Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Loss of a Chance

  • Chapter
Essential Cases on Natural Causation

Part of the book series: Digest of European Tort Law ((DIGEURO,volume 1))

  • 440 Accesses

Abstract

The defendants and claimants were fishermen. The defendants’ boat had, because of the defendants’ fault, been caught in the claimants’ net and thus destroyed it. The question arose whether the defendants were liable only for the value of the net or also for the value of the fish which were not caught as a consequence.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. On the French view, where the notion is applied widely, see H. Großerichter, Hypothetischer Geschehensverlauf und Schadensfeststellung (2001) 2 ff., further references within.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pomponius, D. 18,1,8,1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Celsus, D. 19,1,12.; on these texts R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations (paperback ed. 1996) 246 ff., further references within.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paulus, D. 9,2,33 pr.; see also Ulpian, D. 9,2,21,2: “We use the rule, that the valuation should be what the slave was worth to the claimant” (eius quod interest fiat aestimatio); see on the development N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts (2003) 241 ff., 246, further references within.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thus, when a slave was killed, who had committed serious embezzlements in running his owner’s affairs, it was not regarded as too speculative that the owner would succeed to drag out of him under torture the names of his complices in dishonesty: Ulpian, D. 9,2,23,4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Under German law according to §§ 2 BGB, 287 ZPO; cf. H. Großerichter, Hypothetischer Geschehensverlauf und Schadensfeststellung (2001) 3 ff., 64 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Rodger, Labeo, Proculus and the Ones That Got Away, LQR 88 (1972) 402 ff., 406 ff., 410, further references within. Rodger argues that although no direct actio legis Aquiliae was given, the claimant could be successful with an analogous actio in factum. But this is highly speculative: It would have been extraordinary to force a Roman claimant to using different actions for different types of losses consequential to one delict.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For references see H. Kaufmann, Rezeption und Usus Modernus der Actio Legis Aquiliae (1958) 71.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, more detailed, N. Jansen, in: M. Schmoeckel/ J. Rückert/ R. Zimmermann (eds.), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol. II (2007) §§ 249–253, 255, no. 18, 21, further referen within.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas v. Aquin, Summa theologica, secunda secundae partis (II-II) qu. 62, art. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. On these lawyers J. Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (1991) 3 f.; for a more differentiated picture H. Maihold, Strafe für fremde Schuld (2005) 38 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. de Molina, De iustitia et iure (Mainz 1659) tract. II, disp. 726, no. 4 f.

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres (Amsterdam 1642) lib. II, cap. XVII, § 5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. H. Großerichter, Hypothetischer Geschehensverlauf und Schadensfeststellung (2001) 73 ff.; G. Mäsch, Chance und Schaden (2004); for a normative analysis N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 271 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.G. Heineccius, Praelectiones academicae in Hugonis Grotii de iure belli ac pacis libros III (Venice 1765) ad lib. II, cap. 17, § 5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Hanau, Anmerkung, NJW 1968, 2291. Similar comments can be made on a judgment of the Regional Appeal Court Cologne which took a doctor to have been grossly negligent who had not applied a drug which had not been admitted for the specific indication but which might possibly have saved the patient’s life, E. Deutsch, Anmerkung, VersR 1991, 189.

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 271, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See, in particular, N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 271 ff.; H. Koziol, Schadenersatz für den Verlust einer Chance? in: G. Hohloch/R. Frank/P. Schlechtriem (eds.), Festschrift für H. Stoll (2001) 233 ff.; H. Fleischer, Schadensersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags-und Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 766 ff.; H. Stoll, Schadensersatz für verlorene Heilungschancen vor englischen Gerichten in rechtsvergleichender Sicht, in: E. Deutsch/E. Klingmüller/H.J. Kullmann (eds.), Festschrift für E. Steffen (1995) 465 ff. The standard commentaries, on the other hand, do not provide any guidance.

    Google Scholar 

  19. H. Koziol, Schadenersatz für den Verlust einer Chance? in: G. Hohloch/ R. Frank/ P. Schlechtriem (eds.), Festschrift für H. Stoll (2001) 233 ff; H. Fleischer, Schadensersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags-und Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 771 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For a discussion, see N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 291. For the distinction between Haftungsbegründung and Haftungsausfüllung, see infra 11/2.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See, for instance, H. Fleischer, Schadensersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags-und Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 768.

