Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Tort Law 2004 pp 623–648Cite as

Portuguese Tort Law: A Comparison with the Principles of European Tort Law

  • Chapter

  • 299 Accesses

Part of the book series: Tort and Insurance Law Yearbook ((TILY,volume 2004))

C. Conclusion

There are some important differences in structure and in dogmatic background between the Principles and the CC, of which one can point out the following: (1) The CC adopts the principle of fault, the Principles offer the same dogmatic level to fault, strict liability and liability for others. (2) The definition of wrongfulness and the protection of pure economic interests and contractual relationships is broader in the Principles than in the Portuguese CC. (3) The regime on enterprise liability and (4) the chapter on causation of the Principles are very innovative. (5) Concerning remedies, the Principles provide compensation for non-pecuniary damage for anyone having a “close relationship” with the injured, which is opposed to the enumeration of relatives and (6) the Principles provide compensation of non-pecuniary damage suffered by persons having a close relationship with a victim suffering a very serious non-fatal injury.

In general, the practical results are frequently similar but, perhaps, the regime provided in the CC is stricter and is possibly more efficient in “keeping the floodgates shut.”

This paper was presented on 20 October 2004 at ECTIL. I would like to thank Prof. Koziol for the important suggestions for this article and his kind invitation to do research at ECTIL in the period of October, November and December 2004 as well as the Austrian Academy of Sciences for the financial support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. On that same date (1 July 1867) the death penalty was abolished in Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Our first Civil Code of 1867 results from the movement of Codification and was also influenced by L’école de l’Exegèse (19th Century). See L. Menezes Leitão, O Ensino do Direito das Obrigações (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. Zweigert/ H. Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn. 1998), 108. For a different perspective of the legal families see J.M. Rainer, Europäisches Privatrecht: Die Rechtsvergleichung (2002), 57.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See R. Capelo de Sousa, O Direito Geral de Personalidade (1995). A. Menezes Cordeiro, Os Direitos de Personalidade na Jurisprudência Portuguesa, [2001] Revista da Ordem dos Advogados (ROA), 1229–1256.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Code of Intellectual Property (2003), Copyright Act, etc.

