Book Review: Unification of Tort Law: Causation
| Date | 01 June 2001 |
| Published date | 01 June 2001 |
| Author | Marc van Quickenborne |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X0100800208 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
Book Reviews
8 MJ 2 (2001) 221
J. Spier (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: causation, Kluwer Law
International, 2000, viii + 161 pages, hardback.
This book forms part of the series Principles of European Tort law, and deals more
specifically with the law of causation in tort law, i.e. the causal link between the
wrongful act (or any other event that entails someone's liability) and the damage.
The book starts with an introductory chapter which outlines the various aspects to be
discussed from a comparative viewpoint. It continues with several country reports,
where outstanding scholars from Austria (H. Koziol), Belgium (H. Cousy and A.
Vanderspikken), England (W.V. Horton Rogers), France (S. Galand-Carval), Germany
(U. Magnus), Greece (K.D. Kerameus), Italy (F.D. Busnelli and G. Comande), South
Africa (J. Neethling), Switzerland (P. Widmer), the United States of America (G.T.
Schwartz) answer all the questions posed in the introductory chapter.
On the basis of all these materials, J. Spier and O. Haazen finally draw the conclusions
from the viewpoint of a comparatist.
One understands that the importance and relevance of the book depend heavily on the
relevance of the introductory questionnaire, which sets the limits of the discussion. Inte-
resting questions about basic topics of causation invite interesting answers, and give us
a clear picture of ‘causality at work’. The great merit of the questionnaire (and of the
authors who drafted it) is that it contains only interesting questions, and that it contains
nearly all the interesting questions that can be raised in this connection.
The first part of the questionnaire deals with theory. I repeat the questions. (1) Is a
causal relation required at all, and, if so, should one answer the causal question in a one
or in a two step approach? (2) Assuming that a two step approach is adopted, what are
the relevant criteria which are operative in the second step: (reasonable) foreseeability,
remoteness, probability, adequacy, common sense and/or policy arguments,
reasonableness, (temporal) proximity, causa proxima, disproportion in severity between
two concurrent wrongful acts, protective purpose of the violated rule? (3) Is there
specific legislation establishing rules for causation in particular areas? (4) What is the
borderline between causation and other concepts which play an important role in tort
law, such as e.g. fault, damages and the scope of the protective rule?
The second part of the questionnaire contains 24 concrete cases, that subject every
theory of causality to a serious test (except perhaps the first case). These cases are
moreover not purely academic, and many of them have been presented before the
courts. They constitute therefore an excellent touchstone for the different conceptions of
causality. The cases are concerned, successively, with single event occurrences when
the damage is due to the fault of only one wrongdoer (defendant), intervening events
when the damage is due to the fault of the defendant together with a natural event, the
To continue reading
Request your trial