Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

§ 4 General Remarks on the Non-Contractual Liability Regime Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another in the Portuguese Civil Code

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts

  • 329 Accesses

Abstract

Living implies bearing the general hazards of life, such as suffering a personal loss or a loss of one’s assets. This idea is supported by the general principle “let the loss lie where it falls” (casum sentit dominus , res perit domino). Every time such a principle applies and the case fulfills certain conditions, the victim may receive aid and achieve relief through social security schemes, private insurance, labour law regulations, etc.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Hörster (1992), p. 70; Brandão Proença (1997), pp. 89–92; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 353; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 152; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 46. In the German legal scholarship , see Larenz and Canaris (1977), p. 351; Deutsch (1996a), p. 1; Esser (2000b), p. 129.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493.

  3. 3.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 16; Santos Silva (2009), p. 57. For a critical approach to this principle, see Spier (2000), p. 303.

  4. 4.

    Hondius (2007), p. 47. It is argued that while civil liability is based on considerations of “individual justice”, social security schemes are based on considerations of “collective justice ” (Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 553).

  5. 5.

    For details see Brandão Proença (1997), pp. 89–91. There are several compulsory civil liability insurances, among which is car civil liability insurance. For a complete list of compulsory insurances, see http://www.asf.com.pt/NR/exeres/692AD7DF-8349-400D-999C-697D9F8C485C,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published (retrieved 31 March 2017).

  6. 6.

    van Dam (2013), p. 348.

  7. 7.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 120–121.

  8. 8.

    Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 33 ff.; Hörster (2004a), p. 326. For details on the allocation of responsibility , see Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 187–219.

  9. 9.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 16; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 721; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 46.

  10. 10.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 214. See also Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 721.

  11. 11.

    Hörster (2004a), p. 326; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 732.

  12. 12.

    Mota Pinto (2005), p. 128.

  13. 13.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 518–520.

  14. 14.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 127. Cf. also Spier (2000), p. 303.

  15. 15.

    Cf. Santos Silva (2006), p. 831.

  16. 16.

    According to one classification, the principle of full reparation stems from one of the principles regulating the obligation of compensation , i.e. the “principle of reparation or equivalence between the loss and the reparation”. See Pinto Oliveira (2011), p. 590 ff. See, similarly, STJ 14 November 2014, proc. 478/05.6TBMGL.C1.S1; RP 10 April 2014, proc. 1942/12.6TJVNF.P1.

  17. 17.

    von Bar (2009c), n. B7 to VI–6:101, p. 909.

  18. 18.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 137; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 721 and 726.

  19. 19.

    Art. 562 (“General principle”) reads: “That who is obliged to repair a loss [dano] must reinstate the situation which would have existed had the event that leads to reparation [reparação] not taken place”.

  20. 20.

    Art. 564(1) CC (“Calculation of compensation ”) reads: “The duty to compensate encompasses not only the loss [prejuízo] caused but also the benefits foregone by the injured person as a consequence of the injury ”. See also Art. 1(1) of Resolution (75) 7 of the Council of Europe, on compensation for physical injury or death , adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 March 1975 at the 243rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.whiplashinfo.se/Europaradet/resolutioner/75_7/resolution_75_7.htm.

  21. 21.

    Magnus (2001b), p. 91; Santos Júnior (2003), p. 249; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 729.

  22. 22.

    Rogers et al. (1996), p. 2.

  23. 23.

    The exceptions to the principle of full reparation are: graded compensation , in cases of negligence on the part of the person inflicting the harm (Art. 494 CC); contractual exclusion or limitation of liability (Art. 810(1) CC) and the fault of the injured person as grounds for reduction of damages or exclusion of liability (Art. 505 CC).

  24. 24.

    van Dam (2013), p. 349. For details on the German legal system, see Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 981 ff. See also BGHZ 18, 149.

  25. 25.

    On the punitive function for non-contractual liability , see Gomes (1989), pp. 105−144; Meira Lourenço (2006); Sousa Antunes (2011). See also Ribeiro de Faria (1990), pp. 426–427; Hörster (2004a), pp. 337–338; Sousa Antunes (2009); Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 419 (initially, in Menezes Cordeiro (1986), p. 277. Menezes Cordeiro was against a punitive function for non-contractual liability, taking the position that where no damage was caused, no behaviours should be punished. In Germany, see Stoll (1970), pp. 3−21; Kern (1991), pp. 247−272; Müller (2000), p. 360 ff.; Jansen and Rademacher (2009); Ebert (2011).

  26. 26.

    See generally Schlobach (2004). See also Steiner (1983), p. 21 ff.; Stoll (1993), p. 147 ff.; Rosengarten (1996), pp. 1935–1938; Möller (2006), p. 329 ff.; Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 590. The DCFR expressly provides for a right to prevention in VI.–1:102.

  27. 27.

    Arts. 494 CC, 497(2) CC, 570 CC and 829-A CC (for the punitive aim) and Art.70 (for the preventative aim). In the legal scholarship , Antunes Varela defends the punitive function of liability based on the fact that the person inflicting the harm must always compensate the loss, irrespective of the way profit was obtained, the above-mentioned rules in the Portuguese Civil Code and the irrelevance of alternative causes (causa virtual) (Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 542–543).

  28. 28.

    For details on the compensatory, punitive and preventative aims of non-contractual liability, see Pinto Oliveira (2011), pp. 688–692.

  29. 29.

    A minority of the legal scholarship denies the existence of these differences and endorses a singular treatment of civil liability. See Gomes da Silva (1944), p. 328; Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 41–42; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 361 ff. (although he endorses a “third” modality of liability, as will be referred to in Tit. § 4, Subtit. II, Sec. 2 below). Against, Pinto Oliveira (2011), pp. 592–593.

  30. 30.

    Pinto Oliveira (2011), p. 592.

  31. 31.

    “Responsabilidade civil extracontratual” is one of the most commonly-used expressions in Portugal to refer to non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another. See for example, Vaz Serra (1959e), pp. 115–342; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 to Art. 483 CC, p. 470 passim; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 518 ff. Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 539–554 passim. When refering to this kind of liability, some Portuguese legal scholars opt for other expressions: “responsabilidade aquiliana” (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 387 passim), “responsabilidade delitual” (Trigo 2009), “responsabilidade extranegocial” or “responsabilidade extraobrigacional” (Sinde Monteiro 2005, p. 350; Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 539–540, fn. 1). The Portuguese draftsmen apparently preferred the expression “responsabilidade extracontratual”: it was used in Art. 45 and on the legal regime of non-contractual liability from the State and other public entities (Act 67/2007 of 31 December 2007, DR, 1st Ser., no. 251 2007, pp. 9117–9120). Within the Civil Code, the expression “responsabilidade civil” is used to refer to non-contractual liability in the epigraph of Sec. V, Chap. 2, Tit. I, Book II CC and Art. 799(2) CC (Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 540, fn. 1). The courts seem to prefer the expression “responsabilidade civil extracontratual” (STJ 20 June 1975, proc. 065043; STJ 30 July 1994, proc. 97A412; STJ 26 May 2015, proc. 1798/09.6TBCSC.L1.S1).

  32. 32.

    Picker (1987), p. 1041; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 44.

  33. 33.

    For details on the DCFR’s non-contractual liability system see Tit. § 6, Subtit. II below.

  34. 34.

    See Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 123. For a comparison between these two kinds of civil liability see generally Vaz Serra (1959e), pp. 115–342.

  35. 35.

    Galvão Telles (1997); Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 350; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 539. As contractual liability can result from sources other than a contract, the expression “responsabilidade negocial” or “responsabilidade obrigacional” is sometimes used instead (Hörster 2004a, pp. 323 ff.; Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 539–540, fn. 1). Vaz Serra admitted that the expression “responsabilidade contratual” was not accurate. However, he stated that it should be used because it was widespread (Vaz Serra 1959e, pp. 115–116, fn. 1). Antunes Varela follows the same line of thought (Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 519–520, fn. 1).

  36. 36.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 494.

  37. 37.

    Hörster (1992), p. 46; Kegel (2002), p. 119; Santos Silva (2006), p. 831; von Bar (2009c), n. III16 to VI.–1:101, p. 254. According to Heck, the absolute right is similar to “a circular stronghold, which offers defence in every direction”, while the credit right (obligatorisches Recht) resembles “a barricade, which only defends in one direction”, and does not prevent aggressions arising from other directions (Heck 2011, p. 2, nos. 1, 4).

  38. 38.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 520. In the German legal scholarship , see von Bar (1994b), p. 107; Honsell (1990). With further reference on the notion of absolute rights see von Bar (2015), p. 32 ff.

  39. 39.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 540.

  40. 40.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 112.

  41. 41.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 256.

  42. 42.

    Carneiro da Frada highlights that while there might be a contractual relationship between the victim and the person inflicting the harm , the law of non-contractual liability does not take this into account (Carneiro da Frada 1994, pp. 117 and 125 ff., with reference to the German legal scholarship ). See also, highlighting the difficulties of distinguishing between claims, von Bar (1980b).

  43. 43.

    von Bar (1996a), pp. 12–13. See also Galvão Telles (1997), p. 212; von Bar (1998a), pp. 2–3; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 391.

  44. 44.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 391.

  45. 45.

    See Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 40–41; Sinde Monteiro (2005), pp. 351–352; Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 543–546; Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, pp. 391–394; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 254–256.

  46. 46.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 393.

  47. 47.

    Brüggemeier (1982), p. 418.

  48. 48.

    Larenz and Canaris (1977), pp. 350–351.

  49. 49.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 392. In the case law, see STJ 12 November 2013, proc. 874/08.7TCSNT.L1.S1. See also Diederichsen (1965).

  50. 50.

    See Tit. § 5, Subtit. III below.

  51. 51.

    Picker (1987), pp. 1041–1042. See also Brüggemeier (1982), p. 418; von Bar and Drobnig (2004), p. 43.

  52. 52.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1981), n. 1 to Art. 483 CC, p. 470.

  53. 53.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 758.

  54. 54.

    Röckrath (2001), p. 1197; Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 265.

  55. 55.

    The DCFR did not opt for a single regime on remedies for both contractual and non-contractual liability . Such an approach appeared too “Germanic” for some of the members of the SGECC, while others felt that providing for a single regime on remedies would have overburdened Book III with additional provisions (von Bar 2011b, p. 394). Instead of providing for a special set of rules on reparation for non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another, the drafters opted to focus on the needs of this regime (von Bar 2001a, p. 530). See, critically, Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 263.

  56. 56.

    Vaz Serra (1960a), p. 5; Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 41; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 521; Sinde Monteiro and Veloso (2001), p. 178. As Almeida Costa points out, this consists of an important innovation of systematic order introduced in Portuguese law (Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 757).

  57. 57.

    Sinde Monteiro (1983), p. 351, fn. 7; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 351. Critically, see Galvão Telles (1997), p. 217 ff. For the characteristics of the obligation of compensation which justify its autonomousness in the continental literature, see Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 721–722.

  58. 58.

    For this topic, see generally Vaz Serra 1959e, p. 208 ff.; Schlechtriem (1972). See also Deutsch (1972), p. 26 ff.; Viney and Ghestin (1982), p. 403 ff. and no. 216; Sacco (1984); Monateri (1989).