    Google Scholar 

  6. For example Art. 494 provides limitation of damages (ad hoc), like Art. 43 (1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations from 1911 (entered into force in 1912).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Art. 334 on Abuse of a right was influenced by the Greek Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Published in H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2002 (2003), 562 et seq. Principles of European Tort Law as of 3 May 2003. See the most recent and definitive version at http://www.egtl.org/Principles/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, in German, J. Sinde Monteiro/ R. Moura Ramos/ H. Hörster, Portugal, in: C. von Bar (ed.), Deliktsrecht in Europa (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tortfeasors are liable in solidum, according to Art. 497 (1) CC. The definitive apportionment of compensation between several tortfeasors depends on the degree of fault and the consequences of their acts (Art. 497 (2) CC).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See H. Koziol, Die „Principles of European Tort Law“ der „European Group on Tort Law“, [2004] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP), 237.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See R. Zimmermann, Principles of European Contract Law and Principles of European Tort Law: Comparison and Points of Contact, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Koziol, The concept of wrongfulness under the Principles of European Tort Law, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 14), 552 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See R. Zimmermann B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 23), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See the critics of R. Zimmermann B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 23), 13–14. However, the intention of the drafters is not to provide such an extensive protection as Zimmermann states, as explains H. Koziol (supra fn. 22), 243. The correct interpretation of the whole Art. 2:102 leads to a scarce protection of pure economic loss or contractual relationships under tort law.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Vaz Serra, Responsabilidade Civil (Requisites), [1960] Boletim do Ministério da Justiça (BMJ), no. 92, 37 et seq. (122, no. 13) and Responsabilidade de Terceiros no Não-Cumprimento das Obrigações, [1959] BMJ, 85, 345 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See J. Sinde Monteiro, Manuel de Andrade und der Einfluss des BGB auf das Portugiesische Zivilgesetzbuch von 1966, in: E. Jayme/ H.P. Mansel (eds.), Auf dem Wege zu einem gemeineuropäischen Privatrecht — 100 Jahre BGB und die lusophonen Länder (1977), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See J. Sinde Monteiro, Portugal, in: J. Spier (ed.), The Limits of Expanding Liability, Eight Cases in a Fundamental Perspective (1998). See also M Almeida, A Responsabilidade Civil do Banqueiro Perante os Credores da Empresa Financiada (2003) and M. Frada, O problema e os limites da responsabilidade dos auditores, [2002] Direito e Justiça, 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See the recent work of S. Júnior, Responsabilidade Civil de Terceiro por Lesão de Direito de Crédito (2003). This dissertation deals with the question of liability of third parties that cause damage to a credit right of another. The traditional Portuguese doctrine advocates that a credit right only has inter partes effects, and thus — except in cases of abuse of right — a third party may not be held liable for violating it. On the contrary personality rights, real rights or intellectual property rights are absolute rights, with efficacy erga omnes and their violation might be argued against any wrongdoer. The author, however, after a comprehensive analysis of comparative law, defends that Portuguese law should follow the North-American (e.g., tort of interference with contractual relations), French and Italian doctrine, which accepts, under some circumstances, that a third party might be held liable when breaching a credit right.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See E. Silva, Da Responsabilidade Pré-Contratual por Violação dos Deveres de Informação (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  21. For a complete overview of the question in Portugal, see C. von Bar, The Common European Law of Torts I (1998), 22 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  22. W. van Gerven/ J. Lever/ P. Larrouche/ C. von Bar/ G. Viney, Tort Law — Scope of Protection (1997), 55. This recent trend is also followed by the Dutch, Swiss, Italian and Greek codifications. They take as a “starting point a general provision founded on sufficiently flexible concepts to adjust to new situations, while at the same time limiting or excluding certain heads of damage.” See also D. Moura, Da Responsabilidade Pré-contratual em Direito Internacional Privado (2001), 188.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Awarding compensation for a proportion of the costs of the replacement buses is, however, already outside the scope of protection of the rule concerning “preventive expenses”. See A. Abrantes Geraldes, Indemnização do dano da privação do uso (2001), 42 et seq. The author quotes a decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal (9 March 1989), and decisions of the Court of Justice of Lisbon from 31 October 1994 and 7 March 1996. More recently the Lisbon Court of Appeal decision of 21 January 1999 denied this damage.

    Google Scholar 

  24. This is beginning to be criticized, See A. Menezes Cordeiro, A Responsabilidade dos Administradores das Sociedades Comerciais (1997), who defends a return to conditio sine qua non, complemented, in a second step by the protective purpose of the rule theory. His theory is in accordance with the Principles in what a return to conditio sine qua non would concern, but the over-consideration of the protective purpose of the rule theory and the “abandonment” of the adequacy theory is a little too exaggerated. The Principles, on the contrary, do take into consideration the adequacy theory (Art. 3:201 a)).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Antunes Varela, Das Obrigações em Geral (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Antunes Varela (supra fn. 37).

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Zimmermann B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 23), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  28. H. Koziol Die „Principles of European Tort Law“ der „European Group on Tort Law“, [2004] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) (supra fn. 22), 246.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lisbon Court of Appeal decision of 8 July 1999, in [1999] Colectânea de Jurisprudência (CJ), IV, 97–104. The decision was taken on the basis of “equity”, and it is stated in Art. 566 (3) that damage may be calculated that way, when there are no other solutions.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Liability for damage caused by things and dangerous activities is similar to Artt. 2050 and 2051 Codice Civile — see C. von Bar (supra fn. 33), 118.

    Google Scholar 

  31. I. Galvão Telles, Direito das Obrigações (7th edn. 1997), 410 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. Koziol Die „Principles of European Tort Law“ der „European Group on Tort Law“, [2004] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) (supra fn. 22), 244.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See J. Antunes Varela (supra fn. 37).

