Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:42:12.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2021

Paula Giliker
Paula Giliker*
Affiliation:
Professor of Comparative Law, University of Bristol (paula.giliker@bristol.ac.uk).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

Keywords

codificationtort lawreform of the French Civil Codelegal reasoninglegal scholarship
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 271 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article is based on a keynote speech delivered at a joint session of the Comparative and Tort Law subject sections at the 2019 Society of Legal Scholars conference. The author would like to thank the reviewers for the ICLQ for their helpful comments.

References

1 Cruz, P de, Comparative Law in a Changing World (3rd edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2007) 42Google Scholar. See also Zweigert, K and Kőtz, H, An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 1998) 181Google Scholar.

2 Albeit one helpful for those learning about comparative law or attempting to engage with civilian or common law legal systems for the first time.

3 For reasons of convenience and accessibility, this article will use the common law term ‘tort law’ to signify both common and civil law. This should not be taken to indicate that these areas of law are identical.

4 Lord Hodge, ‘The Scope of Judicial Law-making in the Common Law Tradition’, Lecture to the Max Planck Institute of Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg (28 October 2019) para 3.

5 A strong symbolic meaning: Halpérin, J-L, The French Civil Code (Routledge-Cavendish 2006)Google Scholar. See also G Canivet et al., Les Français et leur Code civil (Journal Officiel 2004).

6 The provisions of the Code civil were renumbered following reforms in 2016. Statutory additions include arts 1245–1245-17 implementing the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC on defective products and arts 1246–1252 implementing the loi n° 2016-1087 on compensation for ecological harm.

7 K Oliphant, ‘Rationalising Tort Law for the 21st Century’ in K Barker et al. (eds), Private Law in the 21st Century (Hart 2017) 66.

8 ‘The law must be accessible and, so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable’: Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law (Penguin Books 2011) 37.

9 Projet de réforme du droit de la responsabilité civile (Ministry of Justice 2017). These followed earlier reforms to the contract law section of the Civil Code: Ordonnance n° 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 (ratified by loi n°2018-287 of 20 April 2018). See, in English, Rowan, S, ‘The New French Law of Contract’ (2017) 66 ICLQ 805CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cartwright, J and Whittaker, S (eds), The Code Napoléon Rewritten: French Contract Law after the 2016 Reforms (Hart 2017)Google Scholar.

10 Weiss, GA, ‘The Enchantment of Codification in the Common Law World’ (2000) 25 YaleJIntlL 435Google Scholar. See also Stoljar, SJ, ‘Codification in the Common Law’ in Stoljar, SJ (ed), Problems of Codification (ANU Press 1977)Google Scholar.

11 Schofield, P and Harr, J (eds), Jeremy Bentham, ‘Legislator of the World’ Writings on Codification, Law and Education (Oxford University Press 1998)Google Scholar.

12 Section 3(1) Law Commissions Act 1965.

13 Steiner, E, ‘Challenging (again) the undemocratic Form of the Common Law: Codification as a Method of Making the Law Accessible to Citizens’ (2020) 31 KLJ 27, 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Stapleton, J, ‘Controlling the Future of the Common Law by Restatement’ in Madden, M Stuart (ed), Exploring Tort Law (Cambridge University Press 2005) 263–5Google Scholar and, classically, L Green, ‘The Torts Restatement’ (1934-1935) 29 IllLRev 582.

15 See Bussani, M and Infantino, M, ‘Harmonisation of Tort Law in Europe’ in Marciano, A and Ramello, GB (eds), Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics (Springer 2014)Google Scholar; Infantino, M, ‘Making European Tort Law: The Game and Its Players’ (2010) 18 CardozoJIntL&CompL 45Google Scholar.

16 Although some doubts have been expressed on this at European level, see N Jansen and R Zimmermann, ‘A European Civil Code in All but Name’ (2010) 69 CLJ 98, commenting on the European Commission's Draft Common Frame of Reference Project: C von Bar and E Clive (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (Oxford University Press 2010), Book VI of which covered non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another. More generally, see M Hesselink (ed), The Politics of a European Civil Code (Kluwer Law International 2006).

