LIESBETH F.H. ENNEKING, Utrecht University - Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law
Email: L.F.H.Enneking@uu.nl

Op 30 januari jl. wees de Rechtbank Den Haag een - zoals hier zal worden betoogd - baanbrekend eindvonnis inzake de aansprakelijkheidsclaims tegen Shell door een viertal Nigeriaanse boeren en de Nederlandse NGO Milieudefensie. Het baanbrekende aspect is simpelweg het feit dat de Rechtbank zich inhoudelijk en in één geval bevestigend uitspreekt over de vraag of en in hoeverre de aangesproken ondernemingen in rechte verantwoordelijk gehouden kunnen worden voor de in het geding zijnde olielekkages. De uitspraak laat zien dat ‘second best’ helemaal zo slecht nog niet hoeft te zijn, en dat foreign direct liability claims op basis van andere juridische grondslagen dan de Alien Tort Statute niet alleen politiek minder omstreden zullen zijn maar wellicht, onder omstandigheden, juridisch ook kansrijker.

On 30 January 2013 the The Hague district court issued a groundbreaking ruling in a transnational civil liability case against Shell that had been brought before it by four Nigerian farmers and the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie. The fact that the court took on this foreign direct liability case - the first of its kind to have been brought before a Dutch court - and came to a judgment on its merits is significant. The The Hague district court's ruling shows that the 'second best' option of bringing this type of cases before Western society courts on the basis of general principles of tort law holds potential in comparison to the more popular but highly controversial route offered by the Alien Tort Statute.

TAKANORI ABE, Osaka University - Graduate School of Medicine
Email: abe@abe-law.com

It is necessary to protect the rights of medical practitioners as a party in the medical accident during an accident investigation. In the Tokyo Women’s Medical University case, an internal report was prepared without having the medical doctor (a party in the accident) involved in the investigation. It is imperative to create an opportunity for the medical practitioner as a party in the accident to voice their opinions as part of the measure to prevent the accident investigation report containing opinions different from what the medical practitioner has to say from being prepared without having the practitioner to be involved in the investigation and from being made public the conclusion that the practitioner has had any wrongdoing. Unlike in the US, it is a practice in Japan an accident investigation report may be used in the lawsuit. In fact, in the Tokyo Women’s Hospital case, Ohno Hospital case and Mishuku Hospital case, a criminal action was initiated due to internal investigation report. It is preferable that a hospital conducting the investigation informs its medical practitioner of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel to protect their rights because the accident investigation report may actually be used to pursue their liability despite that the purpose of the report is not to pursue the liability of the medical practitioners.

ERDEM BÃœYÃœKSAGIS, University of Fribourg (Switzerland)
Email: eb349@law.georgetown.edu
WILLEM H. VAN BOOM, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) - Erasmus School of Law, Durham Law School
Email: vanboom@law.eur.nl

Many national legislative frameworks in Europe limit the scope of strict liability to the specific sources of danger listed by statute. This in itself causes disparate treatment of seemingly similar dangers, since legislatively mandated instances cover some inherently dangerous situations but not others. Hence, European scholars call for the introduction of a “general clause� in the area of strict liability. A balance is sought between two opposites: restricting the application of statutory sources of strict liability on the one hand, and allowing unrestricted judicial policymaking to shape strict liability by referring to a “general clause� on the other hand. This Article aims to determine an adequate balance, taking into account fundamental prerequisites such as legal certainty, foreseeability (and therefore insurability), and equal treatment of equal sources of danger. It also addresses the scope of application of such rules. Should they be limited to the pursuit of abnormally dangerous activities, as many drafts propose, or to the control of abnormally hazardous objects? This Article argues that an ideal solution would be based on a legal standard that takes “object� rather than “activity� as the central criterion.