Domaine(s) : - droit
droit de la responsabilité délictuelle


français


cause substantielle n. f.
Équivalent(s) English substantial cause




Note(s) :
Rendant une décision fort éclairée, le juge Lacourcière a conclu que le défunt : « ...était exceptionnellement vulnérable à une réaction psychotique à la suite d'un accident d'automobile, à cause de ses problèmes émotifs passés. Compte tenu du principe dit « de la victime vulnérable », l'appelant n'avait pas le choix de sa victime qui était un individu psychologiquement vulnérable. On doit aussi tenir pour acquis que le jury avait conclu, selon la prépondérance de la preuve, que l'accident, tout en n'étant pas obligatoirement la seule cause du suicide, en était une cause directe et substantielle sans laquelle le suicide ne serait vraisemblablement pas survenu ».
GDT

din pacate definitia e in franceza...

ceva se gaseste aici:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
Evidence proving causation
To be acceptable, any rule of law must be capable of being applied consistently so a definition of the criteria for this qualitative analysis must be supplied. Let us assume a purely factual analysis as a starting point. A injures B and leaves him lying in the road. C is a driver who fails to see B on the road and by running over him, contributes to the cause of his death. It would be possible to ask for a detailed medical evaluation at a post mortem to determine the initial degree of injury and the extent to which B's life was threatened, followed by a second set of injuries from the collision and their contribution. If the first incident merely damaged B's leg so that he could not move, it is tempting to assert that C's driving must have been the more substantial cause and so represents a novus actus breaking the chain. Equally, if B was bleeding to death and the only contribution that the driving made was to break B's arm, the driving is not a novus actus and does not break the chain. But this approach ignores the issue of A's foresight.


" sau reclamatia nu dispune de dovezile necesare pentru a-i dovedi legitimitatea dupa legile in vigoare ale statului respectiv"

nu sunt foarte cnvinsa de "state" aici poate nitel mai mult context ar lamuri lucrurile


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day11 hrs (2008-05-16 22:09:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

uite alt exemplu :
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/romanian_to_english/law_general/25...

cred ca se disputa o lege valabila n statul respectiv iar aici nu se disputa politica statului ci amendarea legii

prin extensie" The case reached the US Supreme Court which declared that excluding men did not ACHIEVE A SUBSTANTIAL STATE PURPOSE." - cazul prezentat la Curte Suprema de Justitie nu a atins fondul problemei, deci este insuficient dovedit"....