Korrespondenz

Koziol, Helmut; Karner, Ernst; Steininger, Barbara C.

doi:10.1007/s00503-011-2087-1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…139 In Austrian legal scholarship adjustment of damages due to benefits received (Vorteilsausgleich) between non-pecuniary advantages and pecuniary loss is generally rejected with the argument that this would lead to only partial compensation. 140 However, Koziol/Steininger argue that it is possible to relate the compensatory function of tort law to the totality of pecuniary and nonpecuniary factors. Although moral harm is not always considered as reparable damage, the case of the unplanned birth of a child is such a special case that non-pecuniary advantages can be taken into account.…”

Section: Measure and Mitigation Of Damagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wrongful Birth and Non-Pecuniary Loss: Theories of Compensation

Bagińska

2010

Journal of European Tort Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on an analysis of court cases, constitutional jurisprudence and legal scholarship, the author outlines theories of compensation for non-pecuniary damage applicable in wrongful birth actions and endeavours to identify common policies and tendencies. The notion of damage is taken as the starting point, followed by the examination of the elements of compensable damage and of the dual nature of the loss caused by the tort of wrongful birth. Three groups of theories of compensation for non-pecuniary loss are addressed: personal injury theories, infringements of personal rights theories and the loss of chance theory. Disapproving of the application of the third doctrine to wrongful birth cases, the author focuses on the two principal theories in their different versions. Within the first category, compensation is granted for pain and suffering stemming from pregnancy and the birth of an unwanted child or for the mental shock of having a disabled child. The second theoretical concept is based on the protection of personal rights and dignity. The damage consists in the violation of personal rights or the infringement of the sphere of reproductive autonomy. In a subset of wrongful birth cases -where the pregnancy would have been aborted had the foetus's condition been known -this ground of compensation depends strictly on national abortion laws. In order to remain within the prescribed constitutional standards, the courts avoid the terminology of a 'right to abortion' and instead formulate a 'right to choose', or 'right to plan a family'. They also award compensation for the infringement of the patient's rights (to information, to prenatal tests or to abortion procedures). The growing tendency is to underline a woman's right to self-determination rather than to conceive of pregnancy and birth as personal injury. However, in many cases both theories of reparation can be applied. In the final part of the paper the author emphasises the equal legal standing of parents. At the same time, only the parents should be regarded as suffering harm from wrongful birth, whether as direct victims or as victims par ricochet. Finally, the author does not see any grounds for offsetting the claim for non-pecuniary loss against the emotional value of having a child.(2010) 1 JETL 171

show abstract

Section: Measure and Mitigation Of Damagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wrongful Birth and Non-Pecuniary Loss: Theories of Compensation

Bagińska

2010

Journal of European Tort Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cezalandırıcı tazminatın haksız fiil hukukunda genel olarak kabulü, modern hukukun bir başarısı olan ceza hukuku ve özel hukuk ayrımına ters düşer. Böyle bir gerileme modern ceza hukukunun da -suçların ve cezaların kanuniliği ilkesi, belirlilik ilkesi ve kıyas yasağı gibi-temel ilkelerine de aykırıdır 120 . Cezalandırıcı tazminat, haksız fiil hukukunun bir parçası olamaz, özel hükümlerle düzenlenmelidir 121 .…”

Section: Haksiz Fi̇i̇l Hukukunun Amacina İli̇şki̇n Tartişmanin Sonucuunclassified

Haksiz Fi̇i̇l Hukukunun Amaci

KOŞAR

2020

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haksız fiil hukukunun amacı hâkim görüşe göre, zarar görenin zararının telafi edilmesi olup önleme, telafi amacına nazaran ikincil niteliktedir ve zararın telafisinin olumlu yan etkisidir. Bununla beraber, özellikle hukuk ve ekonomi öğretisi tarafından haksız fiil sorumluluğunun asıl amacının önleme olarak kabul edilmesinin daha isabetli olacağı savunulmaktadır. Haksız fiil sorumluluğunun asıl amacının zararın telafisi mi yoksa zararın önlenmesi mi olduğu tartışması teorik öneminin yanı sıra pratikte beraberinde getirdiği sonuçlar nedeniyle de önemlidir. Bu çalışmada, haksız fiil hukukunun amacına öncelikle karşılaştırmalı hukuk perspektifinden bakılarak Kıta Avrupası hukukunda, Anglo-Amerikan hukukunda ve Avrupa Haksız Fiil Hukuku İlkeleri'nde tercih edilen yaklaşım açıklanmıştır. Ardından telafi görüşü, temelinde yatan düzeltici adalet teorisi çerçevesinde ayrıntılandırılarak; görüşe yöneltilen eleştiriler incelenmiştir. Daha sonra ise önleme görüşü, dayandığı hukuk ve ekonomi (law&economics) öğretisi çerçevesinde ele alınmış ve bu görüşe yöneltilen eleştiriler etraflıca işlenmiştir. Nihayet, çalışma bu iki görüş arasındaki en belirgin pratik sonuç olarak karşımıza çıkan cezalandırıcı tazminat kurumunun değerlendirilmesi ile sonuçlandırılmıştır.

show abstract

Korrespondenz

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Wrongful Birth and Non-Pecuniary Loss: Theories of Compensation

Wrongful Birth and Non-Pecuniary Loss: Theories of Compensation

Haksiz Fi̇i̇l Hukukunun Amaci

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About