Herausgabenansprüche des Besitzers: BGH 11 November 1997, JZ 1998, 685

Translated title of the contribution: Case Note - BGH 11 November 1997

Samantha Halliday

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The decision of the German Federal Supreme Court adds to its jurisprudence on the circumstances in which a tortfeasor can be made liable for psychological damage to the injured party (compare on this point also the case notes published in this journal on the leading decision of the Supreme Court (BGHZ 132, 341 = JZ 1996, 1080 (note Schlosser), ERPL, 1998, 249 ff.) For the facts of the case, reference is made to the first paragraph of the attached case comment, which examines the problem form the point of view of English law. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court, inter alia, with liability in relation to a nervous condition and with the issues identified in the statements of principle:

Statements of principle:
a) The answer to the question whether a harmful event can be so minor that under the principles of the Supreme Court devision BGHZ 132, 341 ff. liability for psychological harm can be excluded depends on the primary injury suffered by the injured party.
b) If the unfitness for work asserted by the injury party arises from psychological inability to deal with the harmful event the tortfeasor may be obliged to compensate for the length and amount of any loss of income that may come into consideration, if the prognosis is that serious risks to the development of the injured party's future career because of the aforementioned psychological difficulties exist with a sufficient probability to satisfy 287 of the German Code of Cibil Procedure.
Original languageGerman
Pages (from-to)499-506
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Review of Private Law
Volume8
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
liability
Federal Supreme Court
event
jurisprudence
damages
career
income
Law

Cite this

@article{9f45851aa9be410483ccf2f5072a11f7,
title = "Herausgabenanspr{\"u}che des Besitzers: BGH 11 November 1997, JZ 1998, 685",
abstract = "The decision of the German Federal Supreme Court adds to its jurisprudence on the circumstances in which a tortfeasor can be made liable for psychological damage to the injured party (compare on this point also the case notes published in this journal on the leading decision of the Supreme Court (BGHZ 132, 341 = JZ 1996, 1080 (note Schlosser), ERPL, 1998, 249 ff.) For the facts of the case, reference is made to the first paragraph of the attached case comment, which examines the problem form the point of view of English law. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court, inter alia, with liability in relation to a nervous condition and with the issues identified in the statements of principle:Statements of principle:a) The answer to the question whether a harmful event can be so minor that under the principles of the Supreme Court devision BGHZ 132, 341 ff. liability for psychological harm can be excluded depends on the primary injury suffered by the injured party.b) If the unfitness for work asserted by the injury party arises from psychological inability to deal with the harmful event the tortfeasor may be obliged to compensate for the length and amount of any loss of income that may come into consideration, if the prognosis is that serious risks to the development of the injured party's future career because of the aforementioned psychological difficulties exist with a sufficient probability to satisfy 287 of the German Code of Cibil Procedure.",
author = "Samantha Halliday",
year = "2000",
language = "German",
volume = "8",
pages = "499--506",
journal = "European Review of Private Law",
issn = "0928-9801",
publisher = "Kluwer Law International",
number = "3",

}

Herausgabenansprüche des Besitzers: BGH 11 November 1997, JZ 1998, 685. / Halliday, Samantha.

In: European Review of Private Law , Vol. 8, No. 3, 2000, p. 499-506.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Herausgabenansprüche des Besitzers: BGH 11 November 1997, JZ 1998, 685

AU - Halliday, Samantha

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The decision of the German Federal Supreme Court adds to its jurisprudence on the circumstances in which a tortfeasor can be made liable for psychological damage to the injured party (compare on this point also the case notes published in this journal on the leading decision of the Supreme Court (BGHZ 132, 341 = JZ 1996, 1080 (note Schlosser), ERPL, 1998, 249 ff.) For the facts of the case, reference is made to the first paragraph of the attached case comment, which examines the problem form the point of view of English law. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court, inter alia, with liability in relation to a nervous condition and with the issues identified in the statements of principle:Statements of principle:a) The answer to the question whether a harmful event can be so minor that under the principles of the Supreme Court devision BGHZ 132, 341 ff. liability for psychological harm can be excluded depends on the primary injury suffered by the injured party.b) If the unfitness for work asserted by the injury party arises from psychological inability to deal with the harmful event the tortfeasor may be obliged to compensate for the length and amount of any loss of income that may come into consideration, if the prognosis is that serious risks to the development of the injured party's future career because of the aforementioned psychological difficulties exist with a sufficient probability to satisfy 287 of the German Code of Cibil Procedure.

AB - The decision of the German Federal Supreme Court adds to its jurisprudence on the circumstances in which a tortfeasor can be made liable for psychological damage to the injured party (compare on this point also the case notes published in this journal on the leading decision of the Supreme Court (BGHZ 132, 341 = JZ 1996, 1080 (note Schlosser), ERPL, 1998, 249 ff.) For the facts of the case, reference is made to the first paragraph of the attached case comment, which examines the problem form the point of view of English law. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court, inter alia, with liability in relation to a nervous condition and with the issues identified in the statements of principle:Statements of principle:a) The answer to the question whether a harmful event can be so minor that under the principles of the Supreme Court devision BGHZ 132, 341 ff. liability for psychological harm can be excluded depends on the primary injury suffered by the injured party.b) If the unfitness for work asserted by the injury party arises from psychological inability to deal with the harmful event the tortfeasor may be obliged to compensate for the length and amount of any loss of income that may come into consideration, if the prognosis is that serious risks to the development of the injured party's future career because of the aforementioned psychological difficulties exist with a sufficient probability to satisfy 287 of the German Code of Cibil Procedure.

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 499

EP - 506

JO - European Review of Private Law

JF - European Review of Private Law

SN - 0928-9801

IS - 3

ER -