  59. 59.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 637.

  60. 60.

    See Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 548–553.

  61. 61.

    RL 27 September 2012, proc. 512/10.8TCFUN.L1-2.

  62. 62.

    Romano Martinez (2001), p. 242.

  63. 63.

    Vaz Serra (1959e), p. 230 ff.

  64. 64.

    Alarcão (1983), pp. 209, pp. 212–214.

  65. 65.

    Pinto Monteiro (1999), p. 713 ff.; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 637; Pinto Monteiro (2003), p. 425 ff.

  66. 66.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, D30, p. 240.

  67. 67.

    von Bar (2004a), p. 134.

  68. 68.

    On a third kind of liability, see generally Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 85 ff. See also Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 508 ff. passim; Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 24 ff. passim; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 350 ff.; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 99 ff. passim; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 318–320.

  69. 69.

    As in the case of (Canaris 1983b, pp. 33–34 and 84 ff.), who speaks of “Haftung aus einer ‘Sonderverbindung’” (“liability arising out of a special relationship”) and of “dritte Spur” (“a third way”), (Picker 1983, p. 385 ff.).

  70. 70.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 318. These duties would be particularly related to good faith and fair dealing (Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos 2006, p. 158).

  71. 71.

    Picker (1983), p. 437 ff.; Picker (1987), p. 1041 ff.

  72. 72.

    Picker (1983), p. 386.

  73. 73.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 390–391, 402; Münch-Komm-Krüger 2003, § 311, nos. 35 ff. For details on the reform of the Law of Obligations see von Bar (1991); Schulze and Schulte-Nölke (2001); Schulte-Nölke (2002); von Bar 2003c; Schmidt-Kessel (2006).

  74. 74.

    § 311 BGB sec. 311 (Obligations created by legal transaction and obligations similar to legal transactions). “(1) In order to create an obligation by legal transaction and to alter the contents of an obligation, a contract between the parties is necessary, unless otherwise provided by statute. (2) An obligation with duties under Section 241 (2) also comes into existence by: 1. the commencement of contract negotiations; 2. the initiation of a contract where one party, with regard to a potential contractual relationship, gives the other party the possibility of affecting his rights, legal interests and other interests, or entrusts these to him; or 3. similar business contacts.” Translation provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in cooperation with juris GmbH, available through http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/german_civil_code.pdf (retrieved March, 31, 2017).

  75. 75.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 75 (associating this concept with the “direito livre” or Freirechtslehre); Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 540–541 (recognising, however, the coherence of the concept); Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 400–403 (recognising, nevertheless, the utility of the concept within the area of the duties of care ).

  76. 76.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 113.

  77. 77.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 327–328. For details on this “third way” of liability, see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3, Subsec. c) below.

  78. 78.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 523–524, with references in footnote.

  79. 79.

    Sinde Monteiro (1983), p. 10, fn. 8. See also Vaz Serra 1958a, pp. 259−305.

  80. 80.

    Hörster (2004a), p. 331; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 657; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 359. Those are: exercise of a right or fulfillment of a duty, self-help (ação direta), necessity (estado de necessidade), self-defence (legítima defesa) and consent (consentimento do lesado). They are expressly provided for in the Civil Code in Arts. 336, 339, 337 and 340 CC, respectively.

  81. 81.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 719. Vaz Serra put forward a general rule for liability without a requirement for unlawfulness (Art. 490 of the project of Civil Code), but such a rule was abandoned in the first Ministerial revision by Antunes Varela. See Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 714–715 passim.

  82. 82.

    Two examples of prominent sets of rules providing for strict liability are: DL 383/89 of 6 November 1989 (liability for damage caused by defective products ) and Act 67/2007 of 31 December 2007 (non-contractual liability of the State and remaining public entities).

  83. 83.

    See Antunes Varela (2000), p. 717. For details see Vaz Serra (1959b), p. 23 ff.

  84. 84.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 406.

  85. 85.

    von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 3, A2, p. 557.

  86. 86.

    Picker (1983), pp. 465–466.

  87. 87.

    Amaral Cabral (2001), p. 1030.

  88. 88.

    See von Bar (1999f), p. 41; von Bar (2010a), pp. 210–211.

  89. 89.

    von Bar (2010a), p. 210.

  90. 90.

    A typical general clause system is the French Code Civil (Arts. 1382 and 1383) and the codes which it influenced. According to these codes, intention or negligence ( faute ), damage and causation are required if liability is to be incurred. See Viney and Jourdain (2006), p. 1 ff.

  91. 91.

    § 823 BGB (“Liability in damages”) reads: “1. A person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, freedom, property or another right of another person is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this. 2. The same duty is held by a person who commits an infringement of a statute that is intended to protect another person. If, according to the contents of the statute, it may also be infringed without fault , then liability to compensation only exists in the case of fault”. Translation provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in cooperation with juris GmbH, available through http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/german_civil_code.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017).

  92. 92.

    The classification is tripartite: Tatbestand, Rechtswidrigkeit and Schuld (Habersack 2013, § 823, no. 1). On the tripartite classification of the requirements of non-contractual liability in Europe, see von Bar (1999c).

  93. 93.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 65 ff.; Canaris (1983b), pp. 30 ss.; von Bar (1999c), p. 4 ff.

  94. 94.

    von Bar (1999f), p. 42. See also von Bar (2009c), Intr. to Chap. 1, B8, p. 231.

  95. 95.

    von Bar (1999f), p. 42. For details on the compensation of pure economic loss in Portuguese non-contractual liability law see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3, Subsec. a).

  96. 96.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 429.

  97. 97.

    Menezes Cordeiro puts forward an original classification of the requirements of non-contractual liability : loss (dano) and accountability (imputação) (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, pp. 429–434). In this classification, loss is a central element of liability and accountability is the starting point, arising from a series of complex events foreseen by the law (Menezes Leitão 2009, pp. 256–257). The infringement of the law would result from the non-observance of duties to respect the subjective rights of others or the non-observance of other rules aimed at protecting the interests of others. It is imperative that there be a relationship between the infringed rule and the loss caused (Menezes Cordeiro 1994, pp. 342–343). Pessoa Jorge also considers unlawful behaviour to be that which breaches a duty (Menezes Leitão 2009, p. 257). He points to the unlawful act (which would comprise fact, unlawfulness and fault ) and the compensable loss as the requirements of non-contractual liability (Pessoa Jorge 1995, pp. 61 ff.). Menezes Leitão (2009, p. 836) distinguishes between unlawfulness, fault and causation : the fact and damage would be mere objects of the allocation to the agent. Pereira Coelho, on the other hand, considers the fact the core of every other legal condition (Pereira Coelho 1950 , p. 60).

  98. 98.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), no. 2 to Art. 483 CC, p. 471; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 525–527 ff.

  99. 99.

    See, e.g., Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 39 ff.; Alarcão (1983), p. 238; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 557.

  100. 100.

    Von Jhering (1867).

  101. 101.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 127.

  102. 102.

    Here, “voluntary” is used in the sense of “under the individual’s control” and not necessarily “intentionally”.

  103. 103.

    Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 61, fn. 1; von Caemmerer (1968), p. 128; Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 435.

  104. 104.

    Vaz Serra (1960d) , pp. 39–40; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 527–529. In the German legal scholarship , see Larenz (1963), p. 170; Larenz and Canaris (1977), p. 360.

  105. 105.

    Alarcão (1983), pp. 238–239; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 558; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 436–437.

  106. 106.

    For details on Art. 486 CC see Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), nn. 1–3 to Art. 486 CC, pp. 487–488.

  107. 107.

    On unlawfulness in Portugal see Tit. § 4, Subtit. IV, Sec. 5 below.

  108. 108.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 313, fn. 496. Arts. 738(2), (3) and (4) state that “[he or she] who opens a source of dangers has the duty to take necessary precautionary measures, even if they are not imposed by administrative regulations”; “if, in the sphere of power of someone, a situation which produces risks takes place, risks that only that person may be able to eliminate, must be eliminated by that person”; “[he] who, not having any serious reason to abstain, does not avoid a serious loss unless for someone else, even though he or she is conscious of the danger, in a way that they will not manifestly proceed against social conscience, shall compensate” (Vaz Serra 1960b, p. 254 ff.).

  109. 109.

    Vaz Serra (1959c), p. 108 ff.

  110. 110.

    Some of the rules determining a duty to act are: Art. 491 CC (liability of persons obliged to supervise others); Art. 492 CC (losses caused by buildings or other works); Art. 493 CC (losses caused by things, animals or activities); Art.1878 CC (duties of parents towards their children); Art. 7 (situation of urgency) of the Code of Conduct for practicing doctors; and Art.135(4), b (liability for contraventions) of the Portuguese Street Code. See Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 559, fn. 2. On liability for omissions, see STJ 28 September 2010, proc. 2206/03.1TVPRT.P1.S1; STJ 4 November 2010, proc. 2762/03.4TVLSB.L1. For details on Art.486 CC, see Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), nn. 1–3 to Art. 486 CC, pp. 487–488. For details on omissions, see generally Nunes de Carvalho (1999), pp. 85–133, and in particular pp. 134–241.

  111. 111.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 307–330; Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 163 ff.; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 571 ff.

  112. 112.

    In the German legal scholarship , see Mertens (1980), pp. 397–408; von Bar (1980b), p. 6 ff. passim; Canaris (1983b), pp. 77–84; von Bar (1983); von Bar (1986); von Bar (1988),pp. 169–174. See also on von Bar’s theses, Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 234 ff.; Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 150–153 and 576 ff.

  113. 113.

    Antunes Varela (1981), pp. 40−41, 72−79; Menezes Cordeiro (1984b), p. 832 ff.; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), pp. 335–379; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 571–589.

  114. 114.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 164. See also Antunes Varela (1981), pp. 35–41, 77–78. It is argued that the need to resort to this theory in Portuguese law is considerably less than in other countries, given that Art. 493 CC provides a solution for loss caused by things, animals and dangerous activities. See Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 15, fn. 13; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 361.

  115. 115.

    Honsell (2001), p. 486.

  116. 116.

    Antunes Varela (1981), pp. 35–41, 77.

  117. 117.

    See von Bar (1980b), p. 25. See also Larenz and Canaris (1977), p. 399 ff.; Canaris (1983b), p. 77 ff.

  118. 118.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 835. But cf. Canaris (1983b), p. 81 f.

  119. 119.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 164 f.; Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 72.

  120. 120.

    Esser (2000a), pp. 472–474; Larenz and Canaris (1977), p. 611 ff.; Canaris (1983b), p. 77 ff.

  121. 121.

    von Bar (1980b), p. 157 ff. Menezes Leitão believes that these duties should be inserted into every basic constellation of liability to avoid a situation where § 823(2) BGB transforms itself into a “French-like general clause ” (Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 660).

  122. 122.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 136; von Bar (1981), pp. 1761, 1763 and 1765 ff. This is, in some ways, the solution endorsed by Mertens (1980), p. 398 ff.

  123. 123.

    van Dam (2013), p. 86.

  124. 124.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 440 f. (in particular p. 441) and p. 439 f.

  125. 125.

    von Bar (1998a), p. 6. See also Galvão Telles (1997), p. 373; Freitas Rangel (2002), p. 14; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 557; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 297.

  126. 126.

