MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W312332631

The Availability of Punitive Damages in Europe: Growing Trend or Nonexistent Concept?

2007· article· en· W312332631 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Rouhette

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal principles and applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPunitive damagesLawRecklessnessDamagesPunishment (psychology)MaliceCivil law (Civil law)Criminal lawStrict liabilityLegal liabilityPolitical scienceCommon lawHarmLiabilityPublic lawPsychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Punishment of Theft and Other Trespasses If any man steal an ox or a sheep, and kill or sell it: he shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep. If that which he stole be found with him, alive, either ox, or ass, or sheep: he shall restore double. If a man deliver money, or any vessel unto his friend to keep, and they be stolen away from him that received them: if the thief be found, he shall restore double. To do any fraud, either in ox, or in ass, or sheep, or raiment, or any thing that may bring damage: the cause of both parties shall come to the gods: and if they give judgment, he shall restore double to his neighbour. (2) FORMERLY united in the same notion of private vengeance, civil and criminal liability progressively separated into two different subject matters: civil litigation and criminal law. The purpose of civil litigation being the compensation of the damage suffered by the victim while only the State could protect public order by punishing and preventing criminal offenses. If civil liability still has the role of compensating both in Civil Law and in Common Law countries, Common Law countries have conceived an institution halfway between Civil Law and Criminal Law, putting into question the separation between them. Thus, also known as exemplary are awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice or deceit, by way of penalizing the wrongdoer or making an example to others. (3) The institution of punitive damages appeared in England at the end of the eighteenth century (the first case dates to 1763). It then crossed the Atlantic Ocean and became an established part of the law of the United States, and at the same time, from England, it spread through all the countries of the Commonwealth. Punitive damages exist in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada. Despite the fact that they are criticized, limited, and controlled, their existence remains. On the contrary, punitive damages play an important role, especially in the United States, where they can be exceptionally high, notably in antitrust cases in the form of multiple damages, or in product liability cases. Globalization, and in particular the development of business relations between Europe and the United States, has raised the issue of the availability of punitive damages in Europe and especially the existence or the admission of this institution in the different legal systems of the European countries. (4) Therefore, we will address the question of the availability of punitive damages both in the domestic courts of the European countries and in the Community legislation. 1. Punitive Damages in Contract or Tort Actions in the Domestic Courts of the European Community Europe is divided into two different legal systems. The system of Common Law, exported by England throughout the Commonwealth, and the system of Civil Law, also called continental law. These two legal systems are so different that it is impossible to answer the question of the availability of punitive damages in Europe as a whole. The availability of punitive damages in Civil Law countries (1.1) will therefore be discussed, before studying the case of England and Wales (1.2). 1.1 Punitive Damages in Civil Law Countries When answering the question of whether punitive damages are allowed in the legal systems of the European countries, one first has to examine if such a concept already exists in their national laws. If it does not actually exist nor can a similar concept be found, then it is useful to determine whether or not the Private International Law rules of the European countries would accept the introduction of punitive damages. 1.1.1 Domestic Law The concept of punitive damages does not exist in Civil Law countries and therefore one can say that it is not available as a remedy; however, given the development of international trade and consequently international commercial litigation, the judges in the courts of the European countries have found themselves faced with U. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,014
Communication savante0,0140,016
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations123
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetLegal principles and applicationsTravaux en français237 207