rules on remoteness
Polish translation: zasady adekwatności związku przyczynowego
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 09:26 Mar 13, 2018 |
| English to Polish translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: mike23 Poland Local time: 19:40 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 +1 | zasady adekwatności związku przyczynowego |
|
| Summary of reference entries provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| rules on remoteness of contractual damages |
|
| Discussion entries: 7 | |
|---|---|
Answers
4 hrs confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1zasady adekwatności związku przyczynowego Explanation: zasady adekwatności związku przyczynowego -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 4 hrs (2018-03-13 13:33:16 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Za Sądem Najwyższym w tym orzeczeniu wskazać także należy, że w doktrynie prawa wyrażany jest również pogląd, który wprawdzie nie zrywa z koncepcją zastosowania reguły adekwatnego związku przyczynowego z art. 361 § 1 k.c. do opartej na zasadzie ryzyka odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej prowadzących na własny rachunek przedsiębiorstwa lub zakłady wprawiane w ruch za pomocą sił przyrody, jednakże stanowisko to modyfikuje przyjmując, iż art. 435 § 1 k.c. wprowadza domniemanie adekwatności szkody (jako skutku) w stosunku do ruchu przedsiębiorstwa (jako źródła uszczerbku), co zwalnia poszkodowanego z obowiązku wykazania, że szkoda stanowi normalne następstwo owego ruchu. Domniemanie to jest wzruszalne, ale może być ono obalone wyłącznie przez wykazanie jednej z okoliczności egzoneracyjnych określonych w tym przepisie (zob. powołana w uzasadnieniu do tego orzeczenia literaturę). Trzecią koncepcją zaprezentowaną w doktrynie prawa jest ta, w myśl której unormowanie art. 435 § 1 k.c. ustanawia wyjątek od zasady adekwatności związku przyczynowego z art. 361 § 1 k.c. jako przesłanki odpowiedzialności odszkodowawczej ... http://orzeczenia.elblag.so.gov.pl/content/$N/151010000002021_IV_Pa_000045_2013_Uz_2013-09-27_001 |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Reference comments
16 mins peer agreement (net): +2 |
| Reference: rules on remoteness of contractual damages Reference information: In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remoteness_in_English_law -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 32 mins (2018-03-13 09:58:58 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- THE REMOTENESS DOCTRINE The "remoteness doctrine" has been applied in two different contexts: attenuated harm cases and cases involving derivative claims. A classic example of the doctrine's application to bar a claim involving an attenuated harm is The Wagon Mound No. 1.2 In that case, a freighter named the Wagon Mound carelessly discharged a large quantity of furnace oil into the Port of Sydney, Australia. The oil quickly spread across the bay and came into contact with the slipways of the plaintiff s wharf, interfering with its use, but otherwise causing only nominal damage. The oil suddenly ignited when cotton waste floating on the surface was set fire by molten metal dropped from the wharf by the plaintiff's workmen. The fire seriously damaged the wharf. Although the defendant's wrongful act and the plaintiff s harm could have been linked, the defendant was not held liable. In reaching its decision, the court stated the remoteness doctrine with cellular clarity when it said that "there is no such thing as negligence in the air, so there is no such thing as liability in the air.' Another example of remoteness based on an attenuated harm is an individual driving too fast because he is late for work. Suppose he causes an accident on a major highway. The accident creates a huge, but foreseeable, traffic jam. In the traffic jam is a doctor who fails to reach a patient in time for emergency treatment. The patient dies. No court would allow the decedent's family to recover in tort against the negligent driver. The harm is simply too tenuous, too remote. Other remoteness cases have involved unusual, but equally serious, circumstances. In Oehler v. Davis,4 a dog collar manufacturer sold a defective dog collar. The collar broke, allowing the dog to escape its owner and bite someone. The court decided that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the dog collar's manufacturer, because the harm was too remote. In another case, a day care center negligently allowed a child to consume poison. Relatives with whom the child was residing lost custody of the child, because bruises caused by the poisoning were mistaken for the results of child abuse.6 The relatives sued the day care center, alleging "extreme mental hardship, anguish and humiliation, loneliness and disruption from the loss of the companionship of the child .... - The relatives' claim against the day care center for loss of custody was dismissed, because it was too remote https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... - pages 3, 4 |
| |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question. You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy. KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations Your current localization setting
English
Select a language Close search
| ||