    The drafter, the legal scholarship and the courts have used several nomenclatures as a synonym of danos, namely, prejuízos and perdas e danos. See Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 372. For an extensive bibliography on the concept of dano in the Portuguese legal scholarship, see Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 203, fn. 342. On the nature of the dano see Menezes Cordeiro (1999), pp. 527–529; Mota Pinto (2008b). On Schaden in the German legal scholarship, see, e.g., Zeuner (1964), pp. 380–400; Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 26–49; Hohloch (1981), pp. 395–401; Magnus (1987); Roussos (1992), pp. 101–192; Stoll (1993), pp. 236–286; Schlechtriem (1997), pp. 232−254; von Bar (1999b); von Bar (1999e), pp. 1–57; von Bar 2011b.

  127. 127.

    von Bar (1999b), p. 30.

  128. 128.

    von Bar (1998a), pp9 ff.

  129. 129.

    This might be due to the fact that “[w]here rights of the person are concerned, the law is more ready to find damage, because life, physical integrity (...) are generally considered more important than property rights ” (von Bar 1999b, p. 33).

  130. 130.

    Cf. von Bar (1999f), p. 54. On the difficulties in defining “loss” and “damage” see, in particular, von Bar (1996a), p. 7; von Bar (1999c), p. 5; von Bar (2011b), pp. 387–399.

  131. 131.

    The same is true for European law, which has decided on the losses to be compensated on an ad hoc basis (Winiger et al. 2011, pp. 66–67 and 701). With further reference see Schmid (2010a), pp. 762–763.

  132. 132.

    von Bar (1999f), p. 4. Only the Austrian Civil Code defines damage as “every detriment which is made to someone’s assets, rights or person” (§ 1293 ABGB).

  133. 133.

    Winiger et al. 2011, p. 35.

  134. 134.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 283; Menezes Leitão (2005a), p. 313; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 511. On the natürliche Schadensbegriff in the German legal scholarship , see, e.g., Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 26–29.

  135. 135.

    Vaz Serra 1959c, pp. 5–303, especially pp. 8–9; Santos Júnior (2003), p. 239; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 377; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 591.

  136. 136.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1999), pp. 511–512; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 511.

  137. 137.

    Larenz (1987), pp. 426–427; Stoll (1993), pp. 240–241.

  138. 138.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1999), p. 292, fn. 91 and p. 512. Within the German legal scholarship , Stoll endorses a similar position, stating that, “damage in the legal sense is each detriment the legal system regards as damage to be compensated in a specific form according to tort provisions” (Stoll 1993, p. 239). See also von Bar (1999b), p. 29, no. 39. For details on the distinction between factual and normative loss in the Portuguese legal scholarship, see Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 253 ff. and Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, pp. 511–513. For similar in the German legal scholarship, see Zeuner (1964), p. 381 ff.; Knobbe-Keuk (1972), pp. 11–12; Deutsch (1976), pp. 419–424; Larenz (1987), pp. 426–428.

  139. 139.

    Cf. Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 10 to Art. 483 CC, p. 475.

  140. 140.

    For an alternative terminology, see Galvão Telles (1997), pp. 375–377 and Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 595, fn. 1.

  141. 141.

    Pereira Coelho (1955), p. 250; Almeida Costa (2002), p. 296 and Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 595. But see Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 285.

  142. 142.

    von Bar (2009c), n. I9 to VI.–2:101, p. 318.

  143. 143.

    Freitas Rangel (2002), p. 26; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 595. In the German legal scholarship , see, among others, Larenz (1987), p. 429.

  144. 144.

    These losses were traditionally called “danos morais” (Mota Pinto 2005, p. 129; Menezes Leitão 2013, p. 300). According to Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela , the designation of “dano moral” was replaced by “dano não patrimonial”, because, sometimes, as in the case of physical pain, the loss is not only moral (Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela 1987, n. 1 to Art. 496 CC, p. 499). Some legal scholars, however, still refer to both expressions indiscriminately (see, e.g., Pinto Monteiro 1992, p. 17 ff.; Pessoa Jorge 1995, pp. 373 passim; Ferreira Dias 2001). See von Bar (2000a), p. 164, fn. 957.

  145. 145.

    Vaz Serra (1959d), p. 69; Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 373; Menezes Cordeiro (1999), p. 515; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 301.

  146. 146.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 592. See also Antunes Varela (2000), p. 598. But see Freitas Rangel (2002), pp. 24–27.

  147. 147.

    For details on loss for impairment of use, see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3, Subsec. a), dd), (2).

  148. 148.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 376; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 525 and fn. 1744.

  149. 149.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 599. Based on the Philipine Edicts (Ordenações Filipinas), some ancient legal scholars referred to perdas e interesses , where perdas referred to the damnum emergens, and interesses to lucrum cessans. This expression was considered preferable to the expression perdas e danos, corresponding to the French dommages-intérêts, which was composed of two synonyms (Coelho da Rocha (1857), § 122, p. 83 ff. apud Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 596–597, fn. 2).

  150. 150.

    von Bar 2009c, n. V30 to VI.–2:201, p. 376; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 525–527. For the distinction in Germany, see Medicus (2007), pp. 95–98.

  151. 151.

    For criticism to the formulation of this Article, see Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 378 and Galvão Telles (1997), p. 377.

  152. 152.

    See Arts. 899 CC (Compensation when there is neither intention nor negligence ) and 909 CC (Compensation in the case of simple error).

  153. 153.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 to Art. 564 CC, p. 579. Cf. also Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 377; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 596.

  154. 154.

    Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 377; Hörster (2004a), p. 326; von Bar (2009c), n. V30 to VI.–2:201, p. 376.

  155. 155.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 374.

  156. 156.

    Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 373; Galvão Telles (1997), p. 378; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 513.

  157. 157.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 378. In the case law , see STJ 15 March 2012, proc. 3976/06.0TBCSC.L1.S1; RP 18 April 2007, proc.0646052.

  158. 158.

    See RP 26 October 2004, proc.0423773; RL 11 November 2010, proc.1071/08.7TBSCR.L1-8.

  159. 159.

    Coelho dos Santos (1994), pp. 76–84; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 592–593, fn. 1. In the case law, see STJ 17 June 2004, proc. 04B1844; RP 20 April 2010, proc. 5943/06.5TBVFR.P1.

  160. 160.

    STJ 9 February 2012, proc. 1002/07.1TBSTS.P1.S1; RP 18 February 2014, proc. 82/11.0TBGDM.P1.

  161. 161.

    STJ 19 February 2015, proc.99/12.7TCGMR.G1.S1; RL 21 March 2012, proc.4129/06.3TBSXL.L2-2. See also Coelho dos Santos (1994), p. 83; Dias (2002), pp. 763–773.

  162. 162.

    STJ 5 July 2012, proc.1451/07.5TBGRD.C1.S1; RP 20 April 2010, proc. 5943/06.5TBVFR.P1. See also Coelho dos Santos (1994), p. 83; Dias (2002), pp. 774–778; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 592–593, fn. 1.

  163. 163.

    STJ 7 July 2009, proc. 704/09.9TBNF.S1; STJ 18 December 2013, proc. 3186/08.2TBVCT.G1.S1.

  164. 164.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 592–593, fn. 1.

  165. 165.

    ibid.

  166. 166.

    STJ 15 March 2012 proc.870/07.1GTABF.E1.S1; RL 18 September 2014, proc. 3765/03.4PCAD.L1–2; Braga (2005), pp. 97–104. See also Magalhães and Pinto da Costa (2007), pp. 444–445.

  167. 167.

    Vaz Serra (1959d), pp. 69−111; Mota Pinto (2005), p. 129.

  168. 168.

    von Bar (2009c), n. I2 toVI.–2:202, pp. 394–395; von Bar (2011b), p. 394, no. 19.

  169. 169.

    von Bar (2009c), n. I3 to VI.–2:202, p. 395. See, generally, Leite de Campos (1987), pp. 5–20. See also Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 608–617 and Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 516–525. In the case law, see STJ 5 February 2009; STJ 24 November 2009; STJ 22 June 2010.

  170. 170.

    Art. 494 CC applies by virtue of Art. 496(3) CC.

  171. 171.

    Seriousness shall be measured objectively, according to criteria applied by the courts.

  172. 172.

    For a comparative overview, see von Bar (2000a), p. 20 ff.; Rogers and Bagińska (eds) (2001); von Bar (2009c), n. F24 ff. to VI.–2:201, p. 312 ff.

  173. 173.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 20.

  174. 174.

    Arts 732.°-A and 732.°-B CCP, added to the CCP in 1995, provided for the expanded review trial (julgamento ampliado da revista) which takes place when there is a need to create uniformity in case law on a specific topic, thereby creating a settling case law decision (acórdão uniformizador de jurisprudência). These decisions are not compulsory for the lower courts and they may be appealed. In practice, however, they play a similar role to assentos, i.e. to promote uniformity within case law. For details see the description of “acórdão uniformizador de jurisprudência” and “assento” in Prata (2010), pp. 39 and 173 f.

  175. 175.

    Settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014.

  176. 176.

    Settling case law decisions are not binding. See Abrantes Geraldes (2014), p. 26. For details on non-economic loss , see Deutsch (1976), pp. 462–482; Larenz (1987), pp. 428–429; von Bar (1999b), pp. 35–38; von Bar (1999g); von Bar (2000a), p. 20 ff. and 163–164. Art. 496 had been subject to amendment by Act 23/2010 of 30 August 2010, DR, 1st Ser., no. 168 (2010), 3764–3768, as amended by the Act 31/2012 of 14 August 2012, DR, 1st Ser., no. 157 (2012), pp. 4411–4452.

  177. 177.

    Settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014, p. 2931 ff.

  178. 178.

    ibid., p. 2933 ff.

  179. 179.

    ibid., p. 2933.

  180. 180.

    Further reasons against compensation of non-economic loss suffered by third parties in case of a non-fatal personal injury are provided for at p. 2927 of the settling case law decision 6/2014 of 22 May 2014.

  181. 181.

    For a thorough list of those authors in favour of, and against, compensation of non-economic loss sustained by third parties following non-personal injuries see ibid., p. 2928. The STJ itself was largely divided on this case. Nine judges voted against the understanding of the court, which eventually prevailed (ibid., p. 2935 ff.). Among them, some considered the spouse of the injured person to have sustained a non-economic loss of her own (and not an “indirect” non-economic loss ) and so her claim would fall under Art. 496(1) rather than under 496(2) CC).

  182. 182.

    ibid., p. 2928. One of the leading supporters of a contemporary-based interpretation of Art. 496(2) CC was Abrantes Geraldes, himself Justice of the STJ (Abrantes Geraldes 2003).

  183. 183.

    ibid., p. 2931.

  184. 184.

    ibid., p. 2935.

  185. 185.

    For a comparative overview on dano biologico/dano per se see von Bar (2009c), IV to VI.–2:201, p. 371 ff.

  186. 186.

    See, however, STJ 17 December 2009, proc. 340/03.7TBPNH.C1.S1.

  187. 187.

    von Bar (2009c), n. 7 to VI.–6:204, p. 989. See also STJ 20 May 2010, proc. 103/2002.L1.S1 and generally Trigo (2012). In the Italian scholarship, see Castronovo (1997), p. 61 ff.; Gozzi (2006), pp. 45–46.

  188. 188.

    Art. 8 of the State Ordinance 377/2008 of 26 May 2008, DR, 1st Ser., no. 100 (2008), pp. 4802–4803.

  189. 189.

    “Dano biológico” has been classified as non-economic loss (STJ 8 March 1979, BolMinJus 285 (1979), p. 290; STJ 19 February 2015, proc. 99/12.7TCGMR.G1.S1; RP 7 April 1997, CJ 22 (1997-2), p. 204), based partially upon the Civil Code (Sousa Dinis 2001, p. 5). In some decisions, its economic nature is highlighted (STJ 6 May 1999, proc. 99B222; STJ 22 September 2005, proc. 05B2470; STJ 11 December 2012, proc. 269/06.7GARMR.E1.S1); in others, the assessment is made on a case-by-case basis, which decides the characterisation as economic or as non-economic loss (STJ 5 February 1987, BolMinJus364 (1987), p. 819; STJ 17 May 1994, CJ (ST), 12 (1994-2), p. 101; STJ 14 July 2010, CJ (ST) 18 (2010-3), p. 81). See further Dias (2001b), p. 123.

  190. 190.

    See Sinde Monteiro (1983), p. 248; Dias (2001b), p. 99; Trigo (2012).

  191. 191.

    See Corte Cost. 14 July 1986, no. 184, Foro it.1986 I2053.

  192. 192.

    Dias (2000), p. 86; von Bar 2000a, p. 24; Dias 2001a, p. 47. See STJ 27 April 2004, proc. 4A1182; STJ 21 March 2013, proc. 565/10.9TBPVL.S1; STJ 2 December 2013, proc. 1110/07.9TVLSB.L1.S1.

  193. 193.

    Gomes da Silva (1944), pp. 90–106; Pereira Coelho (1950); Pereira Coelho (1955); Vaz Serra (1959c) , p. 21 ff.

  194. 194.

    von Bar (2009c), n. I10 to VI.–4:101, 760. See STJ 15 May 2003, proc. 03B1314; STJ 27 January 2005, proc. 04B4639.

  195. 195.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 617; Prata (2007), p. 201; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 605.

  196. 196.

    Lange and Schiemann (2003), pp. 77–78.

  197. 197.

    Banakas (1999), p. 19.

  198. 198.

    Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 388; Menezes Cordeiro (1999), 531; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (2010), n. 1 to Art. 563 CC, p. 578.

  199. 199.

    Pereira Coelho (1950), pp. 170–171; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 567–578, 605; von Bar (2009c), n. I10 to VI.–4:101, p. 760. On the difference between haftungsausfüllende Kausalität and haftungsbegründete Kausalität, see von Bar (1999c), p. 25 ff., in particular pp. 28–29; Rönnau [et al.] (2004), pp. 115–116; Medicus (2005), p. 289; von Bar 2009c, n. I7 to VI.–4:101, p. 758 f.; Brox and Walker (2016), pp. 519 and 522; Rosenbaum (2010).

  200. 200.

    Pereira Coelho (1955), p. 87; Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 297. See also von Bar (1999c), p. 29. For a critical account see Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 49.

  201. 201.

    The doctrine of the last condition, credited to von Buri, is also called “doctrine of equivalence of conditions” (doutrina da equivalência das condições)—Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 311—because of its assertion that every condition is even-handed (Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 389). The theory considers that a loss was caused by a fact in situations where the loss would not have been produced if the fact had not occurred (Santos Júnior 2003, p. 52; Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 761; Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, pp531–532). For details on the doctrine of equivalence of conditions see Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 185 ff. and Deutsch (1976), p. 76 ff.

  202. 202.

    This theory, like the doctrine of the efficient condition, arose from the need to identify the conditions under which the real and only cause of the loss would occur (Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 391; Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 532; Menezes Leitão 2013, p. 312). It states that relevance should be given to the last condition. On the description of this theory and related criticism, see Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 335; Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 391–392.

  203. 203.

    Pessoa Jorge (1975–1976) (p. 162) names it doutrina da condição mais eficaz (doctrine of the most effective condition).

  204. 204.

    For criticism of the conditio sine qua non doctrine, see von Bar (1999c), p. 29; von Bar (2000a), pp. 5 and 30; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 761–762; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 311. For criticism of the doctrine of the last condition and the doctrine of the efficient condition, see Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 762. See also Pereira Coelho (1967), p. 162; Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 391–392; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 532.

  205. 205.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 14; Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 392; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 763; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 533. See also Banakas (1999), p. 21.

  206. 206.

    von Kries (1886).

  207. 207.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1994), p. 335; Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 393 ff.; Galvão Telles (1997), p. 404; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 763. Within the case law , see STJ 5 May 2015, proc. 614/06.5TVLSB.L1.S1; RL 30 November 2010, proc.1198/08.5TVLSB.L1–7. In the German scholarship , see Deutsch (1976), pp. 103–104; Brox and Walker (2016), pp. 537–538; Kötz and Wagner (2013), pp. 84–85.

  208. 208.

    For details on the doctrine of adequate causation see Pereira Coelho (1950); Menezes Cordeiro (1994), pp. 335–336; Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 392 ff.; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 887 ff. In the German legal scholarship see Bernert (1969), pp. 421−442; Weitnauer (1969); Larenz (1970); Deutsch (1976), pp. 143–154; Lange (1976), pp. 198–207; Larenz (1987), p. 431 ff., especially p. 435 ff.

  209. 209.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 14. See also Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 Art. 563 CC, p. 578; Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 412–413; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 766; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 313. But see Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 542 and 549.

  210. 210.

    On the analysis of the causal link by the STJ see von Bar (2000a), p. 439 and Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 542–548.

  211. 211.

    See Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 716 f., with further references. See also Deutsch (1976), p. 93.

  212. 212.

    Brandão Proença (1997), pp. 458–461.

  213. 213.

    Carneiro da Frada (2006), p. 101. This theory is also called teoria do escopo da norma violada or Schutzzweck der Norm (Menezes Leitão 2013, p. 313) or doutrina do fim da norma (Normzweck) (Santos Júnior 2003, p. 251, fn. 849). For details on the doctrine of the scope of protection of the legal rule see Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 269–280.

  214. 214.

    von Caemmerer (1970), pp. 283–292.

  215. 215.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 270; Brandão Proença (1997), p. 454; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 902.

  216. 216.

    Santos Júnior (2003), p. 251, fn. 849, with details and further references. For a discussion of the relevance of alternative causes, see Pereira Coelho (1955), p. 40; Pessoa Jorge (1995), pp. 417–418.

  217. 217.

    Or culpabilidade (Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 315 ff.).

  218. 218.

    For the differences between civil fault and moral fault, see Almeida Costa 2006a, p. 520.

  219. 219.

    Alarcão (1983), p. 237; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Hörster (2004a), p. 328. In Germany, see Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 54.

  220. 220.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1999), p. 377.

  221. 221.

    For the several uses of “culpa” see Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 465.

  222. 222.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 562; Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 578–579, p. 580, fn. 2.

  223. 223.

    Cf. Antunes Varela (2000), p. 566.

  224. 224.

    See Antunes Varela (2000); Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 459 ff.

  225. 225.

    Pessoa Jorge, however, considers accountability a mere indirect requirement (Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 319).

  226. 226.

    See Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 582.

  227. 227.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 563. See also Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 369; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 439 (who approaches this subject in the analysis of the requirement of liability “voluntary conduct”). Cf. Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 331. On the topic see, generally, Miranda Barbosa (2006b), pp. 485−534.

  228. 228.

    See, generally, Huber (1973).

  229. 229.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 265. Traditionally, the intentional unlawful acts were called delitos (delicts) and the negligent unlawful acts were called quase-delitos (almost-delicts). See Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 198 and 554.

  230. 230.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 573. In the German literature see Deutsch (1987), pp. 505−509; Deutsch (1995). For the classification of negligence see Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 287.

  231. 231.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 266.

  232. 232.

    Galvão Telles (1997), p. 343. For the classifications of “dolo” see Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 569–572. For details on the categories of negligence and intention see Santos Júnior (2003), p. 256 and fn. 867 and 869, and Sinde Monteiro (2005), pp. 370–371.

  233. 233.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 554.

  234. 234.

    The Portuguese drafter allows for a limitation to compensation , based on aequitas , whenever the liability is based on mere fault , in Art. 494 CC (STJ 30 June 1998, proc. 98A628; STJ 9 February 2011, CJ (ST) 9 (2001-1), p. 72), whereas when it is based on intention , it will always be calculated according to Arts. 562 ff. CC. See Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 1 to Art. 494 CC, p. 497 (admiting, however, a fair limitation of damages for moral losses in cases of deceit, ibid., p. 501. See also STJ 18 December 2013, proc. 3186/08.2TBVCT.G1.S1; Mota Pinto (2005), p. 130; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 554−555 passim.

  235. 235.

    Sinde Monteiro and Veloso (2001), p. 14. But see von Bar (1999c), p. 22, who considers the concept of “culpa in abstracto” to be, like fault , a contradiction in terms “etwas Persönliches und Konkretes”.

  236. 236.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 14.

  237. 237.

    Looschelders (2014), p. 433; Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 54.

  238. 238.

    Markesinis and Unberath (2002), p. 84; von Bar (2002d), p. 100.

  239. 239.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 14; Hörster (2004a), p. 328.

  240. 240.

    Kötz and Wagner (2013), p. 54. This means that fault is not assessed according to the usual diligence of the author of the unlawful act (Rodrigues Basto 1988, n. 2 to Art. 487 CC, p. 285). On abstract and concrete fault see Sá e Mello (1989), pp. 525–526.

  241. 241.

    Banakas (1996), p. 16.

  242. 242.

    Vaz Serra Jus 92 (1960a), pp. 133–134; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 566; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 579. For details on strict liability see Antunes Varela (2000), p. 629 ff.; Hörster (2004a), pp. 330–332; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 611 ff.; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 405–406 and 591; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 329–359.

  243. 243.

    von Bar (1999b), p. 27. See also Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 557 and Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 526, 597−598.

  244. 244.

    Rito provided for 12 different definitions of the concept (Rito 1946, p. 52).

  245. 245.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 648. See also von Bar (1998a), pp. 33–36; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 444; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 260. Ilicitude is also defined as breach of a legal duty (Almeida Costa 2006a, pp. 561–562, fn. 1).Unlawfulness, however, differs from illegality (ilegalidade). In both cases, a legal rule is infringed upon, unlawfulness implies a sanction for the person inflicting the harm , while illegality implies only a disadvantage. For details, see Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 561, fn. 1.

  246. 246.

    Howarth (2011), p. 845.

  247. 247.

    Habersack (2013), § 823, no. 2.

  248. 248.

    Howarth (2011), p. 875. The concern is considered “understandable” to the present day. See von Bar (1981), p. 1719.

  249. 249.

    Gordley (2003), p. 39.

  250. 250.

    Ribeiro de Faria (1990), p. 415 ff.; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 273; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 444, 483.

  251. 251.

    Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 136. See also Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 564; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 454.

  252. 252.

    von Caemmerer (1960), p. 131.

  253. 253.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 444.

  254. 254.

    For details, see Gordley (2003), pp. 38–46; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 331–342.

  255. 255.

    Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 455 and fn. 5.

  256. 256.

    As for the German Code, despite initial suggestions of a formulation close to the Code Civil, it was decided to opt for identifying the unlawful conducts leading to liability—namely, that which includes a violation of right, that which includes a violation of a provision and that which involves the intention of causing harm (Prot. of the Vorkommission (1891–1893) and Prot. of the Kommission (1890–1896), respectively, in Jakobs and Schubert 1983, pp. 969 and 972–973), which were to distinguish it from fault for both dogmatic and pragmatic reasons. This was in line with the doctrine of von Jhering and, before him, Savigny (von Savigny 1841, p. 5) and it was intended to restrict liability (Mugdan 1896, p. 817).

  257. 257.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 67.

  258. 258.

    ibid., p. 66.

  259. 259.

    ibid., p. 78.

  260. 260.

    Vaz Serra (1960b) , p. 598.

  261. 261.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 444. For details on defences of lawfulness, see ibid., pp. 483–505.

  262. 262.

    “Todo aquele que, com dolo ou mera culpa, viola o direito de outrem ou qualquer disposição legal destinada a proteger interesses dos particulares, fica obrigado a indemnizar o lesado pelos danos resultantes da violação cometida” BolMinJus 119 (1962), p. 68.

  263. 263.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 445.

  264. 264.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Carneiro da Frada 1997, p. 34; Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 533–544; Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 454. See, however, Menezes Leitão A., who rejects a single concept composed of these two modalities of unlawfulness and defends a plural concept of unlawfulness (Menezes Leitão 2013, p. 837).

  265. 265.

    See Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 260–261. See also Alarcão (1983), pp. 415–416; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 6 to Art. 483 CC, p. 474.

  266. 266.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 532–533.

  267. 267.

    Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 175; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Amaral Cabral (2001), p. 1040. See also Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 43 ff.

  268. 268.

    von Bar (1998a), p. 36.

  269. 269.

    Amaral Cabral (2001), p. 1040. See also Canaris (1983b), pp. 35–39.

  270. 270.

    Fabricius (1961), p. 274.

  271. 271.

    See, with further arguments, Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 162, fn. 333.

  272. 272.

    See Alarcão (1983), p. 242; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 a to Art. 483 CC, p. 472; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 533; Hörster (2004a), p. 327; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 163; Dias Pereira (2008), p. 514.

  273. 273.

    Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 a to Art. 483 CC, p. 472; Hörster (1992), pp. 46−47; Carneiro da Frada (1997), pp. 34−35, fn. 22; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 562. Non-contractual liability law arising out of damage ca used to another reasonably protects property rights based on Art. 62 Const. (Miranda 2000, p. 467). According to this position, Portugal —unlike Germany (e.g. von Caemmerer 1968, p. 81 ff.)—does not discuss if mere possession amounts to protection within non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another (see further von Bar 2009c , n. II23 to VI.–2:206, p. 500, with case law references). For more on the ownership right in Germany see Stoll (1973).

  274. 274.

    See Vaz Serra (1960d), pp. 37 ff. and 112.

  275. 275.

    In Germany, the expression sonstiges Recht has been understood to refer to absolute rights (Deutsch 1976, p. 195; von Bar 2000a, p. 235; Schlechtriem 2003, p. 358).

  276. 276.

    See von Bar (1998a), p. 34, fn. 83; von Bar (2009c), III16 to VI.–1:101, p. 254.

  277. 277.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), pp. 82–112; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 to Art. 483, p. 472; Hörster (1992), p. 46; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 13; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 170. In the case law , see e.g. STJ 28 April 1977, BolMinJus 266 (197), p. 165; STJ 4 July 1978, BolMinJus 279 (1978), p. 124. Against the idea that personality rights are included within Art. 483 CC, Antunes Varela (2000), p. 532, fn. 2. But see von Lillienskiold (1975), pp. 34–35.

  278. 278.

    Some legal scholars hold that personal family rights are not included in Art. 483(1) CC (Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 284; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 533; Pereira Coelho and Oliveira 2001, p. 37), while others take no position (Prata 2007, p. 198). Cf. Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 to Art. 483 CC, p. 472, instead including only the family rights with efficacy erga omnes. In Germany, this is also discussed. See Fuchs and Pauker (2012), p. 36 f.

  279. 279.

    Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 262. See also Alarcão (1983), p. 417.

  280. 280.

    Santos Silva (2007), p. 25. Against the so-called efeito externo das obrigações (external effect of obligations), see Vaz Serra, BolMinJus 85 (1959), p. 345 ff.; Antunes Varela (2000), p. 176, fn. 1; Almeida Costa (2002), p. 132, with several references; Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 93; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 262. In the case law , see STJ 9 October 2014, 267/12.1TCGMR.G1.S1RL 21 February 1991, proc. 0034522.

  281. 281.

    Menezes Cordeiro (1986), p. 223; Amaral Cabral (2001), p. 1042; Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 465. Santos Júnior is apparently inclined to the same position (Santos Júnior 2003, p. 67). In case law , see STJ 25 October 1993, proc. 084098; STJ 14 December 2014, proc. 1376/08.7TBBNV.L1.S1. For Germany, see references in Schlechtriem (1998), p. 10, fn. 25.

  282. 282.

    von Bar (1998a), p. 34, fn. 83. However, it is argued that “a foreign observer might find it more convincing to interpret the term direito in Art. 483(1) CC as including relative rights” (ibid., p. 53). For the discussion see Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 168 ff.

  283. 283.

    The recognition of the external effect of obligations objects to the general principle of relativity of the effects of contracts. See generally Almeida Costa (2002), pp. 130−136. See also Vaz Serra (1958b), pp. 333−368; Ferrer Correia and Lobo Xavier (1979); Pinto Oliveira (2005), pp. 251 ff.; Santos Silva (2006), p. 829, fn. 12, with case law references. Portuguese law does not expressly refer to whether or not obligations have external effects under some circumstances, although Antunes Varela considers it is implicit in Arts. 406(2) and 1306(1) CC (Antunes Varela 2000, p. 179 ff.). In Germany see von Bar (1982).

  284. 284.

    Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 465 and Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 89. This same position has been adopted by the courts. See RP 1 October 1998, proc. 9830815; RL 16 May 2006, proc. 3834/2006-7.

  285. 285.

    Gomes (2005), p. 10.

  286. 286.

    See Ferrer Correia and Lobo Xavier (1979), p. 8 ff.; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 95 ff.; Santos Silva (2006), p. 830; Abrantes Geraldes (2007b), pp. 19–22; Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 465; Dias Pereira (2008), pp. 513−521, especially p. 515.

  287. 287.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 37. For details on the exclusionary rule see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 2 below.

  288. 288.

    Howarth (2011), p. 876.

  289. 289.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 235; von Bar (2000b), p. 606.

  290. 290.

    For a critical account see von Bar (1999c), p. 8.

  291. 291.

    Pinto Oliveira (2002), p. 528. For a critical account see Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 650.

  292. 292.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 437–438. See also Pereira Coelho (1950), p. 63 f. In Germany see Larenz (1963), pp. 192–193; von Caemmerer (1968), p. 127 ff.

  293. 293.

    The conducts which caused the loss despite complying with the duties of care (Wiethölter 1961, p. 53 ff., p. 65 ff.; Menezes Leitão 2013, p. 260) and indirect loss (Larenz and Canaris 1977, p. 364).

  294. 294.

    Pinto Oliveira (2002), p. 539; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 438. See also Larenz 1963, p. 193; Hager (1985), p. 137; von Bar (1988), p. 170; Habersack 2013, § 823, no. 7.

  295. 295.

    von Bar (2000a), p. 235; Fuchs and Pauker (2012), p. 81. For criticism, see von Bar (2000b), pp. 607 and 235 ff., especially p. 237. von Bar (1981), p. 1760, suggests changing the epigraph of § 823 BGB to “direct infringement of a right or legally protected good (…)”.

  296. 296.

    BGHZ 24, 21; Fuchs and Pauker (2012), p. 81. But see von Caemmerer (1960), p. 133. For this discussion, see Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 648–653.

  297. 297.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 132 ff.; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 305; Deutsch (1996a), pp. 160–161; Fuchs and Pauker (2012), p. 81. This is called the “theory of indirect interference” (Markesinis and Unberath 2002, p. 82). For the discussion, see Münzberg (1966), p. 109 ff., p. 201 ff. According to one opinion, the Handlungsunrechtslehre is relevant in relation to general clauses and negligent conduct (Menezes Leitão 2009 , p. 649). See, however, Carneiro da Frada (1994), pp. 136−137, fn. 273.

  298. 298.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 449–450, 536. For details on § 823(2) BGB, see Canaris (1983b), pp. 45–76; Coester-Waltjen (1992), pp. 209−212; Deutsch (2004), pp. 137–142. For more on the topic in the Portuguese legal scholarship see generally Menezes Leitão (2009), pp. 654–660.

  299. 299.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 449–450.

  300. 300.

    Alarcão (1983), p. 243; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Dias Pereira (2008), p. 514; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 265. For such a classification, Menezes Leitão, 2013 p. 265, fn. 642 expressly relies on the notion of Schutzgesetze from Canaris (Canaris 1983b, p. 45).

  301. 301.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 536, fn. 2; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 265.

  302. 302.

    Cf. Rito (1946), p. 13; Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 72. But see Menezes Leitão 2009, p. 834.

  303. 303.

    Antunes Varela (2000), p. 536.

  304. 304.

    Carneiro da Frada (1997), p. 41.

  305. 305.

    Alarcão (1983), p. 243; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 246; Sinde Monteiro (2005), p. 365. See also Bistritzki (1981) ss. 2.1 and 2.2.

  306. 306.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 77; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 177. There is an infringement of laws aimed at protecting the interest of others, for example, whenever a driver parks at a roundabout (Art. 49(1) lit. a of the Road Traffic Regulations, DL 114/94 of 3 May 1994, DR, 1st Ser., no. 102 (1994), pp. 2162–2190 as republished by Act 72/2013 of 3 September 2013, DR, 1st Ser., no. 169 (2013), pp. 5446–5499) or when the director of a solarium refrains from carrying out the annual technical evaluation of the tanning beds, or fails to make legally required information available to the users (Art. 12(1) and Art. 19 of DL 205/2005 of 28 November 2005, DR, 1st Ser., no. 228 (2005), pp. 6804–6810, respectively).

  307. 307.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), pp. 72–74. But see von Bar (1981), p. 1765, where it is considered that, for the purposes of § 823(2) BGB, only civil provisions should be included.

  308. 308.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 77; Alarcão (1983), pp. 242−243; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 256. But see Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 453.

  309. 309.

    Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 538–539; Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 833; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 265. An example would be behaviours that infringe competition. See Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 834; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 183–191. A wider concept of protective provisions (Antunes Varela 2000, p. 536, fn. 1) is present in Art. 9 (“Unlawfulness”) of the regulation of non-contractual liability arising out of damage ca used to another of the State and remaining public entities (Act 67/2007 of 31 December 2007, p. 9118), which reads: “Are unlawful the actions or omissions of the public officers, workers and agents which infringe rules or constitutional, legal or disciplinary principles or infringe technical rules from which result the injury of rights or legally protected interests. 2 There is also unlawfulness when the injury of rights or legally protected interests results from the abnormal functioning of the service (…).”.

  310. 310.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 839.

  311. 311.

    Canaris (1983b), pp. 45–46; Sinde Monteiro (1989), p. 246, fn. 222; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), 254, fn. 231.

  312. 312.

    Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 254, fn. 231; Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), pp. 177–178, fn. 86.

  313. 313.

    Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 453.

  314. 314.

    Cf. Pestana de Vasconcelos (2007), p. 182.

  315. 315.

    Provided that the remaining conditions of liability are verified and there is no defence (von Bar 2000a, p. 236).

  316. 316.

    Antunes Varela (2000), no. 2, p. 536; Prata (2007), p. 198; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 265. According to one view (in relation to § 823(1) BGB), the law should expressly provide that unlawfulness is indicated in cases of violation of protective provisions (von Bar 1991, p. 220).

  317. 317.

    Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 13; Menezes Leitão (2013), p. 266. In the German literature, see Lorenz (1973), p. 575; Canaris (1983b), pp. 58−77. For details on the situations for compensation of pure economic loss see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3 below.

  318. 318.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 78.

  319. 319.

    von Bar (1999c), p. 19.

  320. 320.

    Some legal scholars suggest that only the injury of interests of individuals would give rise to an unfair loss (prejuízo injusto) and thus an attainable claim for damages. See Pessoa Jorge (1995), p. 303.

  321. 321.

    Vaz Serra (1960d), pp. 72−73 and fn. 56, p. 75; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), nn. to Arts. 539 to 542 CC, p. 549 ff.; Pessoa Jorge (1995); Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 539 ff.; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 515−516; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), pp. 451−452; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 265−266.

  322. 322.

    Canaris (1983b), p. 46.

  323. 323.

    Menezes Leitão (2009), p. 837 ff.

  324. 324.

    von Caemmerer (1968), p. 67 ff.; Deutsch (1976), pp. 48–49. The former provides for the compensation of harm caused intentionally contra bonos mores (gegen die guten Sitten) independent from the nature of the affected goods. It is argued that it aims to allow the judge to avoid unjust results which he or she would reach by a strict application of the law. For details see Doobe (2014), pp. 74−76.

  325. 325.

    Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 458. Art. 735(1) reads: “Whoever causes losses to someone by facts which manifestly contrast with the legal conscience dominant in society, or when claiming the exercise of a special right, shall repair them”. Art. 736(1) reads: “There is also, exceptionally, abuse of right when, also without the intention mentioned in Art. 735, the act gravely offends the dominant legal conscience (emphasis added)”. See Vaz Serra , BolMinJus 85 (1959), pp. 243−343.

  326. 326.

    In favor of this identification, see Sinde Monteiro (1989), pp. 545–582, in particular, pp. 546−547 and p. 552; Sinde Monteiro et al. (1993), p. 12; Sinde Monteiro (2005), pp. 366–369; Carneiro da Frada and Pestana de Vasconcelos (2006), p. 158; Miranda Barbosa (2006a), p. 297 ff. passim; Sinde Monteiro (2007), p. 464 passim; Dias Pereira (2008), p. 514; Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 267–268. For a critical account see Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 5 to Art. 483 CC, p. 472; von Bar (1998a), p. 42; von Bar (1999f), p. 42; Carneiro da Frada (2007b), p. 165, fn. 121 (defending it, however, under strict limits, for the case of liability for information at p. 164 ff., n. 121); Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 455.

  327. 327.

    von Bar (1999f), p. 42; n. II4 to VI.–1:101, p. 250; n. III16 to VI.–1:101, 254; n. IV20 to VI.–1:101, p. 256. With further reference see Vaz Serra , BolMinJus 85 (1959b), p. 243 ff.; Vaz Serra (1960d), p. 63 ff.; Ferrer Correia and Lobo Xavier (1979), p. 8; von Bar (1981), pp. 1704–1705; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela 1987, nn. 1 ff. to Art. 334, pp. 298–300. On the legal matrix of abus de droit (abuso do direito) in Portugal see Cunha de Sá (1973) and Coutinho de Abreu (2006).

  328. 328.

    See Menezes Cordeiro (1984b), pp. 886 ff.—if the exercise of the right is to be translated into the practice of a legal act , this act will be void. See also Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela 1987, n. 6 to Art. 334 CC, pp. 299–300.

  329. 329.

    See Vaz Serra, BolMinJus 85 (1959b), p. 243 ff.; Ferrer Correia and Lobo Xavier (1979), p. 8 ff.; Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela (1987), n. 6 to Art. 334 CC, pp. 299–300.

  330. 330.

    According to Menezes Leitão, these delitos específicos are legal or negotial obligations , from which it can be assumed that the regime of contractual liability applies. See Menezes Leitão (2013), pp. 266–272.

  331. 331.

    For a critical account see Carneiro da Frada (1994), p. 175, fn. 363.

  332. 332.

    In Art. 484 the situation is protection of personality and moral integrity, good name and reputation (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 551). Exceptio veritatis does not oppose the unlawfulness of the act . Here it diverges from § 824 BGB, which was a clear influence (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 552).

  333. 333.

    According to one classification, duties of care shall be included as special delict provisions (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 551 ff.), while another (which includes those situations provided for in Arts. 484 and 485 CC as well) includes liability for omissions (Art. 491 CC). See Antunes Varela (2000), pp. 551–552; Almeida Costa (2006a), pp. 566–567. For details on liability for advice, recommendation or information see Tit. § 5, Subtit. III, Sec. 3 below.

  334. 334.

    Almeida Costa (2006a), p. 564; Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 551.

  335. 335.

    For such reason, they would form “global models of imputation , which go beyond unlawfulness ” (Menezes Cordeiro 2010b, p. 454).

  336. 336.

    Cf. Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 454. For details on these rules see Pessoa Jorge 1995, p. 308 ff. and Menezes Cordeiro (2010b), p. 551 ff.

Bibliography

  • Abrantes Geraldes AS (2003) Ressarcibilidade dos danos não patrimoniais de terceiros em caso de lesão corporal. In: Menezes Cordeiro A, Menezes Leitão L, Costa Gomes J (eds) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Inocêncio Galvão Telles, vol IV: Novos estudos de Direito Privado. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 263–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007b). Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol II-Indemnização dos danos reflexos, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrantes Geraldes AS (2014) Sentença cível. Available via the website of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice. http://www.stj.pt/documentacao/estudos/civil. Accessed 31 Mar 2017

  • Alarcão R (1983) Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra, photocopied

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida Costa MJ (2002) Reflexões sobre a obrigação de indemnização. Confrontos luso-brasileiros. RLJ 134(3931–3932, February–March):290–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida Costa MJ (2006a) Direito das Obrigações, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral Cabral R (2001) A tutela delitual do direito de crédito. In: Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Manuel Gomes da Silva. Coimbra Editora, Lisbon, pp 1025–1053

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes Varela J (1981) Anotação ao acórdão de 26 de março de 1980. RLJ 114(3683–3684):35–41 and 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes Varela J (2000) Das obrigações em geral, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakas EK (1996) Tender is the night: economic loss - the issues. In: Banakas EK (ed) Civil liability for pure economic loss. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakas S (1999) Thoughts on a new European tort law. In: Ahrens H-J, von Bar C, Fischer G, Taupitz J (eds) Festschrift für Erwin Deutsch zum 70. Geburtstag. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernert G (1969) Die Leerformel von der “Adäquanz”. AcP 169:421–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Bistritzki W (1981) Voraussetzungen für die Qualifikation einer Norm als Schutzgesetz im Sinne des § 823 Abs. 2 BGB. Universität Munich, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga A (2005) A reparação do dano corporal na responsabilidade civil extracontratual. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandão Proença JC (1997) A conduta do lesado como pressuposto e critério de imputação do dano extracontratual. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Brox H, Walker W-D (2016) Besonderes Schuldrecht, 39th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggemeier G (1982) Gesellschaftliche Schadensverteilung und Deliktsrecht. AcP 182(1):385–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C-W (1983b) Schutzgesetze-Verkehrspflichten-Schutzpflichten. In: Canaris C-W, Diederichsen U (eds) Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 80. Geburstag, Beck, Munich, pp 27–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (1994) Contrato e deveres de protecção. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (1997) Uma “terceira via” no Direito da responsabilidade civil? O problema da imputação dos danos causados a terceiros por auditores de sociedades. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (2006) Direito Civil, responsabilidade civil: O método do caso. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA (2007b) Teoria da confiança e responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro da Frada MA, Pestana de Vasconcelos MJ (2006) Danos económicos puros: Ilustração de uma problemática. In: Miranda J (coord.) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Marcello Caetano, vol 2, pp 151–176. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Castronovo C (1997) La nuova responsabilità civile. Giuffrè Editore, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelho dos Santos J (1994) A reparação civil do dano corporal: Reflexão jurídica sobre a perícia médico-legal e o dano dor. RPDC 3(4):73–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (1992) Rechtsgüter und Rechte i.S.d. § 823 I BGB. Jura:209–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutinho de Abreu JM (2006) Do abuso de direito - Ensaio de um critério em Direito Civil e nas deliberações sociais, repr. 1999. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunha de Sá FA (1973) Abuso do Direito. Centro de Estudos Fiscais do Ministério das Finanças, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1972) Zum Verhältnis von vertraglicher und deliktischer Haftung. In: Pawlowski H-M (ed) Festschrift für Karl Michaelis. V&R Unipress, Göttingen, pp 26–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1976) Haftungsrecht, vol I-Allgemeine Lehren. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1987) Der Begriff der Fahrlässigkeit im Zivilrecht. Jura:505–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1995) Fahrlässigkeit und erforderliche Sorgfalt. Eine privatrechtliche Untersuchung, 2nd edn. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (1996a) Allgemeines Haftungsrecht, 2nd edn. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E (2004) Schutzgesetze aus dem Strafrecht in § 823 Abs. 2 BGB. VersRAI:137–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias JA (2000) Dano corporal: uma realidade não subsumível à perda (ou diminuição) da capacidade de ganho. RPDC 9(10, November):71–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias JA (2001a) Algumas considerações sobre o chamado dano corporal. RPDC 10(11, November):37–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias JA (2001b) Dano corporal. Quadro epistemológico e aspectos ressarcitórios. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias JA (2002) Consequências não pecuniárias de lesões não letais - Algumas considerações. In: Gomes J (coord., ed) Estudos dedicados ao Professor Doutor Mário Júlio Brito de Almeida Costa. Universidade Católica, Lisbon, pp 753–778

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias Pereira AG (2008) Portuguese case note. ERPL 16(3):513–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Diederichsen U (1965) Zur Beweislastverteilung bei Schadensersatzansprüchen aus Vertrag, Delikt und Gefährdungshaftung. In: Klingmüller E (ed) Karlsruher Forum 1965: Haftung und Freizeichnung. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe, pp 21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Doobe C (2014) Der Ersatz fahrlässig verursachter reiner Vermögensschäden Dritter in Deutschland und England unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert I (2011) Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht. Von der Renaissance der Privatstrafe im deutschen Recht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser J (2000a) Schuldrecht, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 2, continued by E. Schmidt, 8th edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser J (2000b) Schuldrecht, vol II-Besonderer Teil, 2, continued by H.L. Weyers, 8th edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius F (1961) Zur Dogmatik des “sonstigen Rechts” gemäß § 823 Abs. I BGB. AcP 160(4/5):273–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira Dias PB (2001) O dano moral na doutrina e na jurisprudência. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer Correia A, Lobo Xavier V (1979) Efeito externo das obrigações, abuso do direito; Concorrência desleal. RDE 5(1, January–June):3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitas Rangel RM (2002) A reparação judicial dos danos na responsabilidade civil (Um olhar sobre a jurisprudência). Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs M, Pauker W (2012) Delikts- und Schadensersatzrecht, 8th edn. Springer, Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Galvão Telles I (1997) Direito das Obrigações, 7th edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes J (1989) Uma função punitiva para a responsabilidade civil e uma função reparatória para a responsabilidade penal? RDE 15(1):105–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes JV (2005) Sobre o dano da perda de chance. Dir.just. 19(2):9–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes da Silva MD (1944) O dever de prestar e o dever de indemnizar, vol 1. Tip. Ramos, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordley J (2003) The rule against recovery in negligence for pure economic loss: an historical accident? In: Bussani M, Palmer VV (eds) Pure economic loss in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gozzi C (2006) Der Anspruch iure proprio auf Ersatz des Nichtvermögensschadens wegen der Tötung eines nahen Angehörigen in Deutschland und Italien. V&R Unipress, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager G (1985) Zum Begriff der Rechtswidrigkeit im Zivilrecht. In: Bickel D, Hadding W, Jahnke V, Lüke G (eds) Recht und Rechtserkenntnis. Festschrift für Ernst Wolff zum 70. Geburstag. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörster HE (1992) A parte geral do Código Civil Português. Teoria geral do Direito Civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörster HE (2004a) Esboço esquemático sobre a responsabilidade civil de acordo com as regras do Código Civil. In: Cândido de Oliveira A (coord.) Estudos em comemoração do décimo aniversário da licenciatura em Direito da Universidade do Minho. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 323–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohloch G (1981) Allgemeines Schadensrecht: empfiehlt sich eine Neufassung der gesetztlichen Regelung des Schadensrechts (§§ 249–255 BGB)? In: der Bundesminister J (ed) Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 1. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 375–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Hondius E (2007) Towards a European tort law. In: Bussani M (ed) European tort law: eastern and western perspectives, European private law 5. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 47–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Honsell H (1990) Die Haftung für Gutachten und Auskunft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Drittinteressen. In: Beuthien V (ed) Festschrift für Dieter Medicus zum 70. Geburtstag. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich, pp 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Honsell H (2001) Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden in Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtsvergleichung. In: Rauscher TM-P, Mansel HP (eds) Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum 80. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 483–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth D (2011) The general conditions of unlawfulness. In: Hartkamp A, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International/Ars Aequi Libri, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 845–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber U (1973) Zivilrechtliche Fahrlässigkeit. In: Forsthoff E, Weber W, Wieacker F (eds) Festschrift für Ernst Rudolf Huber zum 70. Geburtstag. Otto Schwartz, Göttingen, pp 253–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs HH, Schubert W (1983) Die Beratung des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs in systematischer Zusammenstellung der unveröffentlichten Quellen. Recht der Schuldverhältnisse III, §§ 652 bis 853. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N, Rademacher L (2009) Punitive damages in Germany. In: Koziol H, Wilcox V (eds) Punitive damages: common law and civil law perspectives. Springer, Vienna, pp 75–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kegel G (2002) Vertrag und Delikt. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern B-R (1991) Die Genugtuungsfunktion des Schmerzensgeldes - ein pönales Element im Schadensersatzrecht? AcP 191:247–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobbe-Keuk B (1972) Vermögensschaden und Interesse. Röhrscheid, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz H, Wagner G (2013) Deliktsrecht, 12th edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange H (1976) Adäquanztheorie, Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhang, Schutzzwecklehre und selbständige Zurechnungsmomente. JZ 31(7):198–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange H, Schiemann G (2003) Schadensersatz. In: Gernhuber J (ed) Handbuch des Schuldrechts, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1963) Rechtswidrigkeit und Handlungsbegriff im Zivilrecht. In: von Caemmerer E, Nikisch A, Zweigert K (eds) Vom deutschen zum europäischen Recht, Festschrift für Hans Dölle, vol II-Internationales Recht, Kollisionsrecht und internationales Zivilprozessrecht, Europäisches Recht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 169–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1970) Zum heutigen Stand der Lehre von der objektiven Zurechnung im Schadensersatzrecht. In: Barth E (ed) Festschrift für Richard M. Honig. Schwartz, Göttingen, pp 79–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1987) Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol I-Allgemeiner Teil, 14th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K, Canaris C-W (1977) Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol II-Besonderer Teil, 11th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite de Campos D (1987) A vida, a morte e a sua indemnização. BolMinJus 365(1):5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Looschelders D (2014) Schuldrecht: Besonderer Teil, 9th edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz W (1973) Das Problem der Haftung für primäre Vermögensschäden bei der Erteilung einer unrichtigen Auskunft. In: Paulus G, Diederichsen U, Canaris C-W (eds) Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 70. Geburstag. Beck, Munich, pp 575–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Magalhães T, Pinto da Costa D (2007) Avaliação do dano na pessoa em sede de Direito Civil. Perspectivas actuais. RFDUL (4):419–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (1987) Schaden und Ersatz: eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur Ersatzfähigkeit von Einbußen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2001b) Damages under German law. In: Magnus U (ed) Unification of tort law: damages. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York, pp 89–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis BS, Unberath H (2002) The German law of torts. Hart, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Medicus D (2005) Die psychisch vermittelte Kausalität im Zivilrecht. JuS 45(1):289–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Medicus D (2007) Gesetzliche Schuldverhältnisse. Delikts- und Schadensrecht, Bereicherung, Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag, 5th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Meira Lourenço P (2006) A função punitiva da responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro MD (1984b). Da boa fé no Direito Civil, vol. 2. Coimbra: Almedina

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro A (1986) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. AAFDL, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro A (1994) Direito das Obrigações, vol 2. AAFDL, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro A (1999) Tratado de Direito Civil Português, vol I-Parte Geral. Tomo I-Introdução. Doutrina geral. Negócio jurídico. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Cordeiro A (2010b) Tratado de Direito Civil Português, vol II-Direito das Obrigações. Tomo 3-Gestão de negócios, enriquecimento sem causa, responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Leitão A (2005a) Os danos puramente económicos nos sistemas da Common Law-II (jurisprudência Norte-Americana). In: Miranda J (coord.) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Joaquim Moreira da Silva Cunha. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Leitão A (2009) Normas de protecção e danos puramente patrimoniais. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes Leitão LM (2013) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1, 10th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens H-J (1980) Verkehrspflichten und Deliktsrecht. Gedanken zu einer Dogmatik der Verkehrspflichtverletzung. VersRAI:397–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda J (2000) Manual de Direito Constitucional, vol 4, 3rd edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda Barbosa AM (2006a) Liberdade vs. responsabilidade: a precaução como fundamento da imputação delitual? Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda Barbosa M (2006b) O papel da imputabilidade no quadro da responsabilidade delitual. Breve apontamento. BFD 82(1):485–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller R (2006) Das Präventionsprinzip des Schadensrechts. Duncker&Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Monateri PG (1989) Cumulo di responsabilità contrattuale e extracontrattuale. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Mota Pinto CA (2005) Teoria geral do Direito Civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Mota Pinto P (2008b) Interesse contratual negativo e interesse contratual positivo, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller P (2000) Punitive Damages und deutsches Schadensersatzrecht. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habersack M (2013) Municher Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol II-Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil III, §§ 705–853, 6th edn. (quoted here with the commentaries of G. Wagner). Beck, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Münzberg W (1966) Verhalten und Erfolg als Grundlagen der Rechtswidrigkeit und Haftung. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugdan B (1896) Motive zu dem Entwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches für das Deutsche Reich, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, vol 2. In: Mugdan B (coord., ed.) Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol 2. Guttentag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes de Carvalho PP (1999) Omissão e dever de agir em Direito Civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coelho FM (1950) O nexo de causalidade na responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coelho FM (1955) O problema da causa virtual na responsabilidade civil. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coelho FM (1967) Obrigações: sumário das lições ao curso de 1966–1967. Photocopied, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coelho F, Oliveira G (2001) Curso de Direito da Família, vol I-Introdução. Direito Matrimonial, 2nd edn. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa Jorge F (1975–1976) Lições de Direito das Obrigações. Photocopied, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa Jorge F (1995) Ensaio sobre os pressupostos da responsabilidade civil, repr 1968, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestana de Vasconcelos MJ (2007) Algumas questões sobre a ressarcibilidade delitual de danos patrimoniais puros no ordenamento jurídico português. In: Morais Antunes AF, Fonseca AM, Vasconcelos MJ, Oliveira e Sá F (eds) Novas tendências da responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 147–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker E (1983) Positive Forderungsverletzung und culpa in contrahendo - Zur Problematik der Haftung “zwischen” Vertrag und Delikt. AcP 183:369–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker E (1987) Vertragliche und deliktische Schadenshaftung. Überlegungen zu einer Neustrukturierung des Haftungssysteme. JZ 42(1):1041–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Monteiro A (1992) Sobre a reparação dos danos morais. RPDC 1(1):17–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Monteiro A (1999) Cláusula penal e indemnização. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Monteiro A (2003) Cláusulas limitativas e de exclusão de responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Oliveira NM (2002) Sobre o conceito de ilicitude do art. 483.° do Código Civil. In: Associação Jurídica de Braga/Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho, Estudos em Homenagem a Francisco José Velozo. Universidade do Minho, Braga

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Oliveira NM (2005) Direito das Obrigações, vol I-Conceito, estrutura e função das relações obrigacionais. Elementos das relações obrigacionais. Direitos de crédito e direitos reais. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Oliveira NM (2011) Princípios de Direito dos Contratos. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires de Lima FA, Antunes Varela JM (1987) Código Civil anotado, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires de Lima FA, Antunes Varela JM (repr. 2010) Código Civil Anotado, vol IV. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Prata A (2007) Law of Torts. In: Ferreira de Almeida C, Cristas A, Piçarra N (eds) Portuguese law - An overview. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 197–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Prata A (2010) Dicionário jurídico, vol 1, 5th edn. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro de Faria JL (1990) Direito das Obrigações, vol 1. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Rito S (1946) Elementos da responsabilidade civil delitual. Freitas Brito LDA, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues Basto JF (1988) Notas ao Código Civil, vol 2. Almedina, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Röckrath L (2001) Die vertragliche Haftung für den Unterhaltsschaden Hinterbliebener. VersRAI 52(28):1197–1204

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönnau T, Faust F, Fehling M (2004) Kausalität und objektive Zurechnung. JuS 44(1):113–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers WV, Spier J, Viney G (1996) Preliminary observations. In: Spier J, von Bar C (eds) The limits of liability: keeping the floodgates shut. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano Martinez P (2001) Cumprimento defeituoso em especial na compra e venda e na empreitada. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum I (2010) Hypothetische Kausalität und Schadensersatz. Verlag dr, Kovač, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosengarten J (1996) Der Präventionsgedanke im deutschen Zivilrecht. NJW 30(1):1935–1938

    Google Scholar 

  • Roussos K (1992) Schaden und Folgeschaden. Carl Heymanns, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco R (1984) Concorso delle azioni contrattuale ed extracontrattuale. In: Visintini G (coord.) Risarcimento del danno contrattuale ed extracontrattuale. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Júnior E (2003) Da responsabilidade civil de terceiro por lesão do direito de crédito. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva ML (2006) Cour de cassation, comm., pourvoi no. 02-19370 du 5 avril 2005 –Schadensersatzanspruch des einfachen Lizenznehmers für entgangenen Gewinn gegenüber einem nicht vertraglich verbundenen Konkurrenten-Portuguese case note. ERPL 14(5/6):826–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva ML (2007) Anstiftung zur Verletzung von Vertragspflichten in Portugal. VersRAI:24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos Silva ML (2009) The compensation of pure economic loss in tort law in Portuguese legal scholarship. IJVO Jahresheft 16:52–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1972) Vertragsordnung und außervertragliche Haftung. Metzner, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1997) Schadensersatz und Schadensbegriff. ZEup 2:232–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (1998) Civil liability for economic loss: Germany. Comparative law facing the twenty-first century. Unpublished manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtriem P (2003) Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, 6th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlobach K (2004) Das Präventionsprinzip im Recht des Schadensersatzes. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid C (2010) Die Instrumentalisierung des Privatrechts durch die Europäische Union: Privatrecht und Privatrechtskonzeption in der Entwicklung der Europäischen Integrationsverfassung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I-Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke H (2002) The new German law of obligations: an introduction. Available via the German Law Archive of the Oxford University Comparative Law Forum. http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/schulte-noelke.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2015

  • Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2001) Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (1983) Estudos sobre a responsabilidade civil. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (1989) Responsabilidade por conselhos, recomendações ou informações. Almedina, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (2005) Rudimentos da responsabilidade civil. RFDUL 2:349–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF (2007) Responsabilidade delitual. Da ilicitude. In Aa. Vv. Comemorações dos 35 anos do Código Civil e dos 25 anos da Reforma de 1977, vol III-Direito das Obrigações. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 453–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF, Veloso MM (2001) Portugal. In: Faure M, Koziol H (eds) Cases on medical malpractice in a comparative perspective. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 172–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinde Monteiro JF, Moura Ramos R, Hörster HE (1993) Einführung in das portugiesische Deliktsrecht. In: von Bar C (ed) Deliktsrecht in Europa, Landesbericht Portugal. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa Antunes H (2009) Nótula sobre as penas privadas na responsabilidade civil em Portugal. In: Leite de Campos D (ed) Estudos em homenagem ao Professor Doutor Manuel Henrique Mesquita-Studia Iuridica 95, vol 1. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 133–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa Antunes H (2011) Da inclusão do lucro ilícito e de efeitos punitivos entre as consequências da responsabilidade civil extracontratual: A sua legitimação pelo dano. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa Dinis JJ (2001) Dano corporal em acidentes de viação. Cálculo da indemnização em situações de morte, incapacidade total e incapacidade parcial; perspectivas futuras. CJ (ST) 9(1):5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Spier J (2000) Compensation for loss of spare time? In: Magnus U, Spier J (eds) European tort law. Liber Amicorum for Helmut Koziol. Lang, Frankfurt am Main/New York, pp 299–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner GH (1983) Schadensverhütung als Alternative zum Schadensersatz. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll H (1970) Penal purposes in the law of tort. AJCL 18(1):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll H (1973) Begriff und Grenzen des Vermögensschadens. Müller, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll H (1993) Haftungsfolgen im bürgerlichen Recht. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigo MG (2009) Responsabilidade civil delitual por facto de terceiro. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigo MG (2012) Adopção do conceito de “dano biológico” pelo Direito Português. In: Otero P, de Quadros F, Rebelo de Sousa M (coords.) Estudos de homenagem ao Professor Doutor Jorge Miranda, vol 6. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 629–653

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dam C (2013) European tort law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra APS (1959b) Fundamento da responsabilidade civil (em especial, responsabilidade por acidentes de viação terrestre e por intervenções lícitas). BolMinJus 90(1):5–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra APS (1959c) Obrigação de indemnização (Colocação. Fontes. Conceito e espécies de dano. Nexo causal. Extensão do dever de indemnizar. Espécies de indemnização). Direito de abstenção e de remoção. BolMinJus 84(1):5–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra APS (1959d) Reparação do dano não patrimonial. BolMinJus 83(1):69–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra APS (1959e) Responsabilidade contratual e responsabilidade extracontratual. BolMinJus 85(1):115–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra AP (1960a) Algumas questões em matéria de responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 93(1):5–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra AP (1960c) Direito das Obrigações (Parte extensa) - Continuação. BolMinJus 100(1):161–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaz Serra A P (1960d) Requisitos da responsabilidade civil. BolMinJus 92(1):37–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Viney G, Ghestin J (1982) La responsabilité: Conditions. In: Ghestin J (dir.) Traité de droit civil. Les obligations. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Viney G, Jourdain P (2006) Traité de droit civil. Les conditions de la responsabilité, 3rd edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1980b) Verkehrspflichten: richterliche Gefahrsteuerungsgebote im deutschen Deliktsrecht. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1981) Deliktsrecht. In: Bundesminister der Justiz, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, vol 2. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 1681–1778

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1982) Vertragliche Schadensersatzpflichten ohne Vertrag? JuS 22(1):637–654

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1983) Vorbeugender Rechtsschutz vor Verkehrspflichtverletzung. In: Hauß F, von Bieberstein WFM, Reichert-Facilides F (eds) 25 Jahre KF, Jubiläumsausgabe 1983. Beiträge zum Haftungs- und Versicherungsrecht. Verl. Versicherungswirtschaft, Karlsruhe, pp 80–85

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1986) Zur Bedeutung des beweglichen Systems für die Dogmatik der Verkehrspflichten. In: Bydlinski F, Krejci H, Schilcher B, Steininger V (eds) Das bewegliche System im geltenden und künftigen Recht. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 63–74

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1988) Entwicklungen und Entwicklungstendenzen im Recht der Verkehrs (sicherungs) pflichten. JuS 28(1):169–174

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1991) Die Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts am Beispiel der Überarbeitung des Deliktsrechts. In: Osnabrück-Emsland JG (ed) Dreher M, Benda E (authors) Vorträge zur Rechtsentwicklung der achtziger Jahre. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich, pp 211–223

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1994b) Liability for information and opinions causing pure economic loss to third parties: a comparison of English and German case law. In: Markesinis BS (ed) The gradual convergence. Foreign ideas, foreign influences, and English law on the eve of the 21st century. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 98–127

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1996a) A common European law of torts. Centro di Studi e Ricerche di Diritto Comparato e Straniero, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1998a) The common European law of torts, vol I-The core areas of tort law, its approximation in Europe, and its accommodation in the legal system. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999b) Damage without loss. In: Swadling W, Jones G (eds) The search for principle. Essays in honour of Lord Goff of Chieveley. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–43

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999c) Das deutsche Deliktsrecht in gemeineuropäischer Perspektive. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999e) Gemeineuropäisches Deliktsrecht, vol II-Schaden und Schadenersatz, Haftung für und ohne eigenes Fehlverhalten, Kausalität und Verteidigungsgründe (English transl.: Common European Law of Torts 2). Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999f) Non-contractual obligations, especially the law of tort. In: Offermann KH (ed) The private law systems in the EU. Discrimination on grounds of nationality and the need for a European Civil Code. European Parliament, Luxembourg, pp 41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (1999g) Schmerzensgeld in Europa. In: Ahrens H J, von Bar C, Fischer G, Spickhoff A, Taupitz J (eds) Festschrift für Erwin Deutsch: zum 70. Geburtstag. Carl Heymanns, Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich, pp 27–43

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2000a) The common European law of torts, vol II-Damage and damages, liability for and without personal misconduct, causality, and defences. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • von Bar C (2000b) Moderne Deliktsrechtspflege in den Zwängen einer wilhelminischen Kodifikation. In: Canaris CW, Heldrich A (eds) 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2002d) A plea for drafting principles of European private law. ERA Forum 3(2):100–101

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2003c) Schadensersatzsrecht nach dem zweiten Schadensersatzänderungsgesetz. In: Lorenz E (org.) KF 2003: Das Zweite Gesetz zur Änderung schadensersatzrechtlicher Vorschriften. VVW, Karlsruhe, pp 7–29, 65–67, 69–71, 97–99

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2004a) Comparative law of obligations: methodology and epistemology. In: van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, Oregon, pp 123–135

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European law on non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2010a) Außervertragliche Haftung für den Einem Anderen Zugefügten Schaden. Das Buch VI des Draft Common Frame of Reference. Eur Rev Priv Law 18(2):205–225

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2011b) The notion of damage. In: Hartkamp AS, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 387–399

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C (2015) Gemeineuropäisches Sachenrecht, vol 1 – Grundlagen, Gegenstände, sachenrechtliches Rechtsschutzes, Arten und Erscheinungsformen Subjektivenrechte. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Clive E (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft Common Frame of Reference - Full edition. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Caemmerer E (1960) Wandlungen des Deliktsrechts. In: von Caemmerer E, Friesenhahn E, Lange R (eds) Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des Deutschen Juristentags, vol 2. Müller, Karlsruhe, pp 49–136

    Google Scholar 

  • von Caemmerer E (1968) Wandlungen des Deliktsrechts, vol 1. In: Leser HG (org.) Gesammelte Schriften, vol I-Rechtsvergleichung und Schuldrecht, pp 452–553. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • von Caemmerer E (1970) Die Bedeutung des Schutzbereiches einer Rechtsnorm für die Geltendmachung von Schadensersatzansprüche aus Verkehrsunfällen. DAR:283–292

    Google Scholar 

  • von Jhering R (1867) Das Schuldmoment im römischen Privatrecht: eine Festschrift. E. Roth, Giessen. Available via Babel. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112104328911;view=1up;seq=1. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • von Kries J (1886) Prinzipien der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung: eine logische Untersuchung. Mohr Siebeck, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lillienskiold M (1975) Aktuelle Probleme des portugiesischen Delikts- und Schadensersatzrechts. Ing. H. O. Hövelborn, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitnauer H (1969) Zur Lehre vom adäquaten Kausalzusammenhang - Versuch einer Ehrenrettung. In: Keller M (ed) Revolution der Technik: Evolutionen des Rechts. Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Karl Oftinger. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 321–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Winiger B, Koziol H, Koch B A, Zimmermann R (eds) (2011) Digest of European tort law. Essential cases on damage, vol 2. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeuner A (1964) Schadensbegriff und Ersatz von Vermögensschäden. AcP 163:380–400

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Marta Santos Silva

Authors
  1. Marta Santos Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santos Silva, M. (2017). § 4 General Remarks on the Non-Contractual Liability Regime Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another in the Portuguese Civil Code. In: The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52922-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52923-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation