Abstract
It goes without saying that the wrongful injury of a person, the victim, by another, the tortfeasor, always raises interesting questions for a lawyer. Not only is he faced with all the problems regarding the prerequisites for establishing the tortfeasor’s liability, but he also has to think about which harm has to be compensated and to what extent, thus also which methods of calculation have to be used, e.g. objective or subjective yardsticks. All these problems are —you might say — in the normal scope of tort law. Cases of wrongful death, however, highlight some particular legal aspects: It is not the victim himself who claims because he is already in a better world and does not feel the consequences of his death. As the person who suffered the injury no longer exists, at stake are primarily — at least at first sight — not his losses and his compensation but the harm suffered by the surviving dependents and their compensation. We will see that to some extent another classification seems possible and reasonable. But at any rate, in regard of compensation, we have to take into account that under no circumstances will the victim himself but third persons claim and be awarded damages and that, therefore, ultimately not the interests of the victim himself but of third persons seem to be decisive.
I would like to thank Donna Stockenhuber for proof-reading the text.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See B.A. Koch/ H. Koziol, Comparative Analysis, in: B.A. Koch/ H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspective (2003) no. 40 ff. with references to the country reports.
Cf. H. Koziol, Comparative Analysis, in: B.A. Koch/ H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspective (2003) ibid., no. 56.
See H. Koziol, Comparative Analysis, in: B.A. Koch/ H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspectiveibid. , no. 53 ff; W.V.H. Rogers, Comparative Report, in: W.V.H. Rogers (ed.), Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective (2001) no. 4, all with references to the country reports.
In this sense the country reports by E. Karner/ H. Koziol, Austria no. 46; H. Cousy/D. Droshout, Belgium no. 28 f.; S. Galand-Carval, France no. 41; U. Magnus/J. Fedtke, Germany no. 14; M.H. Wissink/W. van Boom, The Netherlands no. 30; M. Martin-Casals/J. Ribot/J. Solé, Spain no. 34 ff.; all in: W.V.H. Rogers (ed.), Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective (2001). Disapproving W.V.H. Rogers, England, in: W.V.H. Rogers (ed.), Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective (2001) no. 22.
Wissink/ Van Boom (fn. 4) no. 27; M. Martin-Casals/J. Ribot/J. Solé, Compensation for Personal Injury in Spain, in: B.A. Koch/H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspective (2003) no. 118.
Before 1996, the Austrian Supreme Court (SZ 69/217 = Juristische Blätter 1997, 40) decided that the surviving dependants are entitled to such claim. Cf. to the different opinions in Italy F.D. Busnelli/ G. Comandé, Italy, in: B.A. Koch/ H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspective (2003) no. 151.
See F. Bydlinski, System und Prinzipien des Privatrechts (1996) 190 ff.; H. Koziol, österreichisches Haftpflichtrecht I (3rd ed. 1997) no. 1/15.
V. Mataja, Das Recht des Schadenersatzes vom Standpunkt der Nationalökonomie (1888) 19.
See, e.g., M. Adams, ökonomische Analyse der Gefährdungs-und Verschuldenshaftung (1985); H.-B. Schäfer/C. Ott, Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts (3rd ed. 2000), both with further details, founded on the fundamental studies of G. Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents (1970); R.H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics 1960, 1, und R.H. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (5th ed. 1998).
This is at least true for all legal systems which have been taken into consideration in Koch/ Koziol (fn. l) no. 65.
W.H. van Boom, Pure Economic Loss: A Comparative Perspective, in: W.H. van Boom/ H. Koziol/ Ch.A. Witting (eds.), Pure Economic Loss (2004) no. 1 ff.
Cf. Ch.A. Witting, Compensation for Pure Economic Loss from a Common Lawyer’s Perspective no. 51; H. Koziol, Compensation for Pure Economic Loss from a Continental Lawyer’s Perspective no. 52; both in: W.H. van Boom/H. Koziol/Ch.A. Witting (eds.), Pure Economic Loss (2004).
Van Boom (fn. 11) no. 60 and 75 ff.
Koch/ Koziol (fn. 1) no. 66 with references to the country reports.
See H. McGregor, Personal Injury and Death, in: International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law XI (1983), chap. 9, no. 207; W.V.H. Rogers, Compensation for Personal Injury in England, in: B.A. Koch/H. Koziol (eds.), Compensation for Personal Injury in a Comparative Perspective (2003) no. 67.
Cf. H. Koziol, Recovery for Economic Loss in the European Union, Arizona Law Review 48 (2006) 885.
Critical to such reasoning P. Apathy, Fiktive Operationskosten, österreichische Richterzeitung 1986, 256; H. Koziol, Die Tötung im Schadenersatzrecht, in: Liber Amicorum Pierre Widmer (2003) 210 ff.
This seems to be the solution under Japanese law, cf. H.P. Marutschke, Einführung in das japanische Recht (1999) 189 f.; K. Nitta, Die Berechnung des Schadens beim Unfalltod eines minderjährigen Kindes, Recht in Japan 8 (1998) 80 ff.; H. Stall, Der Tod als Schadensfall, in: E. von Caemmerer (ed.), J. Zepos-FS II (1973) 686.
F.D. Busnelli, II danno biologico dal “diritto vivente” al “diritto vigente” (2001); G. Bender, Personenschaden und Schadensbegriff. Rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur neueren Entwicklung des Personenschadensrechts in Italien (1993); G. Christandl, Eine kurze Darstellung der neuesten Entwicklungen im italienischen Nichtvermögensschadensrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des danno esistenziale, in: S. Patti/U. Stein/S. Bariatti/C. Becker/L. Salazar/K. Nehm, Klauselrichtlinie Mobiliarsicherheiten Strafverfolgung, Jahrbuch für Italienisches Recht vol. 18 (2005) 277–298.
M. Adams, ökonomische Analyse (2nd ed. 2004) 174 ff; H. Kötz/G. Wagner, Deliktsrecht (10th ed. 2006) no. 737 ff.; Schäfer/Ott (fn. 9) 349 ff.
Cf. Ch. von Bar, Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht II (1999) 61; H. Stall, Haftungsfolgen im bürgerlichen Recht (1993) 359.
For more details see Koziol (fn. 18) 212 f.
Cf. ibid, 217 ff.
Koch/ Koziol (fn. l) no. 69 ff.
In more detail E. Karner, Rechtsprechungswende bei Schock-und Fernwirkungsschäden, Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht 1998, 182 ff.
Cf. Koziol (fn. 18) 215 ff.; E. Karner/H. Koziol, Der Ersatz ideellen Schadens im österreichischen Recht und seine Reform, Verhandlungen des 15. österreichischen Juristentags (2003) 67 ff.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag/Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koziol, H. (2008). Wrongful Death — Basic Questions. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2006. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 2006. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77572-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77572-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-70937-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-77572-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)