    Google Scholar 

  22. OLG Köln 21 September 1971, NJW 1972, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  23. This is also criticised by N. Jansen, The Idea of a Lost Chance, OJLSt. 19 (1999) 291.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See, for example, BGH 19 June 1951, BGHZ 2, 310.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Fleischer, Schadensersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags-und Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 768 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. Koziol, Schadenersatz für den Verlust einer Chance? in: G. Hohloch/ R. Frank/ P. Schlechtriem (eds.), Festschrift für H. Stoll (2001) 233; idem, Problems of Alternative Causation in Tort Law, in: H. Hausmaninger et al. (eds.), Developments in Austrian and Israeli Private Law (1999) 177 (180 f.).

    Google Scholar 

  27. K. Fountedaki, The problem of causation in medical liability, EllDni 35, 1234 ff.; M. Kanellopoulou-Bottis, The offence against the chance as damage to patrimony or moral harm, KritE 2003/2, 253–307; M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 458–459.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Stathopoulos, Contract Law in Hellas (Kluwer/Sakkoulas, 1993) 199.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 457.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 459.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 459.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M. Stathopoulos, Law of Obligations — General Part (2004, in Greek) 457.

    Google Scholar 

  33. For an example, see: Crim., 24 February 1970, Bull. Crim. 1970, 162; JCP 1970, II, 16456, note Ph. Le Tourneau; D. 1970, 307.

    Google Scholar 

  34. J.-L. Fagnart, La responsabilité des pouvoirs publics dans la prévention des actes de violence, Journal des procès 1997, 318/26 ff.; M.E. Storme, Kausaliteit in het Belgisch aansprakelijkheids-en verzekeringsrecht, VR 1990, 225 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Contra: I. Boone, Het “verlies van een kans” bij onzeker causaal verband, RW 2004–2005, 92 ff. in fine.

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. Boré, L’indemnisation pour les chances perdues, une forme d’appréciation quantitative de la causalité d’un fait dommageable, Semaine juridique 1974, Doctrine, 2620.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Court of Appeal of Brussels, 4 January 2001, Journal des Procès 2001, 410/22 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Court of Appeal of Liège, 27 November 1996, Journal des Procès 1997, 318/22 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  39. I. Boone, RW 2004–2005, 92 ff.; Fr. Delobbe/Ch. Delvaux, La perte de chance de guérison ou de survie, un préjudice imaginaire? in: Y.-H. Leleu (ed.), Droit médical (2005) 279, 289; N. Estienne, L’arrêt de la Cour de cassation du 1er avril 2004: une chance perdue pour les victimes de fautes médicales, JT 2005, 360.

    Google Scholar 

  40. C. Eyben, La théorie de la perte d’une chance défigurée ou revisitée? RGDC 2005, 307 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See however Rb. Utrecht 28-10-1942, NJ 1943, 231 (chance of winning in court set at 50%).

    Google Scholar 

  42. We use condicio here instead of conditio (on the use of either term, see Nieuwenhuis, TPR 2002, 1698) to remain consistent in terminology.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See on that theory in general A.J. Akkermans, Proportionele aansprakelijkheid bij onzeker causaal verband (1997) 107 ff.; A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000), and Nieuwenhuis, TVP 2002, 1710–1717.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See for example Hof Arnhem 14 December 1999 and Rb. Den Haag 12 July 2000, TVP 2000/4, 94 ff. (note Giesen) and the cases mentioned in Chr.H. van Dijk, in: W.R. Kastelein (ed.), Medische aansprakelijkheid (2003) 27 ff., and in A.J. Akkermans (ed.) Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  45. On the cumulative use of several techniques in this respect, see I. Giesen, Bewijs en aansprakelijkheid (2001) 472–479.

