TORTS & PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW eJOURNAL

"Zorgplichten Van Multinationals in Nederland - 'Second Best' Zo Slecht Nog Niet? (Holding Dutch Multinationals Accountable before Dutch Courts for Harm Caused to People and Planet Abroad: From 'Second Best' to First Choice?)" Free Download
2013 (12) Nederlands Juristenblad 744

LIESBETH F.H. ENNEKING, Utrecht University - Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law
Email:

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.

"Legal Issues of Internal Investigation for Medical Accident - Necessity of Protection of the Rights of Medical Practitioner as a Party in the Accident and its Measure" Free Download
Japanese Journal of Medical Safety, Forthcoming

TAKANORI ABE, Osaka University - Graduate School of Medicine
Email:

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.

"Strict Liability in Contemporary European Codification: Torn between Objects, Activities, and Their Risks" Free Download
Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2013

ERDEM BÜYÜKSAGIS, University of Fribourg (Switzerland)
Email:
WILLEM H. VAN BOOM, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) - Erasmus School of Law, Durham Law School
Email:

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.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts dealing with torts, product liability, and insurance law. Related articles may also be published in other Legal Scholarship Network journals, including Law and Economics; Litigation, Procedure, and Dispute Resolution; Health Law and Policy; Employment and Labor Law; and Environmental Law and Policy.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Torts & Products Liability Law eJournal

ANITA BERNSTEIN
Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

RICHARD A. EPSTEIN
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law , New York University School of Law, Stanford University - Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Chicago - Law School

MARK GEISTFELD
Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation, New York University School of Law

MARK F. GRADY
Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

SAUL LEVMORE
William B. Graham Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

ROBERT L. RABIN
A. Calder Mackay Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

W. KIP VISCUSI
University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Law School, Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Department of Economics, University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University - Strategy and Business Economics

RICHARD W. WRIGHT
Professor of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology - Chicago-Kent College of Law