adn1is'Sible to 1·ebut such presumption .

APrENDIX

.. D"

355

Art. 2133. Non-clischarge of duties.

TI1e liability sl1all not be cleen1ecl to l1ave been incurr . ecl in tl1e c11s c l1 · t1t 1e 1e ,. re l s v suc11 clt1ties l1ave merely IJro arge of cl . v · 1c l ed .1 t 1e1r author . ,vith an opportt1n1ty of con1111itting tl1e ,vrongfttl ,act 01_ abstent1on vvhicl1 causecl the da111age. Art. 2134. - Independent workers.

A person sl:aJI not �e liable fo r tl1e fatùts or offences con1initt ed by another ,vh1le ca1·ry1ng ot1t ,-vork ,vlticl1 l1e l1as askecl 11in1 to do , ,vhere tl1e author of tl1e offence is 11ot subject to tl1e for111er's authoiity an d is to be consiclerecl as l1avi11g retai11ecl 11is independei1ce. Art. 2135. - Defamation. The mananging eclitor of tl1e 11e,vs1Japer, the pri11ter of tl1e pan1pltlet or tl1e publisher of tl1e book shall be liable t1nder tl1e la,v for defama. tion committed b)7 tl1e author of a printecl text. Art. 2136. - Cumulatio11 of liabi!ities. (1)

A person vvl10 cat1sed cla111age sl1a11 repair it notvvithstancling

tl1at anotl1er JJe1·so11 is cleclared by Ia,v to be liable for st1ch damage.

(2) The persan ,vl10 causecl the damage and tl1e person vvl101n tl1e Ia,.v declares to be liable fo1· st1cl1 clamage shall be jointly l!able to 1·epair st1ch damage. (3) The persan t1nder tl1e Ia,.v liable for the action of anotl1er may dema.nd tl1at the at1tho1· of the cla111age be made a party to the proceedings brougl1t by tl1e victim for compensation.

SECTION S. - ACTION FOR DAMAGES Art. 2137. _ Legal immunity. _ 1. Tlie Sovereig11.

may im 1-I y b cl te it m m o c ce en No action for liability basecl 011 a11 off . . be brou ght against His Majesty the Emperor of Etbiopia.

Art. 2138. - 2. Ministe1·s, members of Parliame 11t and juclges. conact an of restùt . N0 action for liability may be brot1g11t as the nected witl1 tl1eir functions agai11st:

.A.PPENDIX

356

"B"

(a) a n1 einber of tl1e I111 perial Etl1io1)ja11 Gover11 ment; (b) a member of tl1e Etl1io1Jia11 Parlia111ent; or

01·

(c) a j11dge of tl1e Etlliopian cou1·ts. Art. 2139. - Exception. Tlle pi·ovisioi1s of A 1·t. 2138 sl1 all 1 1 ot apply where tl1e 1)erso11s men. tioned tliei·eiI1 have been se11tencecl by a criminal court for acts per. taining to tl1eu· office a11d i11 vokecl by tl1e plaintiff. Art. 2140. - Reference to the acbninistrative law. Where tl1e State is Iiable, tl1e rules of ad1ninistrative la\v determine against whom tl1e action shall be b1·ought a1 1d wl1icl1 department or service sl1all finally ass1une tl1 e burden of the debt. Art. 2141. - Burden of p1·oof. Tl1 victin1 of tl1e injury shall establisl1 tl1e amount tl1ereof and prove tl1e circ1rmstances ,vhicl1 1·e11der tl1e defendant liable to make it good. Art. 2142. - Undiscovered a-uthor of damage. ( 1)

Wl1 ere damage l1 as bee11 ca11sed by one 01· other of several per. sons ai1d it is impossible to asce1·tain wllich of the persons in. ,1olved is tl1e autl1 or, tl1e co1u·t may, where equity so 1·equires, order the damage to be made good joi11tly by the g1·oup of per so11s ,vl1 0 co11ld l1 ave ca11sed i t and a1nong wl10111 the author of tl1e clamage is certainly to be fotrncl.

(2)

In such case, the co1u·t rnay 01·de1· tl1e da1nage to be made good by tl1e perso1 1 vvho is be ),oncl çloubt liable 1111de1· tl1e la\v for the undetermined a11thor of the dan1age.

Art. 2·143. - Pe1·iod of limitation. ( 1) Tl1 e action sl1all be b1·011gl1 t by tl1 e victin1 ,,vithil1 t,,.,o years• fro111

tl1e time at ,vl1icl1 he suffered tl1e dan1age foi· \,\1l1icl1 l1e is claim ing con1 pensatio11.

Wl1 ere tl1e da111age arises f1-0111 tl1e com111ission of a crin1i11 al offence in respect of vvlticl1 tl1e Penal Cocle p1·escribes a longer JJeriod of li111itation, tl1e latter period s·l1 all appl)' to tl1e action for clamages. (3) Nothi11g j11 tl1is Ai·ticle sl1 all affect the 1·igl1t of tl1 e victi1n to inake a claim foi· tl1e recove1·y of l1is p1·01Je1·t y 01· to u1voke tl1e p1·ovisions r·elating to 1111Ia,.vf11l e11ricl1111e11t (A ·t. 2162.2178) 1 . (2)

APPENDIX "B,. 357

Art. 2144. - Helrs. (1) (2)

The victiin's 11ei1·s 111ay clai111 co 1n )ensati c on· foI. t· J1e 111a 1 . ter1al cl amage l1e l1as st1ffer ecl.

U11les s otl1erwise proviclecl by la\v ' tl1ey n1ay c not cl a11 · n co1n1Jensa. tion for n1oral i11jt11·y st1fferecl b y tl1e victim llilless ca11 ac·t10 · n f·or co111pensatio11 fo r st1cl1 i11jt1ry l1as bee11 init iatecl by tlle ,,ictim dt1ring l1is lifetime.

(3) Tl1e st1ccessio11 of tl1e perso11 \vl10 is liable for tJ1e in jury shall be liable as l1e l1imself \Vas to 1nalce goocl tl1e cl am age. Art.2145. - Victim's c1·eclito1·s.

(1) The creclito1·s of a pe1·so11 111ay 11ot claim compesation on bel1alf

of tl1e clebto1· foi· an injuJ-y done to l1im where such injw·y is connected ,vit l1 l1is persan, l1is J)l1ysical integ1ity or lus honotu·.

(2) Tl1ey n1ay, on tl1e conclitio11 s laid dow11 i11 Art. 1993, brii1g tl1eir debtor's action where tl1e clebtor l1as, after tl1e date on wl1icl1 the}' became lus c1·edi tors, suffered an injt11·y affecting solely bis financial interests. Art. 2146. - Claim may not be assignecl.

(1) The victim's claim against tl1e pe1·s011 liable for tl1e da1n age 1nay

not be assignecl so long as i t l1as 11ot been t1phelcl by of the cou1"t ancl tl1e an1ount fixecl.

(2) It may thereupo11 be assig11ed of Art. 1962.1975.

i11

decision

accorclance ,,vith the provisions

Art. 2147. - Agreement excJucllng liability.

(1.) A persan may no t re lie ve hunself of the co11seqL1ences of an of.

fence.

fo r A perso n may stipulate by contract tl1at l 1 e will not be liable w· Ia e th er d n u le b " a Ji 5 1 · 10m l offence committed b y a perso11 for w , le b a Ii e b t o n ll Ti ,\ 1e l a t (3) A person m .. . ay stipulat e by contract .th s 1011 s 1 v o r p 1e tl r e d 11 t1 e cr a except in th e case of an offence, for c lamc O ' ence. ff o a11y o . ce absen c e . 1 of tl1is Title is to be 1nade good 111 t1

(2)

Art. 2 .l48. - Comprom se. i

ree tl1at it shall a After d amage l1as been cat1secl, tl1e on . tion co11cli 1e �1 t c not entail compen sation 01· n1ay co111 Promise on wl1icl1 is s l1all be made goocl. .

parties in ay

AP.PENDIX "B"

358

. on ti l ac vi ci on al i11 im cr f o t ec ff E Art. 2149. 1ce l1as been co1n1nitted, the court shall e1 off an ei· eth wI1 lg i icli dec In l 110t be boLind by a11 acquitta! 01· discl1arge by a crin1ina court. Art. 2150. - Date of assessme11t of damage. ( 1) Tlle coLirt sl1all assess tl1e damage suffe1·ecl by tl1e victim as on tl1e day on \1/l1icl1 it re11de1·s jud.gment. (2) Whe1·e it is impossible finally to evalL1ate the damage on that clate, the co1u·t n1ay give a pro,1isional judg1nent and authorise an a1Jplic·ation for reco11sideration of s11ch decision. (3) The application for 1·econsicleration may n.ot be made later than

t\VO years fro1n tl1e date of the provisional judgme11t. ·

Al:t. 2151. - Res Judicata.

( 1) Witl1out prejudice to the provisions of Art. 2150, the court's e,,aluation of tl1e damage sl1all be final. (2) TI1e victim n1ay not bring a fi·esl1 actio11 for compensation for otl1er damage he l1as SLtffered unless s11ch damage ,vas caused ir1dependently of tl1at foi· which he has already claimed corn. pensation. Art. 2152. - No appeal. No appeal sl1all lie against the j11dgment of the court of first n1stance relating to the amou11t of dan1ages to be paicl. A1·t. 2153. - Exceptions. The provisions of Art. 2152 sl1all not apply wl1ere: (a) the court l1as taken into consicleration circw11s'tances ,,.,lùcl1 it shoulcl not l1ave taken i11to accoL1nt 01· l1as failed to take into con. sideratio11 circ11mstances ,vhcl1 it sl1ould have taken into ac coL1nt; or (b) tl1e amoUi,t of clamages fixecl by tl1 e coLu·t is ma.nifestly un. reasonable a11d coulcl 011ly l1ave be·e11 insJJired by p1·ejL1dice or 1mproper moti,,e; or (c) the amount of cla1nages is clL1e to an er1·01· of calct11ation on the JJa1·t of tl1e coL1rt.

APPENDIX

"D., 359

Art. 2154. - A:llowa11ce. (1) Wl1 ere st1cl1 111ocle of pay111eilt is jtistifiecl by 1l1 e nat11re of tl1e clan1 age o1· b y tI1e

ci1·ct1m s ta11ces c:att e11c1mg · tl1·e case ' • tl1e court rnay orcle1· tl1e dan1age to be 111acle. gooc1 b y 1nea11s of an allow. ance.

(2) I11 s11cl1 case, tl1e cleb tor sl1all provicle sect1ri t,J, for· the pa yment

of tl1e allo,vance.

Art. 2155. - Joi11t Iiability. (1) Wel1re several perso11s are 1·equirecl . to inak....e good the same

cla1nage, tl1ey shall clo so jointly.

-· · (2) No distincton sl1all be n1acle bet\vee11 inst 1· e' oator , lJ11nc1pa 1 ancl . accon1pl1ce.