    Google Scholar 

  46. A. J. Akkermans, Proportionele aansprakelijkheid bij onzeker causaal verband (1997) 393 ff.; I. Giesen, Bewijslastverdeling bij beroepsaansprakelijkheid (1999) 72 ff., and 122 ff.; I. Giesen, Bewijs en aansprakelijkheid (2001) 474–475.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See A.J. Akkermans, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 108; Chr.H. van Dijk, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 39.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Hartlief, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 15.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See A.J. Akkermans, Proportionele aansprakelijkheid bij onzeker causaal verband (1997) 431 ff. and 444–446 on this specific aspect, and Hartlief, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See for example Hof Arnhem 14 December 1999 and Rb. Den Haag 12 July 2000, TVP 2000/4, 94 ff. (note Giesen) and the cases mentioned by Chr.H. van Dijk, in: W.R. Kastelein (ed.), Medische aansprakelijkheid (2003) 27 ff., and Chr.H. van Dijk, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 27 ff. See also A.J. Akkermans, in: A.J. Akkermans (ed.), Proportionele aansprakelijkheid (2000) 102 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See Cass., 19 November 1983, no. 6906, Giust. civ. 1984, I, 1841, note by E. Cappagli; M. Bocchiola, Perdita di una chance e certezza del danno, Riv. trim. dir. e proc. civ. 1976, 55 ff.; A. Princigalli, Perdita di chance e danno risarcibile, Riv. critica dir. privato 1985, 315 ff. For the argument that the loss of an opportunity is irrelevant, being an injury to a de facto interest, not protected by the law, see: F.D. Busnelli, Perdita di una chance e risarcimento del danno, Foro it. 1965, IV, 49 ff. This opinion is now isolated: P.G. Monateri, La responsabilità civile, in: Sacco (ed.), Trattato di diritto civile (1998) 583 ff.; G. Alpa, La responsabilità civile, in: Id., Trattato di diritto civile, IV, 1999, 514 ff.; M. Franzoni, Dei fatti illeciti, Art. 2043–2059, in: F. Galgano (ed.), Commentario del codice civile Scialoja-Branca (1993) 821 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See M. Franzoni, Dei fatti illeciti, Art. 2043–2059, in: F. Galgano (ed.), Commentario del codice civile Scialoja-Branca (1993) 821 ff. for an instructive discussion of the cases.

    Google Scholar 

  53. This line of cases goes back at least to Trib. Torino, 11 March 1985, Giur. it. 1986, I, 2, 681; Cass., 17 January 1992, Nuova giur. civ. comm. 1992, 358, comment by V. Zeno Zencovich; Resp. civ. prev. 1992, 552, note by G. Ponzanelli. See also Trib. Monza, 30 January 1998; Trib. Monza, 18 February 1997, Resp. civ. prev. 1998, 697 (damages’ awards for faulty diagnosis of melanoma in aged patient and breast cancer in a young woman). On these decisions: P. Ziviz, Il risarcimento del danno per perdita di chances di sopravvivenza, Resp. civ. prev. 1998, 705. See also R. Castiglioni, False diagnosis, in: P. Cendon (ed.), Trattato breve dei nuovi danni (2001) I, 402 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See, for instance, STS 26 January 1999 (RJ 1999, 323); 14 May 1999 (RJ 1999, 3106); 16 December 1996 (RJ 1996, 8971).

    Google Scholar 

  55. STS, Social Chamber, 14 April 1997 (RJ 1997, 4222); 22 April 1998 (RJ 1998, 3730).

    Google Scholar 

  56. See M. Yzquierdo Tolsada, Comentario de la sentencia de 14 de mayo de 1999, CCJC 1999, 538.

    Google Scholar 

  57. STS 29 January 1997 (RJ 1997, 641); 14 April 1997 (RJ 1997, 4222); 22 April 1998 (RJ 1998, 3730); 25 June 1998 (RJ 1998, 5013).

    Google Scholar 

  58. See Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. Stapleton, The Gist of Negligence: Part II (The Relationship between Damage and Causation) (1988) 104 LQR 389.

    Google Scholar 

  60. [2002] EWCA Civ 1471.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962] 1 WLR 295.

    Google Scholar 

  62. K. Oliphant, The Nature of Tortious Liability, in: A. Grubb (ed.), The Law of Tort (2002) § 1–20, fn. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See further B. Coote, Chance and the Burden of Proof in Contract and Tort (1988) 62 ALJ 761.

    Google Scholar 

  64. For a review of the law relating to lost chances in Scotland, see M. Hogg, Lost chances in Contract and Delict, 1997 SLT (News) 71.

    Google Scholar 

  65. [2005] 2 WLR 268.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See on this J Stapleton, The Gist of Negligence, 1988 LQR 389.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 1935 SC 464.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 1966 SLT 47.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 1951 SLT (Notes) 37.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See Kyle v P & J Stormonth Darling, discussed below (no. 7–11).

    Google Scholar 

  71. McCrindle Group Ltd. v Willis Corroon Scotland Ltd. 2002 SLT 209.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 1967 SLT 332.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See A. Phillips, Lost Chances in Delict: All or Nothing? (1995) JR 401; M. Hogg, Lost Chances in Contract and Delict, SLT (News) 71; M. Hogg, Paul v Ogilvy: A Lost Opportunity for Lost Chance Recovery, 2003 ELR 86.

    Google Scholar 

  74. McCrindle Group Ltd. v Willis Corroon Scotland Ltd. 2002 SLT 209.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Unrep. HC, 31 July 2001 (Herbert J); the deposit system has been replaced by a nomination system under Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002; one requires the support of 30 registered electors to stand for the national parliament; the support of 60 registered electors is required in respect of the European parliament. The constitutional validity of the new system was upheld in King v The Min for the Environment, Ireland & the AG unrep. HC, 19 December 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Unrep. HC, 16 May 2002. See J. Healy, Issues of Causation in Recent Medical Negligence Litigation, 8 Bar Rev 2003, 188.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Per Kearns J in Quinn v Mid Western Health Board & O’Sullivan unrep. SC, 8 April 2005. The facts in this case could have raised a loss of chance issue, but it was not argued by the plaintiff, consequently the Supreme Court was required to decide the case on traditional causal principles and did not express any view on whether the loss of chance approach should be developed.

    Google Scholar 

  78. B. Strohsack, Odškodninsko pravo, Zbirka sodnih odločb in pregled literature (2nd ed. 1982) 239 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See also Case T-68/91 Barbi v Commission [1992] ECR II–2127 par. 45; Case T-13/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II–287, par. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  80. The loss of a chance of being employed was also, e.g., the subject-matter of Case T-47/93 C v Commission [1994] ECR II–743.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Compare also Joined Cases 173/82, 157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [1986] ECR 497, par. 36; Case T-13/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II–287, par. 44. It should be added that this kind of damage differs from the non-material damage an official in possession of an irregular and incomplete personal file suffers as a result of being put in an uncertain and anxious state of mind with regard to his professional future; see Case T-73/89 Barbi v Commission [1990] ECR II–619 par. 41; Case T-27/90 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II–35 par. 49; Case T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II–19, par. 36; Case T-27/ 90 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II–35, par. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See Case T-230/94 Farrugia v Commission [1996] ECR II-195; Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo Srl v Commission [1995] ECR II-1479, par. 49; M.H. van der Woude, Liability for Administrative Acts under Art. 215 (2) EC, in: T. Heukels/A. McDonnell (eds.), The Action for Damages in Community Law (1997) 109, 124 f.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See the English case Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1989] AC 750 (House of Lords) (10/12 no. 1–4).

    Google Scholar 

  84. See the Report on Germany and the case BGH 11 June 1968, NJW 1968, 2291 (10/2 no. 1–4): an appendix was removed in accordance with proper professional standards; after the operation, the patient died of internal bleeding which the defendant had not diagnosed although distinct symptoms had existed. It could not be established whether the patient would have been saved if the defendant had identified the internal bleeding in time; Held: If a doctor has been grossly negligent and if there is a probability that the malpractice caused the damage, the burden of proof of the causal link between the malpractice and the damage is reversed and the doctor has to prove that the damage would have occurred even without his mistake. The burden of proof is reversed if the doctor has either consciously or recklessly or by way of a grave infringement of the rules of good medical practice placed the patient in danger, the consequences of which can now no longer be clarified with certainty. The defendant’s infringement in the present case was characterised as a gross infringement and doubts concerning causation must be borne by the defendant. See also the Dutch Report (10/8 no. 1–6).

    Google Scholar 

  85. See J. Spier, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 3:106, no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Compare the example given by J. Spier, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 3:106, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  87. J. Spier, in: European Group on Tort Law (ed.), Principles of European Tort Law (2005) Art. 3:106, no. 9, 15 and no. 7: “As Art. 3:106 deals with potential causes within the victim’s sphere (‘may’), it is partly based on the concept of the loss of a chance (perte d’une chance)”.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Supra, no. 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See the Spanish case TS 9 July 2004, RJ 2004, 5121 (10/10 no 5–8): The Court awarded damages only for the non-pecuniary loss resulting from not having been able to pursue her claim in court.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cf. W. Müller-Stoy, Schadenersatz für verlorene Chancen. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung (1973) 159 ff; H. Fleischer, Schadenersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertrags-und Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 768 ff.; H. Koziol, Schadenersatz für verlorene Chancen? ZBJV 2001, 889 ff.; H. Stoll, Schadenersatz für verlorene Heilungschancen vor englischen Gerichten in rechtsvergleichender Sicht, Steffen-FS (1995) 475 f.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See W.H. van Boom/ H. Koziol/ Ch. Witting, Pure Economic Loss (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Cf. H. Stoll, Schadenersatz für verlorene Heilungschancen vor englischen Gerichten in rechtsvergleichender Sicht, Steffen-FS (1995) 475; H. Fleischer, Schadenersatz für verlorene Chancen im Vertragsund Deliktsrecht, JZ 1999, 773.

    Google Scholar 

  93. JBl 1996, 181.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Loss of a Chance. In: Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Digest of European Tort Law, vol 1. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-36958-6_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation