Preliminary Remarks on the Methodology

Unravelling Causation in European Tort Laws

“…Almost all rapporteurs agreed that, under the above circumstances, the but-for/condicio sine qua non test is satisfied, because Bert would not have gone to the hospital but for Alex's negligence. 32 The only exception is Denmark, in which the case would fail on the but-for ground because Bert cannot prove that but for the hospitalization he would not have contracted pneumonia. 33 Despite the quasi-general agreement on the fulfilment of the but-for test, legal systems appear to take different stances as to how far Alex's liability can go, and whether it should include damages arising from Bert's pneumonia infection.…”

“…68 Judges' views about the function of tort law (as focused on compensation only, or as embodying a deterrence/punitive nuance) as well as courts' self-narratives about their own role (as being more or less creative, or more or less rule-making) seem to play a role in a jurisdiction's option for or against liability in Case A. 69 As many rapporteurs stressed in answering Case C, public policy considerations in creating incentives for good Samaritans might be taken into account in establishing causation between the defendant's reckless behaviour and the plaintiff's harm in rescue cases. 70…”