( 3) �erso11s required to 1nake goocl tl1e same da111age sI1au be joùltly liable 1·egardless of wl1 etl1er tl1e liability has its source for one or otl1er of tl1en1 in a contract or i11 an extra.contractual Iiability.

Art. 2156. - Sole liability. - 1. Principle. Wl1ere 01tly one of tl1e perso11s Iiable lias con1 mittecl an offence, I1e s.hall alone finally bea1· tl1e b11rden of the debt.

Art. 2157. - 2. Fair division of Iiability. (1) Where tl1e offence bas bee11 co111n1itted i11 tl1e discl1arge of Iùs duties by the representati,,e or agent of a body corporate or by a paid vvorker, the cottrt 111ay decicle tl1e clebt sl1all finally be borne eitl1er wbolly 01· partly, by the body corporate or tl1e employer. (2) Where tl1 e offence consists in a professio11al fatùt committed by a civil se1-vant or employee, tl1e court 1nay decicle tl1 çit the debt sball finalJy be born·e, eitl1er \1/boll)' or partly, by the Stat� or its territorial st1bclivision or the p11blic service co11cer11ecl. Art. 2158. - 3. Directio11s to follow.

y it v ra g e th f o t 11 t1 o c c a e (1) In 1nakin g its clecision ' the cotirt sl1all tak o t e ir s l ce 5 ' r 1o ·I t 1 t a e 1 l of tl1e offe11ce ancl wl1 etber it was clt1e to t le. ib s s o lJ s a ly s 11 o ti n ie c s n carry ot1t his duties as co tl1e • of ns JJositio ncial ' a. (2) No 1·egarcl sball be l1acl to tl1e res1Ject1v e f'm perso11s cleclared liable.

APPENIDX

360

"B"

. n o ti c ri st e R . 4 _ . 9 15 2 . ·t A.J.

No clivision of Iiability may be granted by tl1e court wl1e1·e: (a) tl1e act giving rise to tl1e Iiability "''as committed with intent to J1arn1; or (b) tl1e act is a cri11un.al offence the at1tl1or of \Vhicl1 11as been sen. tenced b)' a c1·iminal court. 1\1·t.

2160. - Collective Iiabllity. ( 1) Where seve1·al pe1·so11s l1ave contributecl by their fault or offence to tl1e san1e damage, the cotrrt shall fix on the basis of equity

what proportio11 of the debt is fiI1ally to be bo1·ne by each of the persons liable.

(2)

In 1naking_ its clecision, tl1e court s·hall l1ave regard to all the circumsta11ces, i11 pa1·tic11la1· tl1e extent to which the several of. fences contrib11ted to tl1e damage and he gravity of each such offe11ce.

Art. 2161. - Sub1·ogation. ( 1) A persan wl10 has paicl tl1e ,vhole clebt altl1ougl1 he is not bound finally to bear n1ore tl1an a part tl1ereof sl1all be e .ntitled to re. cover fro111 tl1ose Iiable with him. (2) For the pw·pose of sucl1 recove1·y l1e shall be subrogated to the victim's claim. (3) Tl1e co111·t may in its j11dgment subrogate the perso11 sentenced to the victim's• possible claims agai11st other perso11s liable for the clamage.

â&#x20AC;¢

APPENDIX . ''C ,, XIII DE LA RESPONSABILITÈ EXTRA - CONTRACTUELLE ET DE L' ENRICI:lISSEMENT INJUSTE Chapitre

Premier

DE LA RESPONSABILI'fÈ EXTRA - CONTRACTUELLE Article 2027. - Sources de la respo11sabilité extra.contractuelle. ( 1) Une perso1111e est res1Jonsable, en clel1ors de tot1t e11gagement de sa pa1·t, lorsqt1' e lle a, par sa fa1 1te, catisé 11n do111mage à a11trui.

(2) Une pe1·sonne est cl'a11tre part responsable, dans les cas prév11s par la loi, lorsqu'elle exerce 11ne activité ot1 possècle une chose q11 i causent Ltn dom.mage à autnti. (3) Une pe rsonne e st responsable, e11fi11, d1 1 fait d'autr11i, lorsqu'une responsabilité, fondée s11r la fa11te 011 dérivant de la loi, est en courue par une person11e cle q1 1 i la loi la déclare 1·esponsable. Section

DE LA RESPONSABILITÈ FONDEE SUR UNA FAUTE. § 1. _ Règles générales.

Article 2028. - Prin cipe gé11éral. 1 cle le te11 1 est i 1 trt 1 at Celtù q11i a, 1Ja1· sa fa11te, ca11sè u11 clo1nr11age a, reparer.

APPENDJX

364

"C"

. te t1 fa e d s té é ri a V _ 9. 2 Article 20

tio11nel ot1 da11s un e en te int ac t111 11s cla 1· ste 11si co it JJet lte fat (J)� La siinple néglige11ce. co11sister e11 t1n acte Ott e11 une abstention. (2) Elle peut Article 2030. _ Boru1es 111oeurs. ( 1) Une perso1111e com111et une faute, lo1·sqt1'elle agit ou s'abstient d'agir cl't1ne manière ot1 clans des conditio11s qui cl1oquent la 1norale ou les bonnes mœtu·s. (2)

On a égarcl, à ce st1jet, à la condttite cl'un l101n1ne raisonnable.

(3) La faute est appréciée sans tenir compte cle l'âge ni de l'état me11tal des IJerson.nes, sauf disposition cont1·aire de la loi. Artic!e 2031. - Faute professionnelle. (1)

Celui qui exe1·ce t1ne professio11 Ott une activité donnée doit ob. server, cla11s l'exercise de cette profes'Sion ou activité, les règles qt1i got1vernent cet exercice.

(2) II est res1Jonsable lorsqt1e, ett éga1·d atix données de la science ou atix 1·égles consac1·ées par la pratique de son art, i l a commis une i111 1Jrt1dence ou s'est 1·endu coupable d't1ne néglige11ce qui constitt1ent u11e 1néconnaissance certaine de ses devoirs. Artic:e 2032. - Intention de nt1i1·e. ( l)

Une personne com111et t1ne fat1te, lo1·s•qu'elle agit e11 vue de nuire à autrui, sans recl1ercher pour elle.n1ême u11 profit pe1·sonnel.

(2)

Elle co1nme11t de n1ên1e t1ne fat1te si, en co11naissance de cause, elle ca11se à a11trw 11n do1nn1age considérable, en 1·ecl1e1·cl1ant w1 IJrofit personnel q11i est sru1s rappo1·t avec ce donunage.

Artic�e 2033. - Détou1·neme11t de JJouvoi1·. ( 1) U11e pe1·son11e co1111net u11e fa11te, lorsq u'elle exerce da11s son intérêt pro1Jre les IJOt1voirs qt1i l11i on t été confé da11s l'intérêt 1·é cl'11ne a11tre JJe1·sonne. (2)'

U11 fonctio11naire co1111net t111e fat1te lorsqt1'il 11tili clanS'e so11 se 111teret perso1111el, 011 da11s l'intérê t d'une persoru1e partic111ière, les JJOttvoirs q11e sa fonctio11 l11 i co11fère cla11s l'intérêt général. •

Al'PENDIX

"c••

365

Articlè 2034. - Destination cles droits. Sot1s résenre cles a1·ticles précécle11ts Ja 111a 111· � ere c lont t111 clroit est L1t1I1se 11e pet1t etre cr1t1quee e11 faisant valoi. ,eIIe est. c 1 q u . • , ontraire à . de st ec 1n o1 at1on 101111qt1e ot1 sociale cle ce clroi la t. '

• •

•

•• •

•

Article 2035. - Violation d't111e loi. (1) U11e pe1·s01me com111et u11e faute• lorsqLt'elle c011t revie · nt atL'< clis. . . ., . pos 1t1ons part1ct1l1eres et précises cl' t1 ne 101· d'u ne or·d.onnance ot1 , d'L1n règlement aclministrati.f. (2) L'ignorance de la loi ne co11stit t1e pas u11e exctise. Artic.!e 2036. - .Qrdre l1iérarchique. (1) La ci1·costance qu't1n acte ait été acco1npli st1r l'ordre cl' un e autorité supé1·ieure 11'enlève pas 11écessairement à cet acte sa11 caractère de faute. (2) L'autetir de l'acte commet une faute s'il se rencl compte clt1e caractère illicite de l'acte, 11ota1nment clu cléfat1t de co1npéte11ce de celui qui lui impa1·tit l'ordre ot1 dtt caractère criminel de l'acte. (3) il n'y a pas faute si, dans les circostances cle l'espèce, et nota111. ment du fait cl'exigences spécialen1ent strictes de la discipline étatique ot1 militaire, l'autellT cle l'acte était placé dans cles con. <litions telles qu'il 11e ,lui était pratiqt1ement pas possible cle di. scuter l'ordre 1·eçu et d'agir autrement qt1'il n'a fait. Article 2037. - Inexécution d'un contrat. (1) Une person:ie ne co111met pas une fat1te susce1Jtible cle mettre en jeu sa respo11sabilité extra.cont1·actt1elle, lorsqt1'elle n'exéctite pas les obligations qui dérivent potir elle d't1n contrat. (2) Les règles concernant I'inexéct1tio11 des contrats sont seules ap. plicables en cette l1ypothèse. § 2. _ c�s particuliers. •

•

Ai-ticle 2038:·· - Atteinte à la personne JJhysiqtie. l. Pnncipe. ' (l co11tat u11 se impo . tit.e 101-sqti'elle (l) Une personne co1nmet ttne fa cle olonté v a 1 re co11t , t n ne ei Il e 11n io 11t te la personn e d'autrui, in , . cel11i auq11el ce contat es·t 11111Jose.

APPENDIX

"C"

366

11e l'a.ttei11te à la pe1·sonne d'a utn1i ait q s, ca ce ns da (2) Il )' a fatite JJerso11nel , ou en se se1·vant d'un e , , re, a 1-1s�e'e par tat con un · , ete . , . . e e 1m n 1a 11 1 1 0 e é 1m 11 a , se o ll c perso11ne d'autrt1i ne la à attei11te r t ·e r o p l c e e c a 11 1e 11 e Jl 11 (3) La sin . te 11 e fa 11 u e, al ér 11 gé e gl rè 1 , e1 as p 1 1e co11stit

Article 2039. _

z. Causes justificatives.

Il n'y a pas faute tot1tefois: a) lorsque le défendeur ne pot1vait pas raisonnablement prévoir qt1e le dema11deu1· s'opposait à son acte; b) lorsque l'acte a été accompli, de façon 1·aison.11able, pour la légi. time défense de soi.même ou cl'autrui, ou potrr gara11 tir des biens dont le défendet11· était le possesseur ou clétenteur légitime; c) lorsq11e l'acte a été accon1pli par le défende11r st11· la perso · nne de so11 enfant, pt1pille, élè,,e 011 domestiq 1 1e et qu'il constitue une punition corpo1·elle raiso1111able; cl) lorsqt1e le demande111· était t111 fo11 dangereu.'{ qt1'il y avait lieu cl'e1npêcl1er cle n11i1·e, et q 11e l'acte a été acco1npli de façon raison_ 11able; e) lo1·squ'il existe qt1alque ai1tre ci1·costance, q1u, selon l'opinion cl't1ne personne 1·aisom1able, j11stifie l'acte du cléfende1u·. Article 2040. - Atteinte à la liberté ct'autrui. 1. P1incipe. ( 1) Une personne comn1et tme faute lorsque, sans y être autorisée

par la loi, elle po1·te atteinte à la Iibe1·té d'tllle autre perso1.me, 1nême pom· un te111ps limité, et l'en11Jêcl1e de se déplace1· comn1e il lui est permis de faire. (2) La fa1 1te existe, en pareil cas, lors n1ên1e q11'auc1me atteinte 11'est portée à la IJerso11ne pl1ysiq11e cl11 den1 a11de1rr. (3) Il suffit q11e le clema11det11· ait été obligé de se coinporter· d' U11 e certaine 1na11ière par la n1e11ace d'tm cla11ger de la réalité duquel il n e pouvait clo11ter. Article 2041. - Autorité Iégitiine. Il n'y a pas fatite, to11tefois<, lorsq11e la. co11traÏ11te a été appliq11ée, de · ' cl u faco11 1·ac isonncable, a' Lllle personne q11e la loi place sous l'at1tor1te ,J clefencle11r et en vt1e cl'exe .cer l'a11to1�1· te, qt1 e la 101· ltu· conf' , 1 ·e1·e.

APPENDIX "C"

367

Article 2042. - 3. lnfration pé11ale. (1) Il n'y a pas fat1te 110n plus Iorsq11e celtt i qui a port,e a tteinte à , . , la l1berte cl 1me autre IJerso11ne avait des ra ' i·sons se , n·euses d e

penser q11e cette a11tre perso1111e avait comn11·s une in f·ract1on pé11ale.

(2) La respo11sabilitè cle celui qui porte att einte à la liberté cl'atitrui demet1re engagée néann1oins, dans ce cas même, s'il n'amène pas immécliatement cel11i s11r qui il exerce sa co11trainte aux atitorités publiq11es. Article 2043. - 4. Caution. Celui que s'est porté cautio11 po11r une autre personne enve rs les autorités publiq11es, en garantissant q11e cette autre pe rsonne demeu rerait en un certain lieu, pe11t légitimement porter à la liberté de cette autre persom1e s'il a des raisons série11s es de croire qu'e�le se prépare à s'enfuir. Article 2044. - Diffamatio11. 1. Pri11cipe. Une personne commet une faute lorsque, par ses paroles, ses éctrits, ou quelq11 e autre procédé, e lle agit de manière à r endr e une a11tre personne vivante haïssable, méprisable ou ridic11le, 011 à compromettre son credit, sa réputation ou son avenir. Article 2045. - 2. Absence diintention de nuire. (1) L'intention de n11ire n'e st l Jas 1m élén1ent nécessaire de la diffama. tion. (2) Il 11'y a pa s diffamatio11 to11tefois, lo1·sque I'a11teur des propos s ce ns da r, re fé ré se u nd te en a n' irs ou écrits prétend11s diffa1nato propos 011 écrits à aucune personne particulière. e, g ga en es n' ts ri éc ou � os op � (3) La responsabilité cle l'aute11r de.s pr _ . .e b a n n o 1s ra 1t a v e cl il , s . ce en pareil cas, q11e si, dai1s les c1rcostan . . Jud1c , e , pre un aient e 1' s u ea · s r1t ec ment prévoi 1· ques se s paroles ou ' . a autrui. f\rticle 2046. - 3. Question.s d'intérêt JJublic .

a born e se t1'elle ( 1) Une perso11ne ne con1met IJas, cle faute, lorsq . même si ic, P11bl ret cl'int é 15 101 .· est donne so n opinion st1r cles. qti ennt faisa ' • ui 1 e11 . . , cl1ce a 11 11e perso11ne cette op1ru. on porte preJu A

co11rir le blâme cl11 p11blic.

APPENDLX

368

"C"

(2) Il n'y a diffamation, en ce cas, que si le défendeur a fait, sur le de111ancleur, des i1nputations qu'il saivant pe1·tinernment être fausses.

Article 2047. - 4. Vérité des faits allégués. ( 1) il n'y a pas diffamation, lorsqt1e le défendet11· apporte la preuve de l'exactitude des imputations par lt1i faites. (2) Sa responsabilité ne demeure engagée, e11 ce cas, que s'il a agi dans la seule intention de nuire. Article 2048. - 5. Immunité. (1) Aucune responsabilité n'est encourue dans le ca� de propos tenus au cours de débats parlementaires· 011 dans le cas de propos tenus • • en Justice. (2) La responsabilité de celui qui reproduit de façon exate de tels propos n'est engagée que s'il a agi clans le seule intention de nurre. Article 2049. - 6. Fait justificatif. (1) Dans le cas de diffamation commise pa11 la voice de la presse, la responsabilité est écartée, lorsque le cléfendetu· a agi sans inten. tion de nuire et sans négligence grossière, s'il public immédiate. me11t, à la requête du demandet1r, une rétractation et des excuses. (2)

Lorsque la diffamation a été publiées dans tu1 périodique parais. sant à des i11tervalles de plus d'u11e semaine, le demandeur peut exigèr que la rét1·actation et les exct1ses soient publiées, immédia. tement, dans un périodique de son cl1oix.

(3) La 1·étroctation et les• exct1ses doivent, dans les at1tre cas, êt1·e publiées dans le périodiqt1e 011 a été publié l'éc1it diffamatoire. Article 2050. - Attei11te aux clroits cles époux. 1. Principe. (1) Une perso1111e commet une fat1te lorsqu'elle décide Uile femme, sachait qt1'elle est n1ariée, à qt1itter son. n1ar·i contre le gré de celui.ci. (2) Une personne commet cle 1nême tu1e fat1te, lo1·squ'elle décide u11 homme marié, sacl1ant qu'il est n1arié, à qttitte1· sa femme contre le gré de celle.ci.

APPENDIX

"C"

369

(3) Commet cle 1nême u ne fat1te celt1i qui reçoit, 11e'be.rge Otl retient ., un e fen1me 1nar1ee co11tre le 00-ré cle son m ari, en connaissance cle cette opposition. Article 2051. - 2. Faits Jttstificatüs. Il n'y a pa s fat1te cla11s le ca s JJrévu à l'ali11éa 3 de l'article précédent: {a) lorsque le n1 ar et la fe1nme avaient convent1 de vivre séparé ment; ( b) lorsque le mari s'est 1·e1.1clt1 cot1pable cle sévices à l'égard de la fen1me, ot1 que le cléfendeur a eu cle sérieuses ra isons de le pense1·, et qu'il a reçu la fen1me pour des raisons d'l1um anité. Article 2052. - Devoir d'éducation et de st1rveillance. ( 1)

Une personne con1n1et tine fat1te lorsqu'elle ne prend pas, relati. , ement à cl'autres pe1·son11es, confiées par la loi ou confonnément à la loi à sa p1·otectio11 ou à sa surveillance, les mesures cl'éduca. tion ou de sur:veillance qui pe11vent raisonnablement être at. tenclue d'elle, eu égarcl aux circostances· et aux usages. 1

(2)

Elle est responsable si, JJar s1tite de cette cléfai:lance, un dom. mage est subi JJar celtti qu'elle doit protéger.

(3) Elle est pareillen1e11t responsable si, JJar suite de cette défaillance, un dommage est ca11sé à autrui par celt1i qtti est soumis à sa surveillance. Article 2053. - Entrée cl1ez autrui. Une personne commet une faute, lorsqu'elle pénètre sur le terrain ou clans la maison d'a11tn1i, sans y être autorisée par la loi, contre la volonté, clairement manifestée, de celui qt1i est le possesseur ou déten. teur légitime d e ce terrain ou de cette maison. Article 2054. - Atteinte aux biens. Une personne commet 11ne fat1te 1orsque, san Y être at1torisée .par la . tée es if an m t en m re ai cl e t, on l vo a l 101, elle s'empare d'11n bien contre . · w. légitime de ce bien. cle cel11i que est l e possesseur 011 cI,etei1te A rticle 2055. - Négociatio11s 1J1·éco11tractuelles. . ayant. meanifesté son intention de Une person ne commet 1me faute si, d'tm us1on 1 • co11c la . , cle contracter et indu it les• tier s a engager.' en Vtte son ement • ra1r i b·t ar , cont rat avec elle, certaines clepenses, eIle révoqt1e Intention.

APPENDIX '' C ''

310

. el u ct a tr t n en co em g a g en n 'u d s Article 2056 __ Mépri e cl'un contrat ent1�e deux pe1·sonnes enc ist l'ex t naî con qti ui Cel (1) commet une faute s'il conclut, avec l'une de ces personne s·, 110 conti·at qui rend matérielle1nent in1possible l'exécution du premier contrat. pas engagée, toutefois, si celui qui se n'est responsabilité Sa (2) plaint de la violation d11 pren1-ier contrat a négligé de prendre des mesures qui auraient ga1·anti efficaceme11t l'exécution de ce contrat. Article 2057. - Concurrence déloyale. Une personne commet une faute lorsque, par l'effet cle publications erronées, ou par d'a11tres procédés contraires à la bonne foi, elle con1promet la réputation d'un produit ou le c1·édit d'un établissement commercial. Article 2058. - Création d'une apparence. Lorsqu'elle personne a, par ses déclarations•, sa conduite ou son ab stention, induit les tiers ou certains tiers à c1·oire à l'existence d'un certain état de choses·, elle commet une faute si, au mépris de la bonne foi, elle prétend opposer atix tiers le véritable état de choses. Article 2059. - linformations inexactes. 1. Principe. Celui qui, scie1nment 011 par négligence, foui-nit des informations in. exactes à autrui, commet u11e faute: (a) lorsqu'il sait, 011 doit savoi1· que, sui· la foi de ces ù 1fo1mations, celui at1quel il des fournit ou une a11tre person11e donnée agira et st1bira un préjudice; (b ) lorsque, professionnalleme11t, il est te1111 de donne1· cles informa. • t1ons exactes. Article 2060. - 2. Exception. . . . • . qL11 fot11111t t1ne 1nfo1·1nat1on inexac te n'est pas engagée, si l'affirmatio n par lui faite concerne les qualités, la conclttite, la sol,,abilité 011 la compéte11ce d'tme autre personne, et qt1'elle ait faite en vt1e cl'obtenir pour cette personne une sittiation, un créclit, de l'a rgent 011 cles marcl1andises.

(1) La responsab'1li te, de cel111·

APPENDIX "C ..

371

li t é de l'a11teur de l'inforn1ation n,e (2) La r esponsabi , s t e n g a g . e e, alors, ,. . .· e. . fa que s 11 a

it c tte aff1rmat1on clans 11n écr1·t s · igne, cle lui..

Article 2061. - 3. Témoins. (1) Les tén1oi11s q11i att estent la réalisation ou la non.réa1·1sat1on d'm1 ,ev , e1nen. 011 l ,ex . t istence ou la 110n -ex, iste nce d'11n f · en ·a1 t sont garants cle la véracité de l e11r attestation. (2) Leur responsabili t é est engagée, à l'égard cle ceux qui ont ao 0i sur la foi de cett e attestat ion, los·que celle.ci est inexacte.

(3) Est réservé le11r 1·eco1u·s contre celui qui les a i11duits en erretir, Iorsq11'ils 011 t agi de bonne foi. Article 2062. - Conseils ou recommanclatio11s. Une personn e ne commet pas 1rne faute, lorsqu' elle donne sin1pl ement à a11 tr1ti un conseil ou une recommandation. Article 2063. - Sajsies. Un e personne com1net une faute lorsque, pour assurer le paiment d'une dette qui lui est du e, elle saisit chez so11 débiteur, sans nécessité, des· bi ens hors de proportion avec le monta11t de la dette. Article 2064. � Exécutio11 d'un ordre de justice. ( 1)

Un huisser n e commet pas une fa11te, Iorsq11'il exécute 11ne orclon. nance d'un juge, clès lors que ce tte ordonnru1ce est rég11lière en la forme.

(2) Il y a faute, en revanche, si l'ordonnance es t irrégulière en la forme 011 si l'huissier excède son 1nandat ou exécute celtû.ci sans respecter les règles de la loi.

Article 2065. - Prescription.

suca l'u e qu vo in e e ll ' qu rs , lo e t u Une personne n e commet pas u n e fa . pion ou la presc1ipt io n qui s'est op érée à son profit

SECTION II . E T U A F E N 'U D S R DE LA RESPONSABILITE' EN DEI-IO Article 2066. - Etat de nécesasité.

elle cause nt, e m ntaire volo e ' u q rs o l le b sa n (1) Une personne es·t respo , er Ott de protéger 11n roteg p se de vue à autrui un préjt1clice, en

J72

APPENDJX

uc"

tiers d'un dommage imminent qui menace sa personne ou ses biens. responsabilité n'est encourue, toutefois, si le dom mag<t Aucw1e (2) est dCt à la faute de la victime. Article 2067. _ Do1nmage à la personne physique. 1. Principe. (1) Une personne est responsable, l o1·squ'elle inflige à une autre, par son acte, un dommage dans sa pe1·sonne 11hysiqtte. (2) Aucune responsabilité 11'est encourue, toutefois, si l'acte qui a causé le dommage était commanclé par la l oi, ou s1il a été ac. campli en vue d'une légitime defense, ot1 si le clommage est dû exclusivement à la faute de la victime.

Article 2068. - 2. Activités sportives. Auctme responsabilité n'est encourue lo1·squ'tme personne, dans l'exer. cice d'une activité sportive, blesse tme aut1·e personne, engagée dans la même activité ou venue pour y assister, pourvu seulement qu'il n'y ait eu ni dol ni violation grossière des règles du sport. Art!cle 2069. - Activités dangereuses. 1. Principe. (1) Celui qui crée pour autrui ttn ris·que a11ormal, en employant ou en stockant des substances explosives ou toxiques, ou en établis. sant des lignes électriques à hat1te tension, où en mod.ificant la configuration naturelle dt1 te1--rain, ou en exerçant une industrie particuliérement dange1·euse, est responsable si le danger qu'il a crée vient à se réaliser en causant à autn1i un pr·éjuclice. (2) La règle ci.clesst1s est applicabl e lor·s n1ême que l'auteur du dan. ger est l'Etat ou qu'il a reçt1 une at1torisation des pouvoirs pub. lies. Ai·ticle 2070. - 2. Danger éventuel. Auc�e responsabilité n'est e11courue, sauf da11s le cas de faute, en raison de l a dépréciation q11e la création du risque anormal entrâme pour les propriétés voisines. Article 2071. - Res1>onsabilité cltt fait cles aDJimau,x. 1. Propriétaire de, l'animal. Le pr �pr·iétaire cl'u11 ani111al est 1·esponsabl e d11 dommage que cause cet �rumal , n1ên1e s'Î l'animal a écl1appé fortuiten1ent à sa surveillance ou s1 le dommage causé était imprévisible.

APl'END IX "C"

373

Article 2072. - 2. Garcliei1 cle l'�nimal. •

(1) Celui qui a reçt1 l'anin1al en vu e d'en tii·e.1 t111 profi. t personnel est de 111e1ne 1·espo11sable dt1 don1mage qtie cause . l'arumal }Jenda11r qt1'il en a la garcle. A

(2)

II en est ainsi notanm1ent dans Je cas• o'u une personne a Iot1è , . ou empru11te l'animal ' ot 1 l'a reçu poui· 1LU· don ne des soms ou pour qt1alqt1e autre cause.

(3) L'em �loy� q� s'occt1�e d' un ru1imal ot1 s'en sert pour le compte ,

du p1opneta1re ou d un e at1tre personne n'est pa , s responsa ble, sauf le cas de faute, dt1 don1n1age causè par cet animal.

Article 2073. - 3. Rappo1·t des respo1isabilités. ( l) Le propriétaire cle l'animal, lorsqu'il a dtt indemniser la victime,

a un 1·ecours contre celt1i q11i e11 avait la garde.

(2)

Il peut exiger d'être pleinement indemnisé, à moins que Je do111. mage ne soit dû à sa faute 011 à la fa11te cl'11ne personne cle la q11elle il est responsable.

Article 2074. - 4. Abando11 de l'animal pru· le propriétah·e. (1) Lorsqu'un dommage est ca11sé par tin animal domestiqttc, le propriétaire de cet animal peut s'affra11cl1ir de sa responsabilité en abandonnant la prop1iété de l'animal à celui qui a subi le préjudice. (2)

Cette faculté ne lui appai·tient pas, toutefois, si le dommage s'est produit en raison cl'une faute, co1nmise par lui.mên1e OLI JJar une personne de laq11elle il est responsable.

(3) Sont seuls considérés com1ne ani1naux domestiques les animaux qu'il est normal, selon l'usage, d'entretenir en Vtte d'en tirer tin agrément ou un profit. Article 2075. - 5. Abandon par le garcllert. ur le a v la e d ce n re r cu n co (1) Celui qui a l a garde n'est tenu qu'à sé. u a c té é a . . e g a m m o d e I , qu'avait l'an11nal, ou moment o u par é s u a c é t . . é a e a a m m o d O (2) Il est ten11 toutefois sans l1ID1te, .s1• 1e t en w cl o r p t s 'e s e g a G m m o d un animal n o n domestique ou s1 1.e ,. e n n o s r e p 1e w r a p oti e em .m tu l r a p e is m raison d 'une fa11te, com de laquelle il es t responsable.

APPENDIX

374

"C''

e. m ti ic v la e d e ti an ar G 6. _ . 76 20 Article (l) Le possesseur ou le détente11r d'1111 immettble a le droit de

s'empai·er cles animaux apparte11ant à autrui q1ti causent un dommage sur cet in1meuble, et de les retenir en garantie de l'indenmité q11i peut lui être d11e. (2)

Il a même le droit de les te111·, si cette 1nes111·e est r·e11due néces. saire par les circostances en vue d'évite1· 11n clomn1age considér. able, hors de proportion avec la vale11r de l'a11i1nal.

(3) Il est dans le� deux cas tenu cl'aviser sans retard le propriétaire des animaux, et, s'il ne le co1111aît pas, de IJrendre les mesures nécessaires pour le découv1·ir. Article 2077. - Bâtiments. - 1. Principe. (1) Le prop1·iétaire d'un bâtiment est responsable du dommage causé par ce bâtiment, même si ce dommage était imprévisible. (2) Est réservé le recou1·s éventuel du propriétaire contre celui qui

a construit l'immeuble ou qui l'occupé, ou cont1·e celui qui, pa.r sa faute, a causé le dommage. '

Article 2078. - 2. Abandon du bâtlime11t. (1) Le propriétaire peut s'affrancl1ir de cette responsabilité en ab. andonnant la propriété cl11 bâtiment à celui qui a subi le pré. judice. (2)

Cette faculté ne lui appa1·tient pas, toutefois, si le don1mage s'est produit en 1·aison d'une faute commise par l11i.mê1ne, ou pa1· une personne de laquelle il est 1·esponsable.

Artic�e 2079. - 3. Me11ace de clomn1age. Celui qui est menacé d'un dom1nage proven ant clu bâtiment d'aut1·ui a le droit d'exiger cl11 prop1·iétai1·e qt1e celui-ci prenne les 111esures , . nec·essa1res pour écarter le da11ger. Article 2080. - 4. Choses qui tomb e11t du bâtiment. •·

Celui qui occtipe t111 bâtî1ne11t est 1·esponsable du dommage par les choses mobilières qui ton1bent cle ce bâtin1ent.

AP.PENDIX

.. C •I 3f5

Article 2081. - Macltlnes et vél1icU:es à 111otcur 1. Pr oilriétai re. . ( 1)

Le p1·opriétair e cl'u11e macl1ine ot1 cl't1n vet; 11c · uJe a motet1r est re. spo11sal)le dt1 clo1nmage cat1sé par ce tte 111achine OLl ce véhicule lors 111ê111e qt1e le clo1nn1age a été catise ' pac r· llJle· l)ersonne q u1� n'était pas at1tl1orisée à n1anœt1,,rer ot1 à co11ct11ire la inaclline ou le véhicule.

(2) Il 11'est !Jas respo11sable, toutefois, s'il prot1ve que, att n1oinent ot1 le do111mage a été cat1sé, la macl1ine 011 le vél1icule lui avair été volé. Article 2082. - 2. Ga1·clie11 ou préposé. ( 1)

(2)

Cel1Li qui a reçt1 la rnaclti11e 011 le vé.ltlcule e11 vt1e cl'en tirer t111 profit person11el est de même respo11sable dt1e clommage q. t1e cause la macl1i11e OLI le vél1ict1le pe11cla11t qu'il e11 a la garde. Le préposé qui est en rapport a,,ec la 111aclune Ott le vél1ict1le pour le compte du propriétai1·e ou cl'une at1tre personne 11'est }Jas responsable en reva11che, sa11f le cas cle fat1te, du dom111age ca11sé par cette n1achine ou ce vél1icule.

Article 2083. - 3. Rappo1·t des respo11sabllités. ( I) Le propriétaire de la 111acl1ine Olt cltt vel1icule, lorsqt1'il a dû in. demniser la victime, a 1u1 reco1u·s contre cel11i qtii en a.vait la garcle . (2)

Il peut exiger d'être plei11e111ent i11demnisé, à 1noi11s q11'il 11'ait commis une faute ou qu'une faute ait été con1n1ise par ttne per. sonne de laq11elle il est 1·es1Jonsable.

Article 2084. - 4. Collision de véhicules. , n o si lli co n e t en tr en ir e1 ot n1 à s (1) Dans le cas où deux véhicule ' ent a m le a g é 1è b1 ri nt co r oi av 1é t1n és chacun des ·véhicules es t pr cat1ser l'accident. ble, sa 11 o sp e r , st e n e i · 11 q i lu e c (2) Le propriétaire cle cl1ac11n d eux, 01I ont qt11 • ges clon1111a des ' supporte la 1noitié cle ]a 1nasse globale rést1lté de I'accide11t. J'ac. que pro11vé est s'il . tio11 , . ent. ex p e c . iv ço re 1s st s es es Le .cl (3) regl c1 cl'tn1 fat1te la ' . ' à , t . emen . , 11l1er . IJart1c 115 1 ) i ot é l1t J cident est clû, en tota des conducteurs.

APP.ÈNDIX

37Ô

"C 1'

. s é u q ri b fa s it u d ro P . Article 2085 s et q_ui liv1·e ces produits uit od pr s de t1e riq fab i qu e nn rso pe ( 1) La le ati JJublic, en vt1e cl'e11 ti1·er u11 profit, est responsab du dom� 11 tio lisa norn1ale de ces uti 11e cl'u , rui at1t r pou e, t1lt rés qtii mage produits. (2) Aucune 1·espo11sabilité 11'est encot1rue, toutefois, si le vice qui a causé le clommage pouvait être décelé pa1· un examen, conform•e à l'usage, clt1 prodt1i t utilisé. Article 2086. - Exo11ération de la respo11sabillté. ( 1) Les person11es qt1e la loi déclare responsable, dans le cas de celui qui a créé un 1·isque ano1·mal ou dans le cas cle dommages causés pa1· des animaux, des bâtiments, des macl1ines ou véhictùes à motew·, ou des produits fab1·iqués, ne peuve11t pas s'affranchir cle let1r responsabilité, à l'égard de la victime, en prouvant qu'elles 11'ont commis at1ct1ne faute, ou qt1e la cause du dom.mage est clemeurée inconnue, ou qu'il n'a pas été en leur pouvoir d'empê.. cher le do1n1nage, ou qtte le do1nmage est dû à la fat1te d'un tiers, (2) Elles ne sont aff1·anchies de leu1· responsabilité, totalement ou en partie, qt1e lorsqt1e le don1n1age est clû, exclusi,,ement ou en partie, à la faute cle la ,,ictime. Article 2087. - Autres choses. Le p1·opriétaire ot1 gardien d'un.e cl1ose n'est responsable du don1mage causé par cette chose, en del1ors des l1ypotl1èses viséses au.x articles précédents, qt1e lo1·sqt1'il a con1mis w1e faute, ou lorsq11'une faute a été commise pa1· une personne de laquelle il est 1·esponsable. Article 2088. - Rapports cont1·actuels. ( 1) Les régies 1·elatives à la respo11sabilité clt1 fait des risqt1es anor n1aux, Ott dt1 fait des anin1at1x, du fait des bâti1 nents, ou du fait des cl1oses 11e pet1ve11t êt1·e i11voqt1ées pa1· celtù qt1i est, en ve1~tu cl'u11 contrat IJassé avec la pe1·s011ne qt1e la loi déclare 1·espon. sable, en 1·apport avec l'inclt1st1·ie dange1�et1se, I'a11imal, le bâtiment ot1 la chos·e qt1i 011t cat1sé le don1n1age. (2) Les conséquences clu clon11 11age so11t, en ce cas, règlées confor. inéznei1t aux 1·ègles Qtti got1ve1·net le contrat intervent1.

,\PPEND.lX

"C ·•

371

Article 2089. - Rapports clésintéressés. Le s règles relatives à la respoilsab ' ili . t,e c 1tt fait . cles animaux, due . fa1t cles bât111ents ou clu fait cles cJ1oses, ne peuve11t être in. . . voquées non pltts par celttl qui Illê ine sans co . . .. . n t1 a t, t1 t1 l1sa1t lors ' . , clu clomn1age 1 animal, le bâtin1e11t oti la c 1o l se sans qtte le pro. . . , . a1re ot 1 le garcl.1en_ tir p1.·1et e un JJr · ]S · ofit cle cette lltl1 · at·10n. (2) La responsabilité clt1 lJropriétaire ott dti gardien n'e st engagee, en . pareil cas, que da11s le cas cle fatrte. (1)

SECTION III DU MODE ET DE L'ENTENDUE DE LA RÉPARATION. § 1. - Des do1nmages.i11térêts. ..t\.. Dormnages matériels.

A.rticle 2090. - Modes de réparation. ( 1)

Le préjudice est réparé e11 principe par équivalei1t, en allot1ant à la victin1e des clomn1ages·.i11térêts.

(2) Les juges pet1vent, sot1s réserve cle la liberté des 1Jersonnes et sous réserve cles ru·oits des tiers, prescrire, au lieu Ott en IJlu� des dommages.intérêts, tot1tes mesures appropriées potu· répa.rer ou limite1· le dommage.

Article 2091. - Mesure des dommages.interêts. sable on sp re e ar cl dé i lo la e qu i lt1 ce r pa s Le s don1mages.intérêts du géné. it fa le e im ct vi la t1r po né aî tr en 'a sont égaux au préjudice qu rate11r cle responsabilité.

Article 2092. - Préjudlce futur.

e, in a rt ce t eS n o ti sa li a ré Le préjuclice ft1tt1r doit être 1·éparé, lors·que sa é. is al ré it so se il t1' q re d sans q u e l''on cloive atte11

Article 2093. - Victime assurée.

ation clu répar 1cler dema1 � e, re u ss . . a st e e ll 'e . . u q 1·s (1) La victime petit, Io 51 , clans 1es mêmes conclrt1ons qt1e préjuclice qui lt1i est cause, elle n'etait pas asst1rée.

APPENDIX

310

"C ''

1·opre clemancler aucune indem . JJ 1 n1 1o 11 s0 1 1 e 11t pe (2) L' stirer 11e t la réalisation du risque fai n so 1· JJa é e11 am a i qt1 ltii ce à 11i;; pre\rti att co1 1t1·,1t d'asst1rm1ce.

Le coi1trat d'ass'Ltrance petit toutefois JJrévoi1· la SL1brogation de (3) l'asstu·eur clans les cl1·oits cle la victime contre celui qui est 1 ·esponsable. .

Article 2094. - Victime pe11s1011ee. ( 1) La vctime pe11t, Io1·squ'elle 1·eçoit 11ne pension à l'occasion clu fait qtû lui a ca11sé un clon1mage, demande1· réparation du préjudice qtû lui est ca11sé, da 11s les 1 nêmes conclitions que si elle ne re. cevait pas de pensio11. ( 2)

(3)

C-elui qui verse la pensio11 11e pe11t en son nom prop1·e demander aucune indemnité à celt1i q_ui a re11du par son fait la pension exigible. Le rappo1·t q11i l'ttnit à la victime peut prévoir sa subrogation cla11 s les d.i·oits de la \1ictime contre celtû qui est responsable.

Article 2095. - Accidents inortels. 1. Droits de certains procl1es. ( 1) Le 1nar·i ou la femme de la \1ictime, ses ascendants et ses descen clants peuvent, en leur nom p1·opre, demander, dans le cas d'ac. cident mortel s1trve11 u à la victime, réparation du préjudice, d'o1·dre matériel, que lettr cause ce décès. (2) La réparation clu préjuclice prend alo1·s la fo1 ·1ne et les caractères d'une pension alimentai1·e. (3 )

Cette 1Jension ali1nentaire est d11e, mê111e si les clen1andeUI·s ont cles parents à qt1i ils pourraient den1ander des aJi1nents.

Article 2096. - 2. Autres perso1111es. Les autres personnes ne 1Jet1vent dema11cle1· e11 lew� 1101n JJ1·opre aucune indemnité en raison de l'accide1 1t mortel qui est st11·venu, même si elles éstablissent que la victi1ne le11r doru1ait une assistance n1atérielle ou qt1'elles étaient à sa cl1arge. Article 2097. - Bonne foi. ( 1) La réJJa1·ation du p1·éjudice ne petit être çlen1a11dée contrairement à la bo11ne foi.

A l-'PENOIX

"c ·• 379

,ict im e 11e pe. ut , La , (2) 1·é clamer re.1),1ratio n clu l )réjt1dice, . qt1'elle a st1b1, da11s la mes11re ot1, e11 egissa11t cle façon raisonnable , elle attrait ptt éviter 011 li111iter ce clo111n1 age. Article 2098. - Faute de la victime. (1)

Lo1·sqt1e le préjt1dice esL dû e11 J)artie · · , 'à la' fa' ute de la v1c ' t1n1e celle.ci n e petit e11 obtenir qu'1111e réparati o11 partielle.

(2)

On tie11t compte, po1u· établir la proportion clans laqtielle le pré j11clice doit êt1·e réparé, de toutes les circostances de l' espéce, en particulier cle la mesure dans laq_uelle les fautes resJJectives ont contribtté à réaliser le dommage, et cle la gra,,ité de cliacu11e cle ces fa11tes.

Article 2099. - Po11voirs cl'éq11ité. 1. l11coscie11ce de la fa1rte. ( l) Les juges pe11,1e11t li1niter le 1nonta.nt de la réparatio11, si l'éqtlité

l'exige, lo1·sque la fat1te q11i engendre l a responsabilità a été corn. n1ise pa1· une perso11ne qui n'était l Jas en état cl'apprécier le ca. ractè1·e fautif de sa concluite. (2)

Les juges prennent en considération, à cet effet, la situation re. spective de fort1me cles parties, et les conséq11ences que l'obbliga. tion de réparer e11traînerait pour l'at1tet1r de la fat1te.

Article 2100. - 2. Ordre hiérarcltique. ( l) Les juges peuvent limiter le montant de la réparatio11, si l'équité l'exige, lorsque l e sentiment d'11n clevoir de cliscipline Ott cl'obéis. sance a détérminé l'auteur de la fa11te à accomplir c·elle.ci. (2)

Ils prennent en considération, à cet effet, le caractère plus ou inoins impérieux de ce devoir.

Article 2101. - 3. Préjudice hnprévisible . . a e ic d ju . ré p le s le ib is v ·é I 1JJ ( I ) Lo1·sq ue, pa r su it e cle c1rcostances 111 . e, les attendr e11t nablem . . . on is pris une ampleur qu'o11 ne potivait ia . . , ,exig n1011tant cles do1n. , le oclérer· e, 111 J uges p1·euvent, si l éq111te I . ns,tble. respo st e • 11 qt u1 mages.intérêts d11s par cel 1e la 1orsqt ou·, . tts·a pot1v ce , g e de (2) Ils ne peuvent en auct111 cas faire . , JJar une fa11te 1ntentionnelle. responsabilité a été e11 geo. dree

API'ENDlX

380

"C"

Article 2102. - 4. Difficulté cl'évalt1ation. ( 1)

(2)

Lorsqtte le r11011ta11t exact clt1 do111n1age 11e peut être établi, les jt1ges Je détermine11t équitable1nent en considération du cours orclinaire cles cl1oses et des 1nesu1·es p1ises par la partie lésée. Aucu11e i11de1nnité 11e peut être allot1ée, toutefois, pot1r u n pré. judice do11t l'existence 1nême, et 110n seulement la quantité, est • • 1nce1·ta1ne.

Article 2103. - 5. État de a.1écessité. Les juges déte1·mine11t équitablement le 1nontant de la 1·éparation due pa1· celui qui, sa11s comn1ettre de faute, porte atteinte aux biens d'au. trui pow· se prése1-ver ot1 pour prése1-ver t1n tiers d'un dommage ou d'un dange1· in1minent. Article 2104. - Dommages.inté1·êts nominaux. Des domn1ages.i11térêts cl'tm montant ptt1·ement 11ominal peuvent être alloués lorsqt1e l'action a été intentée en vue setùement de fail·e con. stater qt1'un droit du demande11r a été violé, Ott q11'une responsabilité a été e11cot1rt1e par le défendet1r. B. Dommage 111oral.

Article 2105. - Principe. ( 1)

L'at1tet11· d'un délit doit réparer le préjt1dice mo•ral résultant de so11 délit, toutes les fois qu'il existe 11n procédé adéquat pot1r ré pare1· ce préjt1dice.

(2)

Le préjt1dice moral ne clon11e pas lieu à 1·épa1·ation au n1oyen de domn1ages.intérêts, sattf les cas JJrév11s expressément par la loi.

Article 2106. - Faute i11tentlonnelle. Lorsq11't1n p1·éjt1dice 111oral a été infligé att cle1nandet11· de propos clélibéré, les• jtiges pet1ve11t, à titre de 1·é1Jaration de ce préjt1dice, con. clan1ne1· le cféfencleu1· à JJaye1· t111e incle1n11ité éqt1itable au de1nandeur Olt à t111e œt1,1 1·e cl1aritable clésignée lJa1· le dan1enclet1 1·. Article 2107. - AtteiJ1te à la perso11.ne J)l1ysiqtte. U ne in�e111nité éqt1itable JJe11t êt1·e allo11ée JJai· les juges, à titre de , reparatio11, cl11 JJ1·éjudice moral, a11 cle1na11de111· 011 à u11e œt1vre cl1ari. �a�l � pa1· !t�i clésig11ée, Io1·sq11'UI1 contact désag1·éable ou rép11gnant a ete 1m1Jose é.l la perso1me clt1 clemancleu1· pa1· le défende11r.

�\PPENDIX.

"C"

381

Article 2108. - Séqt1est1·atio11 arbitraire. Une i11demnité éqt1table petit de m êm e être " lloLiee' a, t'1tre de r épa a . . . rat1on du p re, Jucl1ce 111oral, at1 clema11clet1r ot1 à tt11e œu••,re cl1a-· . , . , 1 1t able par , . , , . d lui es1gnee, clans le cas ou 11 a ete privé, contrairement au droit de sa liberté par le cléfe11deu1·. ' Article 2109. - Diffamatio11. Une i11demnité éqt1itable IJeut, dans le cas d'injure ot1 de diffamatio n, être allouée, à tit1·e de réparation du préjudice moral, au demandetrr ou à une œt1vre cl1aritable par lt1i désignée: ( a) lorsque les i111pL1tations injurieuses Olt cliffa1natoires so11t qt1e le den1a11det1r a commis· une crime ou tin délit par la loi pénale; (b) lorsqL1'elles tendent à faire croire qt1e le cle1na11deur est inco in pétent ot1 mall10 1 1nête clans l'exercice de sa professio11; ( c) lorsqt1'elles tenclent à faire croire qu'il est insolvable, s'il est commerçant; (d) lorsqu'elles tendent à le faire atteint d't1ne malaclie contagiet1se; (e) lorsqu'elles tendent à fai1·e croire que le demandeur a des mœt1rs choquantes. Article 2110. - Attemte aux droits des ép oux. Une indemnité équitable pet1r être allouée, à titre de � éparation dt� préjudice moral, au demandet1r ot1 à t1ne œt1� re c� arit� ble JJar �� 1 désignée, dans le cas ot1 le cléfendeur a porte atteinte a ses clroits d'épotix ou d'épouse. (Art. 2050). Article 2111. - Enlévement d'enfant. . du n tio ra pa ré de re t·t l , a • , 1ee ot all re êt Une 1nd emn1'te eqw , ·ta � ble pe ut . ui 1 r · pa e bl , ta r1 1a cl re uv œ e tm a ou leur anc ic jucl clem pré e moral, au ,11alement pour , pe 111e , co 11d an , e , t e a ur de fen m de désir le ée ot1 s ns ca cla le e , deur. cle ma n at1 en pa rti a e l c • "P cl'enlèvement d'tm enfant clont la gai Article 2112. - Attente aux biens. cle tit re à 1r t ncl e de 1ua at1 . ,.. . e al louée Une indemnité équitable petit etr o ntrairec a , cle ur en 'f e l c réparation du préjudice mora! , I 0rsqt1e le . fes tée clt1 dema11cletir ' pénétré dans ment à la volonté clairement man i n. cle roa le clo nt , , b'e n I son ten·ain ot1 sa maison, ot1 s est e mp'are d' t1n cleur est le possesseur ou cl e, tentettr Jérr°·itin1e.

APPENDIX

3112

A.rticle 2113. - Lésions cor1>orelles

Ott

"C"

mort d'l101n1ne.

Les juges pet1,,ent allotter à la victi111e d'une lésion co1·porelle ou, en cas de 111ort d'l1on1me, à la fan1ille cle la victime, 11ne indemnité équi table, à Litre de rép .. aratio11 clt1 p1·éjt1clice 1110r. al A1·ticle 2114. - Atte11te à la 1,ude1rr. ( 1) Lo1·sqt1'un individu a été co11da11111é pénalment pour viol ou I)Our a cte contr a ire à la puclet11·, les jt1ges pet1,1e11t a ccorder à la ,,ictime, à tit1·e de réparatio11 dti préjt1clice moral, une inclem.nité équitable. (2)

Une indem11ité petit être allot1ée également, en pa1·eil ca s•, mari de la fen1111e ot1 à la famille cle la fille qt1i a été violée.

at1

A1·ticle 2115. - Dommage causé à la femn1e. ( l)

U11e i11de11111ité équitable petit être allouée au rnari par les juges à titre cle 1·éparation dt1 p1·éjticlice 1noral, à la cl1arge de celui qtu, e11 i11fligea 11t tm clo111n1age pl1ysiqt1e à sa fem1ne, lui a rendu la compagnie cle cette fem111e 111oi11s t1tile ot1 111oins agréable.

(2) L'action i11te11tée l) ar le ma1·i e11 pareil cas est indépénclante de l'action qt1i petit êt1·e intentée par la femme pour voi1· réparer le don1111age à elle i11fligé. Article 2116. - Couttune. ( 1) Pot11· ét ablir le 111011ta11t de l'i11de11111i té éqtritable, dans le cas• des ai·ticles qt1i précèclent, et pot1r établi1· qui est qualifié pour agir cornn1e re1)résenta11t de l a fa111ille, les jt1ges l)rennent en con. sideratio11 les cot1tun1es locales. (2)

Ils1 ne })et1vent 11égliger celles.ci qt1e si elles s011t anacl11·oniques, et n1anifeslernent co11trai1·es à la 1·aiso11 ot1 à n1or·ale.

( 3)

L'incle1nnité allot1ée en ré1Jaratio11 clt1 clo111n1age mo1·al ne peut e11 at1c1111 cas être st1périct1re à 111ille clolla1·s étl1io1)ie11s.

A rticle 2117. - Re1Jrése11ta11t de la fa1nille. Fatite cle cot1ttu11es locales· ap1Jlicables, 011 co11siclé1·e comme seul q11a. lifié potu· rc1)résenter la fa1nille:

•

APPENDIX "C" 383

(a) l'épo11x 01 1 l'épo11se cle la victi111e·, (b) (c)

à so11 cléfattt Olt s'il est i11ca 1)able, 1 a111e c le ses e11fants, ayant . , . capac1te pour ag11·; A

à clefa11t d'e11fa11ts 011 s'ils sont i11capables , son pére;

(cl) à so11 cléfaut 011 s'il est incapable, sa mère; (e) à son cléfa11t 011 si elle est incapab'�e , l'a' î11e' de ses, f· rere '. s ou sœurs' . , . ayant capac1te pour ag11·

§ 2. - At1tres modes cle réparatio11.

Article 2118. - Restit11tion.

(1) Les jt1ges ordor111ent la restit11tion a11 den1anclet1r des cl1oses qt1i ltri ont été enlevées inclCune11t et des fruits qui 011t été procluits par ces cl1oses dep11is l a date cle letu· enlèvernent. .

(2) Si les choses ont péri, le défendew· doit e11 restit11er la valet1r, lors même q11e la IJerte serait dt1e à 11n cas de force n1ajet1re. (3) Si le défende111· a fait des frais· s11r lés cl1oses qt1'il cloit restiit1er, on appliq11e à cet égard les dispositions relatives à l'e11rici1is. sement injuste·. (Art. 2168 - 2178). Artic�e 2119 . .:..._ Réparation en 11ature. A

•

ropr1ee, (1) Les j11ges pe11,,ent ordonner, s·l la sol11tion leur parait app . , attX , , que l'objet clétruit 011 e11dommagé soit remplace ou repaire 1 détériora . 01 n io ct n1 st cle la de e bl sa on sp frais de celui qui est re •

tIOi1.

11t ou de la ré. 1e en ac pl m re 1 d1 és lit la (2 ) Ils fixent en ce cas les 1noc paration. lorsq11e is, to1 1tef o , it cr es pr re êt (3) Ce mode de 1·éparatio11 ne pe11t l'obb:igation de réparer incombe à l'État.

Article 2120. _ I-I-onn-eur et réJJutation.

••

nct1r ou l'ho n à air es . co1 1tr . . ents Les Jttges pet1vent, clans le cas cl'agissem frais , aux , , t 1 n1e _ 1 e ss i 1. ,a om p , l'acc cri re s . e 1 P la rep11tat1011 , . cles IJersonnes cle ces t l'ef fe . er 1 ann u ·:e pour . 1te du de,fe nde11r, cl'une p11bl1c . , appr.oprie agissements.

APPENDIX

304

"C"

AI·ticle 2121. - l11j011ctions. ( 1) Les j11ges JJe11vent cléli\rre1· 1me injonction interdisant au défen cleu1· de co1nmettre, co11ti11t1e1· à com1nett1·e, ou recommencer à cornn1entre 1u.1 acte qui IJOrte p1·éjuclice a11 défendeur. (2) L'i11jo11ctio11 n'est cléliv1·ée que lorsqu'il existe de sérieuses raisons cle c1·oire q11e l'acte préj11clicable a11 den1ancleu1· 1·isque d'être ac. cornpli, et lors·q11e le 1Jréj11dice qui menace le dema11deur n'est pas de nature à êt1·e 1·éparé par des clo1nmages.intérêts. Article 2122. - Concurrel.nce déloyale. Les juges pe11vent, dans le cas cle concur1·ence déloyale, prescrire la cessatio11 des n1anœuv1·es, contraires à la bonne foi, qui sont em. ployées par le défende1u·. Article 2123. - AJJparence. 1 sur la foi de l appa1·ènce peuven être Les actes acco1111Jlis par les tiers , déclarés opposables à cel1u qui, pa1· sa conduite ou son abstention, est res1Jonsable de cette apparence.

SECTION IV DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ DU FAIT D'AUT RU! ET DE LA PLURALITE' DE RESPONSABLES. Article 2124. - Responsabilité

du père.

Le père est civilement 1·espo11s·able, lorsque son enfant n1inem· e11. court 1me 1·esponsabilité. Article 2125. - Aut1·es gardie11s de l'enfa11t. A la 1·espoi1sabilité du IJère est S'L1bstit11ée: (a) celle cle la n1ère, lo1·sq11'elle exerce sur· l'en f·a11t la puissa11ce paternelle; (b) celle cle · la personne a' <-}Lll· l'e11f·a11t a été confié, lorsque l'enfant . vit en clel101·s cle la 111aiso11 1Jate1i1elle; (c) ce�� d l'instit11te111· 011 d11 1Jatro111 JJenclant le te111ps q1 1e l'enfa11t � est a 1 ecole o11 e11 a1J1J1·e11tissage;

Al-'PENDIX

"C,. 385

( cl) celle de l'en1ployet11· lorsque, attx te rm es d.es . . . . article s qt11 . st11ve11t, , e11 ra1s celle.ci: es t. e11gagee oï1 cltt fait cle l'enfant. Articl e 2126. - Responsabilité de l'�tat. 1. Piincipe. (1) Le fonctio11nai1·e ou en1p!oyé cle l'État, q u cat1 se à autiui un clom e pa

111ag clommage.

r sa fat1 te, est clans totis Jes cas tenu de réparer c e

Lorsque la fat1te con1111ise es t t1nc fat1te de se v1·ce, 1.a re,pa1•at1o 1-., · n clu clommage peut être en outre clen1andée par la vict ime à l'État, satif le recoUI·s cle celt1i.ci contre so11 fo11ctionnaire ou employé. (3) Lorsque la faute com111ise est t111e faute lJersonnelle, la respon. sabilité de l'État n'est pas engagée.

(2)

Article 212ï. - 2. Faute de service. ( 1) L a faute est co11siclérée comme fat1te de service, Iorsqt1e celui qtli

l'a commise a c1-u, de bonne foi, agir dans la li1nite cle sa corn péte11ce et dans l'intérêt du service.

(2)

Elle est considé1·ée co11m1e faute personnelle da11s les at1tres cas.

(3) La bon11e foi clt1 fo11ctionnaire ou employé est présu1née, sauf la preuve contraire. Article 2128. - 3. Cas assimilés. Les dispositions des clettx a1·ticles q11i précèdent so11 applicables, e11 ce qtù concerne leurs fonctionnaires ot1 e1n1Jloyés, aux st1bclivions ter. ritorjales cle l'État et aux se1-vices publics dotés cle la personnalité. Article 2129. - Resp0111sabi;ité cles persoru1es mo1·ales. Les personnes morales ot1 pat1-in1oines cl'affectation son civi!�ment responsables lorsqu'un de leurs représentants, agents, ou salar·ies, en. cottrt, dans l'exe1·cise cle ses fonctions, une responsabilité. Article 2130. - Responsabilité clu patro11.

oyes en. p n e1 s se e d · 1n 't t1 sq · Le patron es t civilement 1·es1Jonsa ble l01 .. , ab1l1te. . res1Jo11s t111e , s on . · t i c 011 court dans l'exercice de ses f l

Articl e 2131. - Exercice des fo1J1ctions.

sa. res1Jon la t le11 . . 1Jrécèc tri · q es cl ti 1 3 ' ix et cl es cl (1) Pour l'aIJIJlica tion . , erci· c e cles fo11ct1 ons lorsque l'acte ot1 bilité est encou1-i1e dans 1 ex

A PP END IX

386

•• C"

l'abste11tion fat 1tive 011t et1 lieu cla11s l'intention d'accornpli1· les f011C ti OI1S. (2) La circostance q1 1e d'acte ou l'abste11tion fatttive aie11t co11stitué 1u1 dépassement de pot1voir, et qu'ils aient été forrnellen1ent in. terclits à leur a11tet1r, ne dégage pas la 1·esponsabilité de celui q1 1 i est ci,,ilement responsable, à moins que la victime n'ait con. n11 ou clf1 co1111aît1·e cette circonstance. Artic:e 2132. - Préso1nption. ( 1)

Lorsqu'un clomn1age a été ca11s·é par le représenta11t ou l'agent d'une perso1me mo1·ale, 011 pa 1· tin salarié dans le Iie11 ou clans le ten1ps oi.1 il est 1101·n1ale111e11t en1ployé, ou JJrésurne que le dorn1nage a été JJar l11i ca11sé clans l'exe1·cice de ses· fonctions.

(2)

La p1·e11ve co11t1·ai1·e est ad111ise à l'e11contre cle cette présomption.

A1·ticle 2133. - No11.exe1·cice des foncti0ll1s. La 1·es1?onsabilité n'est pas e11cow·11e cla11s l'exercice cles fo11ctions lors. que celles-ci ont se11len1ent été pou1· leu1· a11teur l'occasion de l'acte 01 1 omission fautifs q11i ont causé le do1nn1age. A1·ticle 2134. - Travailleurs indépelndai1ts. Une personne 11'est pas respo11sable des fa1 1tes commises par une a11tre dans l'exéc11tion d'11n travail q11'elle l11i a den1andé, si l'auteur de la faute n'est JJas soumis à son a11torité et cloit êt1·e considére comme ayant ga1·dé son indépe11dance. Al·tic:e 2135. - Diffamatio11. Le gé1·a11t d11 journal, l'i1npri111eu1· clu JJan11Jl1Iet 011 l'éditeur d11 livre sont civllen1ent res1Jo11sables• cle l a cliffa1nation co111n1ise pa1· l'a11teur d'un écrit im1Jrimé. Article 2136 - Cumtù des res1Jo11sabilités. ( 1)

Le fait q11't111e perso 11ne soit cléclarée }Ja1� la loi ci,rilen1ent res1Jon. sable cl'un clo1n111age n'excl11t }Jas· l'obligatio11 de 1·épare1· qui pèse s11r l'a11tet 1r cle ce clon1111age.

(2') L'atiteur clt1 do111111age et ce:11i qtli e11 est civilen1e11t 1·espo11sable sont soliclai1·e111ent ten11s à la 1·éparatio11.

APllENDIX

"C"

38i

. i.1en1e11 (3) La perso1111e cléclarée pai· l a 101. c1v t res1Jo11sab le IJet1t . . ex!ger l a m is e e11 cattse cle l'attteL1r. cltl clom , n 1 a a e cl a e ' · 115 1 actio .· n en . . re,parat10 int en 11 tée contre elle.

SECTION V DE L'i-\CTION EN RtPARATION. Article 2137. - In1r11m1ités légales. 1. Sotiverain • NL1lle actio11 e11 respo11sabilité fondée sur tine faLit• e par 1u1· co1nm1se ' � ' ne petit et1·e exercée contre Sa Majesté l'En1pereur cl'Etlliopie. Article 2138. - 2. Ministres parle1ne11taires et juges. Nulle actio11 e11 responsabilité 11e IJeut être i11tentée, en raison cle faits se rattachant à let1rs fonctions: (a) contre tu1 111embre clt1 gouvernment impérial étl1iopien; (b) contre un membre dt1 Parleme11t étl1iopien; ( c) contre un juge étl1iopie11. Article 2139. - 3. Exception. La règle de l'article qt1i p1·écède reçoit exe1Jtio11 lorsqt1e les personnes, qu'elle vice à protége1·, 011t encot11·u une conclam11ation pénale en rai. son des faits cle lettr fo11ctio11 qt1i sont i11voqt1és par le clen1a11cleL1r. Article 2140. - Renvoi au droit acln1utlstratif. Les règles clu clroit ad111inistratif cléter1ni11ent, lorsqt1e l'J:.tat est re. sponsable, contre qtii l'actio11 doit être clirigée, et quelle SL1bdivisio11 Ott service doit en définitive asst1mer ]a cl1arge de la clette. Article 2141. - Cl1arge de la pret1ve.

i.ci, lu ce cle t n ta on 1n le r li b ta 'é cl Il appartient à la victime clt1 préjt1dice é lig b o t es 1r et d en éf cl le s le el ainsi q u e les circostances e11 raiso11 desqt1 à Je réparer.

Artic le 2142. - A11te1.1r il1déter1nlné clu clo1runage. cle l'atttre Otl l't111e . cle , , cat1se, JJar I a fat1te ' (1) S1 un do m m ag e à et e e Iaqt1ell , soit cl'établir ible s os p . · 11 . u q s . pltisieu1·s persoru1es, sa11 11t, pet1ve Jttges · J es , · tet1r , au l' .. t es en es n n so er précisé1nent cle ces JJ

APl'ENDIX

388

"C"

si I'éouité l'exige, conda1nner à la répa1·ation du domn1age le groupe des pe1·so1111es qt1i ont pu causer le dommage et parmi les. qttelles se trot1ve ce1-taine1nent l'aute11r du dommage. (2) Les jt1ges 1Je11ve11t, clans la même l1ypotl1èse, co11damner à la ré.

JJaration clu do111111age la pe1·s011ne qui est de façon certaine civil�. n1ent 1·es1Jonsable de l'a11te11r, den1euré indéterminé, du dom. n1age.

Article 2143. - Délai. (1) L'actio11 de la victin1e doit êt1·e intentée dans un délai de deux ans à pa1·ti1· due mome11t où elle a subi le préjudice dont elle clema11cle réparation. (2) To11tefois, si le dommage cléri,1e cl'un acte puniss'able soumis par les lois pénales à une prescription de plus longue durée, cette JJrescription s'appliq11e à l'action en réparation. (3 Est réservé, dans tous les cas, l e cl1·oit pour la victin1e cle revendi. quer les cl1oses qui lui appartienne11t et cle se prévaloir des dispo. sitions relati,,es à l'en1·ichisse111ent injuste. (Art. 2162-2178) . .i\J·ticle 2144. - Héritiers. ( l)

Les l1é1·itiers cle la victime p-euvent demander réparation du pré. judice d'ord1·e patri1nonial que celle-ci a subi.

(2) Sauf clisposition co11traire de la loi, ils ne peuvent demand.er répa1·ation du préjudice moral qu'elle a subi, q11e lorsque l'action e11 réparation de ce p1·éjt1dice a été, de son ,,ivant, engagée par la victime. (3) La SL1ccessio11 de celui qui est responsable du dom1n::tgc est tenue, comn1e il l'était lt1i.1nême, cle réparer le do1nmage. Article 2145. - Créanciers de la victime. ( 1) Les créanciers cl't1ne pe1·sonne ne pe11ve11t de1nander au no111 de leur clébiteur 1·éparation d11 préj11dice qui ltti a été causé, lorsq11e ce préjt1dice est en 1·apport a,,ec la 1Je1·son11e dtt clébiteur, so11 i11tégrité co11Jorelle ot1 son l1on11e111·. (2)

Ils 1Je11vent, da11s les conclitio11s fixées a11 titre Des contrats en gé11éral dt1 JJresént code, exe1·cer l'actio11 de Ie11r débiteur lorsque éel11i-ci a s11bi, après la clate oi.1 ils so11t devenus créanciers, un préj11clice q11i affecte excl11si,ren1ent ses· intérêts IJécœ1iaires (Art. 1993).

APPENIDX

"C" 389

Article 2146. - Incessibilité de la créa·nce. (1)

La créance de la vi ct in 1e contre ceit ii qttl est res1Jonsa ble dt1 don1mage est incessible, ta 11 t qtt't111 . Jt1gen1e11t 11'en a pas recon. nt1 l'existance et fixé le mo11tant.

(2) E lle 1Jet1t, posté1·iot1re111ent à ce mo111e11t , e"ti·e ce'de, e corr.0 f 1me,. ment au x 1·ègles fixées at1 litre D es contr ats en géiiéral dti présent code (Art. 1962-1975). Article 2147. - Conventio'J.1s de non.responsabilité. ( 1) Il n'est pas pe1-n1i!:I de se décl1arger cles co11séqt1ences cle sa fat1te. (2) 011 peut, pa1· contrat, sti1Juler qt1'on ne sera pas responsable des fautes commises par ttn e personne cle qtti 011 est ci,,ileme11t re sponsable. (3) On peut, par contrat, stipttler qu'o11 11e se1·a JJas· responsable, hors le cas· de fat1te, d't1n don1n1age qtti cloit, coniorn1én1ent at1 présent tin·e, être répa1·é inclé1Jenclannnent cle tot1te fat1te. Article 2148. - Transaction. Les pai·ties peuvent, après qu'tm clo111mage s'est réalisé, convenu: qt1'il ne donnera pas lieu à répa1·ation, ou transiger s11r les conclitions cla11s lesquelles i l ser a réparé. Article 2149. - Autorité du criminel au civil. , . nal, ou · 1 Le Juges . ne sont pomt 1es par l 'acqu1·t·ten1en·t p1·ononcé at1 pé· , , ·a , · e par le no nli eu qu i est intenrenu, pot11· clec1 er si wle fac: t1te 'a et commise. Articl e 2150. - Date d'évaluation du donimage. , · la par st1bi e préj t1dic le (1) Les juges se place11t, JJour apprecier victie, au jour oit ils re11dent letir clécision. . ,ec1e ti ve. cléfin i Ior·s s cle� r c: r (2) Ils pet1vent ' s'il est impossr"ble c l'app riser atith . o et e o,,is oir 1Jr ment le préjuilice, rendre tm J tigeJne. 11.t , isioii. ec cl une demande e11 révision cle cette Lte clet1x lorsq te clt1i i11tro (3) Le demande e11 1·évision ne petit P1 tis être . otu· cl11 Jttge . roent provisoîre. . am1ée s se s011t écot1Iées clepu1s l e J

APl'ENDlX

390

"C"

Article 2 151. - .t\uto1·ité de chose jttgée. (1) L'esti 11 1atio11 faite d11 p1·éj11dice par les· j1tges est cléfi11itive, hors le cas visé à .l'a1·ticle JJ1·écéclent. (2)

La victin1e 11e JJe11t den1ander, dans u11e 11ouvelle action, 1·épa1·a. tio11 cl'u11 a11t1·e préj11dice !Jar elle subi, q11e si c e JJréjt1clice est i11clé1Je11cla11t, JJar sa ca11se, cl11 do111n1age dont elle a den1a11dé cléjà la réparation.

Ai·ticle 2152. - Absence de recours. 1. Pri11cipe. Le judge111ent cles j11ges de première instance, to11cl1ant le monta.nt cles don1m.ages.inté1·êts, 11e JJe11t êt1·e attaqué cle,,ant une instance ' . super1e1u·e ArLicle 2153. - 2. Cas rés-e1·vés. La règle cle l'a1·ticle p1·écéclent 1·eçoit 11éanmoi11s exception: ( a)

lorsq11e les juges ont JJris en consiclé1·ation des ci1·costances dont ils 11'a11raie11t JJas dû teni1· compte, 011 lorsq11e, à l'inverse� ils 1 1'011t JJas pris e11 co11siclé1·ation des ciJ:costa11ces do11t ils au1·ient dû te11ir co1npte;

(b) lorsque le montant des do111mages.intérêts, fixé pa1· les juges, est n1anifeste1nent déraison11able et ne pe11t être i11spiré que par le JJréj11gé 011 la passion; (c) lorsqu'il est le rés11ltat cl'u11e er1·eL11· cle calc11l commise par les Jt1ges .L\rticle 2154. - Re11te. ( l)

Lorsque ce 111ode cle paiment est jttStifié pa1· la nat1u·e d11 clon1. mage 011 les ci1·costances, les j11ges pe11,,e11t clécider que le clon1. , , n1age sera 1·e1Jare a11 1noyen d'1111e 1·e11te.

(2) Le clébite11r cloit e11 ce cas fot11·11ir cles sC11-etés IJ0111- le pai1ne11t cle cette rente. Article 2155. - Solidarité. (1)

Lorsq11e IJl11sie111·s JJerso1111es son obligées à ré1Ja1-er u11 JJréj11clice, elle so11t ten11es· solidaire111e11t cle le 1-éparer.

--------

,\ PI•E;-.J)IX

- -- ·-----·----

.. C ..

- ···-

---- --....-

J91

(2) I l n'y a pas liet1 e11 particulier de clistiiiguer enti· ,. . e 1 mst1gateur , . . 1 at1tet1r pr1nc1pal et ' le co1nplice.

(3)

L a soliclarité existe également entre perso1111 es te�nt1es de re,parer t111 n 1 eme preJt1d1ce, sans qt1'il 'j' ait liet1 de clis·t1n · guer s1· l'obl1•ga. . t1o_n a sa sotu·ce, pour les uns ou .les atttre s, clans tin coiltrat Ott clans t1nc res1 Jo 11s-abilité extracon tract ttelle. A

, •

•

Article 2156. - Faute non partagée. 1. Principe.. Si l'ttne seuleme11t des pe1·son11es res1J o 11sables a commis une fat1te' elle seule cloit en définitive supp orter l,1 cl1arge cle la dette. Article 2157. - 2. Tempérament en éqttlté. ( l) Lorsque l a faute a été con11n.ise dans l ' exercice de ses fonctio11s par le 1·eprésentant ou l'agent d'une personne morale ou par un salarié, le s juges peuvent décicler que la dette sera supportée en cléfinitive, po 11r l e tout ot1 en partie par la personne n1oral e ou par l e pa tro11. (2) Lorsqt1e la faute commis est une faute cle service, com1nise JJar un fonctionnaire ou 11n emp loyé, les juges pet1vent décider cle même que la dette sera supportée en définitive, pour le tot1t ou e11 partie, par l'État ot1 sa st1bcli,1ision Ott par le service pt1blic intéressé. A1·ticle 2158. - 3. Elements à consiclérer. te fau la de ité av gr la de n, sio ci clé t1r e l ns cla (1) Il s tien11ent compte, , , , nt . ta et m m co la en tir , te au , son a1 ·t av co1nm1se et de la v olonte qu d'accomplir au mieux ses fonctions. • • de fortune re. n io at itu s la 11 io at ér id ns (2) Ils ne prennent pas en c o onsables. sp re s e é ar cl clé s ne on ve rs s ti pe cle ec sp Article 2159. - 4. Limites à ce tempéran 1e11t. : . . , ne p etl t '>tre a drnis par· Jes juges e A11cu.n partage cle responsab1lite

clans is comm été a abilit é (a) lorsqt1e l'acte générate11r de resp ons , l'intention cle nuire, ou elle son laqt1 cle i· a ison éna l en p on ti Glc fr i11 (b) l o rqu'il constitue 11ne a11teur a été conclamné.

APl'ENDlX

392

"C"

Article 2160. - Faute partagée. ( 1) Si plusieurs person11es ont concot11-u, pa1· leur faute, à causer uo n1ême don11nage, les juges fixent selon l'éqtûté la pa1·te de dette qui doit être en définitive supportée par chacune d'elles. (2)

Ils tiennent co1npte da11s1 leur déciso11 de toutes circostances, en pa1·ticulier de la mesure dans laqt1elle les fautes 1·espectives ont contribt1é à causer le do1nn1age et de là gravité de chacune de ces fautes.

Article 2161 *. - Subrogation. ( 1)

Celui qt1i a payé toute la dette, alors qu'il ne doit en supporter en définitive qu'une portion, a un recours contre ses coobligés.

(2) Il est, pour ce 1·ecou1·s, subrogé dans les droits de la victime.

GENERAL ElOOK.B INDING CO-

L!,50 CS :::i

' i-I•r.;:, C•'-

QUALITY CONTR OL MARK

8051

{l •

;

1•

J 1

Â·,

â&#x20AC;¢

Delict and torts·

' 1

.•

1 2223- 0083 5035 1

•

',.

.•

•• ✓

.•

-·

•.

.,. f

., '.

, ',

' •

• 1

✓

' '' ,. ,.

. '

•

·,

. •,

,-.

•' .'

'1 1

.1 •

'·

•

;

•.

.. -.

•

'·

•

• J

,· .

•.

•

-,'.

•

.' 1 ✓

•,

. '-"

' .. ''

•' '

•

· ,·

.''

·-

'·

-· .. ' , ,

' \

' '

•

' '

' 7

.·

.. '

... "

,.!

.. .

11 ''

.... i:

'' ''

�

... '

•

fEB O 7 1996

• 1'

•

..,

ISSUED TO

·-

)

' .

''..

' .. .

1 •

•,

1969 ..

•

�

·'

' \ 1- � -�

• 1

'·

� • -1 · t.:. D.·•\

'" �

'•

Berhane, Yohannes Delict and torts. 1969.

·-

' ' 11

72-3738

•

KRD 195 .B4

' '.

I ·'

..,.,..--

•

·,'

�

Berl1ane, Yol1annes Delict and torts ,.

1 1

.. '

72-3738

•,

. ' .. ,

'·

-.. ,,

,·

·•

''. '1

.--.. •

•

�

1 . .

-' ..

• -,

• •

•

.. •

•• ' ..

___

------r,... -- -,�., .-.--...,

-·

·,

,.....r-- ....-- -·.. .

-r---- -,- ,--�---- ..,.,.

...

'••

'·

'' •

' ,.

' 1

/',,

•

•'

fi' '

·•

•

' f • •

t ·.,

. --

-- -·-- -