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Andrade, Teoria Geral das Obrigações (3rd edn. 1966), 351 et seq.; J. Antunes Varela (supra fn. 37), 916; L. Menezes Leitão, Direito das Obrigações (3rd edn. 2003), 346.

    Google Scholar 

  35. L. Menezes Leitão (supra fn. 48), 347.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See: L. Menezes Leitão (supra fn. 48), 348; L. Menezes Leitão Responsabilidade do Gestor, 281 and A. Menezes Cordeiro (supra fn. 36), 532 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  37. H. Koziol, Austria, in: J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Causation (2000), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  38. H. Koziol, B.C. Steininger European Tort Law 2002 (2003) (supra fn. 24), no. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. Sinde Monteiro/ M. Veloso, Portuguese report, in: P. Widmer (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Fault (2005). H. Koziol (supra fn. 24), 556, seems to defend a different position. He states, “their [persons with below-average abilities] mere existence, which inevitably implies their participation in social intercourse, cannot be sufficient reason for establishing liability, even if their unavoidable behaviour does not comply with objective standards.”

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Sinde Monteiro, Responsabilidade por conselhos, recomendações ou informações (1989), 264; M. Teixeira de Sousa, O concurso de títulos de aquisição da prestação (1988), 319.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Supremo Tribunal de Justica (Supreme Court of Justice, STJ) 21 February 1961, in J. Sinde Monteiro (supra fn. 56), 267 and fn. 305.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Évora Court of Appeal 9 December 1977, [1977] CJ IV, 90; Porto Court of Appeal 11 December 1981, [1981] CJ V, 274.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See J. Sinde Monteiro/ M. Veloso (supra fn. 55).

    Google Scholar 

  44. H. Koziol Die „Principles of European Tort Law“ der „European Group on Tort Law“, [2004] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) (supra fn. 22), 249: “Die Principles gehen weiter als die meisten Rechtsordnungen (...)”.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R. Zimmermann B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 23).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Art. 927 of the Brazilian Civil Code introduced a general clause of strict liability for dangerous activities. See A. Pereira, Brazil, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 23), 457.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See H. Koziol Die „Principles of European Tort Law“ der „European Group on Tort Law“, [2004] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) (supra fn. 22), 253.

    Google Scholar 

  48. For a detailed explanation of supervisors’ liability, see H. Sousa Antunes, Responsabilidade civil dos obrigados à vigilância de pessoa naturalmente incapaz (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  49. R. de Alarcão, Direito das Obrigações (1983), 227.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. Sinde Monteiro/ M. Veloso (supra fn. 55).

    Google Scholar 

  51. J. Antunes Varela (supra fn. 37), 954.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See R. Zimmermann B.C. Steininger (eds.), European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 23), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  53. About this issue, see J. Dias, Dano Corporal (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  54. J. Gomes, Custo das Reparações, valor venal ou valor de substituição? — Anotação ao Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça de 27.2.2003, Ver. 4016/02 [2003] Cadernos de Direito Privado I, 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See J. Antunes Varela (supra fn. 37); A. Pinto Monteiro, Cláusula Penal e Indemnização (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  56. A. Menezes Cordeiro Os Direitos de Personalidade na Jurisprudência Portuguesa, [2001] Revista da Ordem dos Advogados (ROA), 1229–1256 (supra fn. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  57. A. Menezes Cordeiro Os Direitos de Personalidade na Jurispruděncia Portuguesa, [2001] Revista da Ordem dos Advogados (ROA), 1229–1256 (supra fn. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  58. See D. Leite de Campos, “A vida, a morte e a sua indemnização”, [1987] BMJ, 365, 15, and J. Dinis, Dano Corporal em acidentes de Viação, [2001] CJ-STJ, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  59. [2002] CJ-STJ I, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Similarly R. Dworkin, Life’s Dominion: an argument about abortion and euthanasia (1993), 86 et seq.: “I am now asking, then, not about justice or rights or fairness, but about tragedy and the waste of life, and therefore the insult to the sanctity of life, on different occasions? (...)... the death of a young woman in an airplane crash is worse than the death of an old man would be. The young woman would probably otherwise have had many more years left to live. (...) But how bad this is — how great the frustration — depends on the stage of life in which it occurs, because the person has made a significant personal investment in his own life, and less if it occurs after any investment has been substantially fulfilled, or as substantially fulfilled as is anyway likely.” See in Portuguese Case-law: STJ, 3-2-1976 (BMJ 254, 180); STJ 8-2-1969 (BMJ 184, 267); STJ 4-5-1971 (BMJ 207, 155); STJ 6-7-1971 (BMJ, 209, 102); STJ, 1-4-1975 (BMJ, 246, 126); STJ, 225-1979 (BMJ 287, 287); STJ, 7-5-1971 (BMJ, 207, 149).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 275/2002, in Diário da República (DR), II, 24 July 2002. See A. Pereira, Portugal, in: H. Koziol/B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 14), 346.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Supreme Court of Justice decision of 4 November 2003. See A. Pereira, Portugal, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 23), 343.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See, e.g., Supreme Court of Justice, 13 January 1994, [CJ (STJ), I, 2000]; Supreme Court of Justice 23 April 1998, CJ (STJ); Lisbon’s Court of Appeal, 17 March 1992, CJ, II, 167; and Supreme Court of Justice, 20 January 1994. In the doctrine, J. França Pitão, União de Facto no Direito Português (2000), 30, argues against this conservative jurisprudence. It is also interesting to observe that the new Civil Code of Macao (that was created under the Portuguese sovereignty) attributes a right to be compensated for non-material damage also to the partner (in a de facto marriage).

    Google Scholar 

  64. See A. Pereira B.C. Steininger European Tort Law 2003 (2004) (supra fn. 86), 345.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Boletim do Ministério da Justiça 481, 470.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See J. Dias, Dano Corporal — Quadro Epistemológico e Aspectos Ressarcitórios (2001) and J. Dinis, Dano Corporal em Acidentes de Viação, [2001] CJ (STJ), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See A. Pereira, Brazil, in: H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger (supra fn. 23), 458. A. Tunc, La Responsabilité Civile (1981), 73: “la diminution des dommages-intérêts quand la partie responsible est un individu et non une organisation est tout-à-fait courante dans nombreux pays socialistes, y compris la Chine, ainsi qu’au Portugal. Elle est couramment acceptée pour les dommages causes par un malade mental, et elle est maintenant prise sérieusement en consideration ou meme partiellement introduite en Allemagne, aux Pays-Bas et en Scandinavie.” In fact the new Dutch Civil Code (BW, Burgerlijk Wetboek) introduced in Art. 6:109 such a provision (see E. Hondius/C. van Dam, Niederlande, in: C. von Bar (ed.), Deliktsrecht in Europa (1994), 20.)

    Google Scholar 

  68. See A. Pinto Monteiro (supra fn. 78), 95, fn. 182. See also STJ [2003] CJ-STJ, 17 June 2003: the Court did not apply Art. 494 CPC, not because there was contractual liability, but because the agent had acted with gross negligence.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Accepting it instead J. Antunes Varela, Rasgos inovadores do código civil português de 1966, [1972] Boletim da Faculdade de Direito (BFD), 100–104. See: J. Sinde Monteiro/M. Veloso (supra fn. 55).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Coimbra, P-3004-545, Coimbra, Portugal

    André G. Dias Pereira

Authors
  1. André G. Dias Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Helmut Koziol Barbara C. Steininger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dias Pereira, A.G. (2005). Portuguese Tort Law: A Comparison with the Principles of European Tort Law. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2004. Tort and Insurance Law Yearbook, vol 2004. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-30875-X_35

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation