Search Results

This chapter focuses on the risks posed by genetically modified crops. It argues that many of the risks which are likely to materialize fall comfortably within traditional heads of damage such as personal injury or damage to property. There is also, however, a risk of environmental damage per se, which legal systems may find more problematic. In particular, the notion of damage to ‘biological diversity’ requires careful consideration, especially in light of the definition in the Biodiversity Convention. In the same context, while compensable damage should include the costs of preventive measures and reasonable measures of reinstatement, it should not be so limited, since it may well no longer be feasible to recall the GMO in question.

This chapter continues the analysis of the lex Aquilia from the previous chapter. The first section examines the statutory definition of the delict as iniuria. The second section deals with the protection of a freeman's bodily integrity. The third section discusses the usus modernus legis aquiliae. The last section explores various contributions towards the modern, generalised law of delict.

This chapter discusses lex Aquilia, the most important statutory enactment on Roman private law subsequent to the XII Tables. It was passed by an assembly of the plebs after it had been proposed by a tribune by the name of Aquilius. It repealed and superseded all earlier laws dealing with unlawful damage. The first section of this chapter explores the origin and the content of the lex Aquilia. The second section investigates the assessment of the sum of condemnation in lex Aquilia. The third section describes the nature of the actio legis aquiliae. The fourth section looks at the statutory definition of the delict as harmful result. The last section shares some reflections about causation in the Roman law of delict and the actio legis Aquiliae.

This chapter analyzes French tort law, which is characterized by its broad general principles. Only a few rules govern most of the law of extra-contractual liability and these are laid down in the Napoleonic Code civil (CC) of 1804, which is still in force. The main fault liability rule can be found in article 1382 CC (liability for one's own faute), but in cases of personal injury and property damage the strict liability rule of article 1384 al. 1 CC is much more important. This rule is developed by the Cour de cassation and establishes a strict liability for damage, caused by a thing (chose). The Cour de cassation also developed a general strict liability rule for damage caused by other persons, which supplements the more specific strict liability rules for parents (for damage caused by their children) and for employers (for damage caused by their employees). Hence, in France, in cases of personal injury and property loss, strict liability is the rule and fault liability the exception.

This chapter seeks to make a modest contribution to modern knowledge on wrongful damage to property by focusing on the slave as the object damaged or destroyed. It attempts to compile a ‘normative profile’ of the types of slave which the jurists envisaged in their exploration of the lex Aquilia, with a view to establishing whether such a focus better informs modern understanding of the Roman law of delict.

This chapter notes that the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to the designation of property damaged in the attacks as “sacred” by officials and others. This new designation was applied both to real property and to souvenirs of the attacks. Some of the objects in question were unremarkable, often nothing more than rubble. However, for those who possessed them, they seemed to have transcended such banal categorizations. This chapter examines the form of value created through destruction. It asks who lays claim to that value, to what purposes it is directed, how it attaches to material objects and land, and whether it overwhelms the usual legal understandings of property and ownership or can be subordinated to them.

This chapter considers the nature of liability to make reparation for losses caused by negligence. It focuses on the situation where losses have arisen as a result of personal injury or physical damage to property. The discussions cover the function of the law of negligence; constituent harm; the duty of care; breach of duty; reparation for losses; and remoteness of losses.

This chapter assesses how the effects of Hurricane Harvey in August of 2017 were especially painful for immigrant families, many of whom feared that reporting property damage and losses caused by the storm would draw negative attention from governmental authorities. The Kaiser Family Foundation published survey findings on the impact of Harvey on immigrants living along the Texas Gulf Coast. The findings show that immigrants with homes hit by Harvey reported feeling more worried about seeking help for storm-related damages than their native-born counterparts. About 34% of immigrants responded that they were very worried that reaching out for help would highlight their own or a family member’s status. Immigrants were also less likely to have flood or home insurance, or to apply for governmental disaster assistance. Notably, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s policies do not guarantee Disaster Unemployment Assistance to undocumented individuals. For these reasons, fear of disclosing immigration status may act as a barrier to immigrants seeking help and to broader efforts to ameliorate storm damage and safeguard health in the wake of natural disasters.

Chapter 15 provides an overview of economic forms of violence against women in politics. Economic violence employs economic hardship and deprivation as a means of control, most often by destroying a person’s property or harming their financial livelihood as a form of intimidation. Forms of economic violence include vandalism, property destruction, theft, extortion, raids to remove property, withholding of funds and resources, threats to terminate employment, withdrawal of financial support, and restrictions on access to funding. Despite direct links between economic violence and the ability of women to perform political functions, it remains a largely invisible phenomenon. Few women, indeed, appear willing to speak on the record about their experiences for fear of negative effects on their personal and professional livelihoods. Relative silence on these dynamics, in turn, means that few measures exist to address economic violence, with civil society largely filling the gap to provide emergency grants and accounting oversight.

This chapter focuses on Hurricane Agnes, which struck the United States in June of 1972 and affected the lives of tens of thousands of people from Florida to New York. The thirty-two trillion gallons of water that fell on New York and Pennsylvania caused devastation that left buildings and homes in ruins and property damage estimated to be in the billions of dollars. The flood also left some people homeless and some without electrical power, telephones, fresh drinking water, or sewers. Many were isolated from the outside world as roads and bridges collapsed or buckled due to flooding. Survival was the goal of the communities during the first seventy-two hours of the disaster. Political and economic recovery became the focus of civic leaders in the weeks after, but the trauma of that summer also called for psychological healing. Mired in mud and misery, bereft of property and employment, the people of New York and Pennsylvania looked to their local, state, and federal governments for help and answers.