Abstract
1. Does your legal system have general rules, whether statutory or case-law, which regulate the categorisation of harm as a single indivisible loss or a plurality of losses? Have such rules been proposed in the secondary legal literature? Does the distinction have any significance in practice?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Larebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) at 267 with reference to (among others) the cases published in the Weekly Law Report in respectively 1988 at 884 (High Court Decision, West Division) and 1988 at 166 (Supreme Court Decision).
See supra no. 4 and von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Larebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 287 ff.
As a general rule the claim will be reduced only if P’s contribution exceeds 1/3. If P’s contribution exceeds 2/3 usually the claim will cease to exist, cf. von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Larebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 373.
See von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Larebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 8. It should be noted that economic loss not resulting from either personal injury or property damage is defined as pure economic loss — not consequential loss.
Further, the contributory negligence must be of a certain extent in order to cause a reduction of the loss, cf. supra no. 7 f.
For a definition of consequential loss, see supra no. 10.
J. Rostock-Jensen/ A. Kvist-Kristensen, Produktansvar (2004) at 114–115.
However, it is not entirely clear whether this amount is to be regarded as a traditional deduction (meaning that DKK 4,000 is deducted from the compensation in all cases) or a minimum threshold (meaning that the entire sum of the compensation is paid if the sum exceeds DKK 4,000), cf. Rostock-Jensen/Kvist-Kristensen A. Kvist-Kristensen, Produktansvar (2004) (fn. 34) at 172.
See Workers’ Compensation Act (Consolidation Act No. 154 of 7 March 2007), Danish Act on Filing of Complaints and Access to Damages in the Health Sector (Act No. 547 of 24 June 2005) and von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Larebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 345 and 355.
von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Læebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 292.
Ibid., at 293 ff. with reference to (among others) the cases published in the Weekly Law Report in 1960 at 932 (Maritime and Commercial Court) and 2004 at 2389 (Supreme Court Decision).
See St. Jørgensen, Erstatningsret (2nd ed. 1972) at 59 and von Eyben/Isager (fn. 1) at 293.
See Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 266, 268 and 274; von Eyben/Isager (fn. 1) at 278 and decisions published in the Weekly Law Report in 1953 at 742 (Supreme Court Decision), and in 1979 at 927 (High Court Decision, East Division).
However, this may impact on the final apportionment of the damages among the various tortfeasors themselves, cf. Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 269.
von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Læebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 278. An example of the latter situation is when A is hospitalised for four months due to B’s conduct and A is subsequently injured at the hospital after two months by co-patient C. B and C are jointly liable for the loss attributable to the last two months.
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 266.
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 272; von Eyben/Isager (fn. 1) at 278.
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 273 with reference to (among others) decisions published in the Weekly Law Report in 1949 at 439 (High Court Decision, West Division) and 1944 at 358 (High Court Decision, West Division).
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 273; von Eyben/Isager (fn. 1) at 278.
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 273; von Eyben/Isager (fn. 1) at 278.
von Eyben/Isager H. Isager, Læebog i erstatningsret (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 1) at 278. Nevertheless, one could imagine that the courts will be inclined to protect the claimant rather than the tortfeasor and therefore favour the second alternative.
Jørgensen (fn. 40) at 273.
Ibid., at 273.
The Brussels Regulation (see Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, 1–23) was adopted by the EU in 2000. The EU rules are laid down in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order of 2001, which came into force on 1 March 2002. However, pursuant to Denmark’s opt-out on legal co-operation within the EU, the Brussels Regulation did not become part of Danish law on said legal basis. Nonetheless, the Brussels Regulation has become part of Danish law by way of a parallel agreement between Denmark and the EU. The Brussels Regulation entered into force in Denmark on 1 July 2007 (see the Danish Act on the Brussels I-Regulation, Act No. 1563 of 20 December 2006).
First and foremost three decisions published in the Weekly Law Report in respectively 1925 at 549 (Supreme Court Decision), 1957 at 613 (High Court Decision, West Division) and 2006 at 2815 (High Court Decision, East Division).
For example, in a decision published in the Weekly Law Report in 1940 at 454 (Supreme Court Decision) the place of the harmful occurence seems to have been favoured by the Supreme Court. However, by employing the Danish word “tillige” (in English: also) the Court indicates that the claimant could have sued in the jurisdiction of the harmful conduct also.
L. Lindencrone Petersen/ E. Werlauff, Dansk Retspleje (4th ed. 2007) at 194, 206.
See, for example, a decision published in the Weekly Law Report in 1940 at 454 (Supreme Court Decision).
See Sec. 3(1) and further B. Gomard/ M. Kistrup, Civilprocessen (6th ed. 2007) at 52 f.
Ibid., at 800 f.
Ibid., at 801.
See Gomard/Kistrup M. Kistrup, Civilprocessen (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 61) at 801 f.
Ibid.
See decision published in the Weekly Law Report in 1975 at 257 (High Court Decision, West Division).
See decision published in the Weekly Law Report in 1949 at 804 (Supreme Court Decision).
Gomard/Kistrup M. Kistrup, Civilprocessen (6th ed. 2007) (fn. 61) at 799 with reference to cases reported in the Weekly Law Report in 1976 at 170 (Supreme Court Decision) and 1960 at 960 (High Court Decision, West Division).
I. Sørensen, Forsikringsret (4th ed. 2005) at 118.
Ibid., at 118.
Ibid., at 125.
Ibid., at 125.
Ibid., at 124.
See the Weekly Law Report, 1994 at 993 (High Court Decision, East Division).
Sørensen (fn. 75) at 125.
This Section of the Standard Terms was amended in 1992, cf. J. Hornsberg/ G. Lett, Produktansvar og forsikring (1992) at 109.
Sec. 29(1) refers to Sec. 3(1) of the Danish Act on Limitation of Claims (Act No. 522 of 6 June 2007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag/Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ehlers, A.B. (2009). Aggregation and Divisibility of Damage in Denmark: Tort Law and Insurance. In: Oliphant, K. (eds) Aggregation and Divisibility of Damage. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 26. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92209-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92209-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-92208-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-92209-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)