17 The literature is voluminous: in 2020 alone, on European harmonisation see eg M Hesselink, An Introduction to European Contract Law (Hart 2020); R Zimmermann, ‘The Significance of the Principles of European Contract Law’ (2020) 28 ERPL 487. On codification of common law contract and commercial law, see A Tettenborn, ‘Codifying Contracts—An Idea Whose Time has Come?’ (2014) 67 CLP 273; W Swain, ‘Contract Codification in Australia: Is It Necessary, Desirable and Possible?’ (2014) 36 SydLR 131; M Arden, ‘Time for an English Commercial Code?’ (1997) 56 CLJ 516; R Goode, ‘The Codification of Commercial Law’ (1986)14 MonLR 135.

18 This is a term that crosses legal systems; French law now adopts this term in preference to ‘bon père de famille’ which is regarded as inegalitarian: loi n°2014-873 of 4 August 2014.

19 G Wagner, ‘Comparative Tort Law’ in M Reimann and R Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 1013.

20 P Cane, ‘Taking Disagreement Seriously: Courts, Legislatures and the Reform of Tort Law’ (2005) 25 OJLS 393, 414.

21 Magnus comments that the precise scope of tort law ‘depends on the general attitude of the respective legal system towards the aims and functions of tort law’: U Magnus, ‘Tort Law in General’ in JM Smits (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2012) 878.

22 See Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] 2 AC 680, para 32 per Lord Nicholls.

23 For the influence of EU law in creating such liability see P Giliker (ed), Research Handbook on EU Tort Law (Edward Elgar 2017), notably K Stanton, ‘Financial Services and Regulation’ and M Stauch, ‘Data Protection Law’.

24 For example, the Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 and Defamation Acts of 1996 and 2013 of England and Wales.

25 I Griss, ‘How Judges Think: Judicial Reasoning in Tort Cases from a Comparative Perspective’ (2013) 4 JETL 247, 258. See also R Zimmermann, ‘Codification: History and Present Significance of an Idea’ (1995) 3 ERPL 95, 114: ‘a code has to be brought to life, and to be kept in tune with the changing demands of time by active and imaginative judicial interpretation and doctrinal elaboration’.

26 J-E-M. Portalis, ‘Discours préliminaire’ in PA Fenet, Recueil complet des travaux préparatoires du Code civil (t1, Videcoq 1830) 464ff. This is despite the fact art 5, Code civil forbids judges (in the cases that are referred to them) to make general and regulatory dispositions.

27 V Fon and F Parisi, ‘Judicial Precedents in Civil Law Systems: A dynamic analysis’ (2006) 26 International Review of Law and Economics 519.

28 B Rudden, ‘Torticles’ (1991–1992) 6-7 Tulane Civil Law Forum 105, 110.

29 D Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford University Press 1999) 178.

30 F Pollock, The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations Arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (Stevens & Sons 1887).

31 J Murphy, ‘The Heterogeneity of Tort Law’ (2019) 39 OJLS 455, 482.

32 This does not mean that attempts are not made to provide theories of common law tort, see, for example, R Stevens, Torts and Rights (Oxford University Press 2007); E Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law (Harvard University Press 1995), but these remain at the theory stage: for criticism, see: J Goudkamp and J Murphy, ‘The Failure of Universal Theories of Tort Law’ (2016) 22 Legal Theory 1. Weir's memorable critique therefore remains: ‘Tort is what is in the tort books, and the only thing holding it together is their binding’: T Weir, An Introduction to Tort Law (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 2006) ix.

33 Rudden (n 28) 127–9.

34 A D'Amato, ‘Legal Uncertainty’ (1983) 71 CLR 1, 38.

35 M Siems, Comparative Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2018) 51. The term ‘codification’ represents the methodology; ‘code’ the graphic expression of the written law: E Steiner, French Law: A Comparative Approach (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 27. The term ‘code’ can be traced back to the Latin codex meaning a compilation of statutory law. Codification as we know it today, however, originated in late 17th and 18th century legal science: Zimmermann (n 25) 98.

36 C Varga, Codification as a Socio-Historical Phenomenon (2nd edn, Szent István Társulat 2011) 27.

37 A Tunc, ‘The Grand Outlines of the Code’ (1955) 29 TulLRev 431, 435–41.

38 See FF Stone, ‘A Primer on Codification’ (1955) 29 TulLRev 303, 305–6.

39 JH Merryman and R Pérez-Perdomo, The Civil Law Tradition (4th edn, Stanford University Press 2019) 28–31. For ideological and intellectual differences between the French and Germanic legal traditions, see RC Van Caenegem, Judges, Legislators and Professors (rev edn, Cambridge University Press 2006).

40 JC Rivera, ‘The Scope and Structure of Civil Codes’ in JC Rivera (ed), The Scope and Structure of Civil Codes (Springer 2013) 8.

41 This is, as Siems notes, a generalisation and codes as old as the French Civil Code of 1804 will inevitably lose their deductive ‘power’ unless updated: M Siems, ‘Comparative Legal Certainty: Legal Families and Forms of Measurement’ in M Fenwick, M Siems and S Wrbka, The Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty in Comparative and Transnational Law (Hart 2017) 115, 121.

42 See CM Germain, ‘Approaches to Statutory Interpretation and Legislative History in France’ (2003) 13 DukeJComp&IntlL 195.

43 See J Bell, Judiciaries Within Europe (Cambridge University Press 2006) 69.

44 Steiner (n 35) 25.

45 J Bell, French Legal Cultures (Butterworths 2001) 56.

46 Bell (n 43) 73.

47 Consider, for example, the French Code de commerce that has been described as a compilation of statutes on different subjects including insolvency and company law: J-S Borghetti, ‘French Law’ in Rivera (n 40).

48 D Tallon, ‘Codification and Consolidation of the Law at the Present time’ (1979) 14 IsraelLRev 1, 3. One can contrast, therefore, substantive codifications with ‘administrative’ codifications that bear a closer resemblance to common law consolidation.

49 E Steiner, ‘Codification in England: The Need to Move from an Ideological to a Functional Approach—A Bridge Too Far’ (2004) 25 StatLR 209, 212. Note, in particular, the work of the Commission Supérieure de Codification established by Décret n°89-647 of 12 September 1989: <https://www.gouvernement.fr/commission-superieure-de-codification>.

50 Note a different meaning again at EU level: Council of EU, ‘Concept of Codification and Consolidation at the EU Level – Explanatory Note’ (23 June 2014): see <https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/recasting_en.htm>.

51 Siems (n 35) 53. On the influence of Karl Llewellyn in the drafting of the UCC, see S Herman, ‘The Fate and Future of Codification in America’ 40 AmJLegalHist (1996) 407, 427–32, who notes, nonetheless, differences from continental civil codes.

52 A Diamond, ‘Codification of the Law of Contract’ (1968) 31 MLR 361, reporting a private conversation at 379 with Denis Tallon.

53 See eg Re Wait [1927] 1 Ch 606, 616–617 and 630–631, CA; Stevenson v Rogers [1999] QB 1028, 1040, CA.

54 E McKendrick, ‘Sale of Goods’ in AS Burrows (ed), Principles of English Commercial Law (Oxford University Press 2015) para 2.02.

55 Although, along with commentary, it was included as an appendix to early editions of his textbook: Pollock's The Law of Torts. See N Duxbury, Frederick Pollock and the English Juristic Tradition (Oxford University Press 2004) 25.

56 See W Swain, ‘Contract Codification and the English: Some Observations from the Indian Contract Act 1872’ in J Devenney and M Kenny (eds), The Transformation of European Private Law (Cambridge University Press 2013) 172, who notes that attempts to extend Indian codification to England were unsuccessful: 191.

57 Diamond (n 52) 362.

58 Note also the strong debate in the nineteenth-century United States and, in particular, the work of David Dudley Field, outlined in AP Morriss, ‘Codification and Right Answers’ (1999) 74 Chic-KentLRev 355.

59 Z Bankowski and DN MacCormick, ‘Statutory Interpretation in the United Kingdom’ in DN MacCormick and RS Summers (eds), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (Dartmouth Publishing 1991) 362.

60 Section 3(1). See PM North, ‘Problems of Codification in a Common Law System’ (1982) 46 RabelsZ 490.

61 Family law has also been contemplated: see S Cretney, ‘The Codification of Family Law’ (1981) 44 MLR 1.

62 H McGregor, Contract Code: Drawn up on behalf of the English Law Commission (Guiffré 1993). In 1972 the Commission suspended work on the code and decided to adopt a topic-by-topic approach.

63 See S Wilson Stark, The Work of the British Law Commissions: Law Reform … Now? (Hart 2017) 166–9. The failure of the McGregor Code is chronicled in JH Farrar, ‘Law Reform Now: A Comparative View’ (1976) 25 ICLQ 214 which included opposition from the Scottish Law Commission (which withdrew from the project in 1971).

64 The Act is based on Law Com Report n°382, The Sentencing Code: A Report (2018).:

65 The government envisages that the Sentencing Code will ‘provide much needed clarity, reducing errors and restoring faith that the law is being applied correctly’: Press release, ‘Sentencing Code Granted Royal Assent’ 22 October 2020 per Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland QC.

66 H O'Sullivan and D Ormerod, ‘Time for a Code: Reform of Sentencing Law in England and Wales’ (2017) 19 EJLR 285, 304.

67 M Hogg, ‘Codification of Private Law: Scots Law at the Crossroads of Common and Civil Law’ in Barker (n 7) 113. See also FH Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law (Oxford University Press 1953) 66–9. For an overview of the difference styles of statutory interpretation, see RS Summers and M Taruffo, ‘Interpretation and Comparative Analysis’ in MacCormick and Summers, Interpreting Statutes (n 59).

68 W Swain, ‘Predicting the Direction of Australian Contract Law in the Next 25 years’ in Barker (n 7) 94. See also R Goff, ‘The Future of the Common Law’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 745, 753 who observed that common lawyers tend to avoid large, abstract, statutory generalisations of private law in favour of principles gradually emerging from concrete cases as they are decided.

69 H Kötz, ‘Taking Civil Codes Less Seriously’ (1987) 50 MLR 1, 15.

70 Rivera (n 40) 16.

71 See arts 1385 and 1386 of the 1804 Code (now arts 1243 and 1244). Arts 1382–1386 of the 1804 Code civil were renumbered 1240–1244 in 2016.

72 J Bell, S Boyron and S Whittaker, Principles of French Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 361–2.

73 Ch réun 13 February 1930 (Jand'heur) DP 1930.1.57 note G Ripert, rapport Le Marc'hadour; S 1930.1.121 note P Esmein.

74 Cass. Civ. 16 June 1896 (Teffaine) S 1897.1.17 note A Esmein; D 1897.1.433 note R Saleilles.

75 See eg Ass plén 9 May 1984 (Fullenwarth) D 1984.533, JCP 1984 II 20255.

76 See (n 73).

77 Then art 1384(1) which introduces a number of specific strict liability provisions. A Code of 1804 unsurprisingly made no provision for motor vehicle accidents.

78 Principles of French Law (n 72) 382. The concept of strict liability for damage caused by objects under your use, direction and control (fait des choses) has survived despite subsequent legislation introducing a strict liability statutory regime for motor vehicle accidents.

79 See M Josselin-Gall, ‘La responsabilité du fait d'autrui sur le fondement de l'article 1384(1): Une théorie génèrale est-elle possible ?’ JCP 2000.I.268.

80 Ass plén 29 March 1991 D 1991.324 note C. Larroumet, somm. 324 obs. J-L Aubert.

81 See, for example, Civ. 2e, 22 May 1995 JCP 1995, II, 22550, note C Mouly.

82 Note also special tort regimes created by statute (see below). See F Leduc, ‘Le droit de la responsabilité civile hors le code civil’ LPA 6 July 2005; Ministry of Justice, Projet de réforme du droit de la responsabilité civile (Dossier de Presse 2017) 1.

83 It is not, therefore, simply a codification à droit constant but one which seeks to innovate: F Terré, P Simler, Y Lequette and F Chénedé, Droit Civil: Les Obligations (12th edn, Dalloz 2019) n°1030.

84 As Kennefick ably describes, the French equivalent of the English tort of nuisance (troubles de voisinage) is a judicial, not codal, creation: C Kennefick, ‘Nuisance and Coming to the Nuisance’ in J-S Borghetti and S Whittaker (eds), French Civil Liability in Comparative Perspective (Hart 2019) 224.

85 The translations used in this article are taken from the excellent translation of Simon Whittaker and Jean-Sébastien Borghetti: see <http://www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/textes-soumis-a-concertation-10179/projet-de-reforme-de-la-responsabilite-civile-traduit-en-anglais-30553.html>.

86 Renumbered art 1242 in 2016. This imposes strict liability on parents for their children (1242(4)) and employers for their employees (1242(5)).

87 Physical or legal persons are to be held strictly liable if charged by judicial or administrative decision with organising and controlling (i) the minor's way of life on a permanent basis or (ii) the adult's way of life on a permanent basis. This is noticeably a far more precise test than that stated in Blieck. Contrast art 1248 (dealing with persons who, by contract and by way of business or profession, undertake supervision or organisation and control of another person) which is less than clear; Häcker arguing that in trying to cover too much in one article, coherence is lost: B Häcker, ‘Fait d'autrui in Comparative Perspective’ in Borghetti and Whittaker (n 84) 157–9.

88 Ass plén 13 December 2002 D.2003.231 note P Jourdain. Parental liability for their children is set out in art 1242(4) of the Code civil and art 1246 of the reforms.

89 See Steiner (n 35) 266–8; Terré et al. (n 83) n°s1089–1091.

90 Art 1241 states in French, ‘On est responsible du dommage causé par sa faute’.

91 See arts 1243–1249.

92 Art 1235: ‘Any certain loss is reparable where it results from harm and consists of an injury to a lawful interest, whether patrimonial or extra-patrimonial.’

93 Arts 1235–1238.

94 Arts 1267–1280.

95 See D Leczykiewicz, ‘Loss and Its Compensation in the Proposed New French Regime’ and P Sirena, ‘The Concepts of “Harm” in the French and Italian Laws of Civil Liability’ in Borghetti and Whittaker (n 84).

96 See F Leduc, ‘Faut-il distinguer le dommage et le préjudice?: point de vue privatiste’ RCA 2010, 3, dossier no 3. One might also flag use of the term ‘lawful interest’ (intérêt licite) in art 1235 which is not used by the majority of legal commentators.

97 To implement the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC. See arts 1245–1245-17 Code civil, although these provisions would be expanded under the reform.

98 For a brief overview of the interplay among social security, direct private insurance, the tort system, and compensation funds in France, see G Viney, Traité de droit civil. L'introduction à la responsabilité (3rd edn, LGDJ 2008) n°s 27–32.

99 Arts 1285–1288 but extended to trams and railways. It is currently found in a separate statute: loi Badinter n° 85-677 of 5 July 1985. See, generally, A Tunc, ‘La loi française du 5 juillet 1985 sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'accidents de la circulation’ (1985) 37 RIDC 1019.

100 See art L.3122-1 Public Health Code (victims of HIV) and art L.1221-14 Public Health Code, introduced by loi n° 2008-1330 of 17 December 2008 (victims of Hepatitis C).

101 Art L.3111-9 Public Health Code.

102 Art L 3131-4 Public Health Code. Nor is any attempt made to include the reforms to medical liability introduced by loi n° 2002-303 of 4 March 2002 which remain in the Public Health Code.

103 See, generally, J Knetsch, Le droit de la responsabilité et les fonds d'indemnisation (LGDJ 2013).

104 Art L597-1ff Code de l'environnement.

105 For unanswered questions and uncertainties created by the 2016 reforms to the contract provisions of the Code civil: see S Rowan, ‘The New French Law of Contract’ (2017) 66 ICLQ 805.

106 Or even sentiment: consider strict liability for the acts of things (art 1243) which retains a place in the projet despite being largely overtaken by other strict liability measures and not being adopted by other civil law systems.

107 See J-S Borghetti and S Whittaker, ‘Principles of Liability or a Law of Torts?’ in Borghetti and Whittaker (n 84) 459–60.

108 eg ecological/environmental damage was inserted into the Code civil in 2016 (arts 1246–1252 following the Biodiversity Law n°2016-1087 of 8 August 2016).

109 See J-S Borghetti, ‘The Culture of Tort Law in France’ (2012) 3 JETL 158.

110 Art 1233-1 also removes the principle of non-accumulation of actions (non-cumul) for personal injury victims. The principle of non-accumulation of actions in French law has led to distinctions which are difficult to justify eg the victim of medical negligence is compensated differently depending on whether she had been a private patient (contract) or in a public hospital (tort).

111 Arts 1267–1277.

112 Y-M Laithier, ‘The Relationship between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Liability’ in Borghetti and Whittaker (n 84) 52.

113 See, notably, C Bloch, La cessation de l'illicite – Recherche sur une fonction méconnue de la responsabilité civile extracontractuelle (thèse Aix-Marseille III 2008). It was also part of earlier reform proposals, see F Terré, Pour une réforme du droit de la responsabilité civile (Dalloz 2011) which gave it considerable prominence, placing prevention of harm at art 2 of the proposals.

114 See eg art 835(1), Code of Civil Procedure (modified in 2019) on the référé procedure.

115 ‘In extra-contractual matters, independently of any reparation of loss which may have been suffered, a court may prescribe reasonable measures appropriate to prevent harm or to see that an unlawful nuisance to which a claimant is exposed is stopped.’ See also art 1244(2) [abnormal nuisance between neighbours] which permits the court to order reasonable measures which require a nuisance between neighbours to be stopped.

116 Art 1266-1: ‘… in extra-contractual matters, where the author of the harm has deliberately committed a fault with the view to making a gain or to saving money, a court may, at the request of the victim or the ministère public and by specially justified decision, condemn him to the payment of a civil penalty’. See also art 1266-1(5).

117 Art 1266-1(6).

118 Art 1266-1(2): Such a penalty is proportionate to the seriousness of the fault committed, to the ability to pay of the author of the harm, and to any profits which he may have made from it.

119 A further goal of the reforms was to try when possible to establish rules of responsabilité civile (civil liability) removing the need to distinguish between contractual and tortious remedies. This had mixed success eg arts 1266 and 1266-1 apply to tort only.

120 See P Giliker, ‘Injunctions Requiring the Cessation of Unlawful Action’ in Borghetti and Whittaker (n 84); Lord Sumption in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13; [2014] AC 822, para 161.

121 Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd [1970] AC 652.

122 See, for example, Y Lambert-Faivre, (1998) ‘L’éthique de la responsabilité’ RTDciv 1, 19 and J-S Borghetti, ‘Punitive Damages in France’ in H Koziol and V Wilcox (eds), Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009). However, this position has been subject to debate since the mid-1990s, see, for example, S Carval, ‘Vers l'introduction en droit français de dommages-intérêts punitifs?’ RDC 2006.822.

123 F Rousseau, ‘Projet de réforme de la responsabilité civile: L'amende civile face aux principes directeurs du droit pénal’ (2018) JCP doctrine 686.

124 M-A Chardeaux, ‘L'amende civile’ LPA 30 January 2018 No 132 (does the provision satisfy the principe de légalité under art. 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man?). See, for example, Cons. const., 13 January 2011, n° 2010-85 QPC, JCP G 2011, 274, note D Mainguy concerning the award of l'amende civile for anti-competitive practices under art L.442-6 III, Commercial Code.

125 See comments of L'Association Française des Juristes d'Entreprise (31 May 2018): <https://www.lemondedudroit.fr/institutions/58508-afje-contribue-reforme-droit-responsabilite-civile.html>. See S Carval, ‘L'amende civile’, JCP G supplément n°30-35 25 July 2016, 42, para 4.

126 Commission des Lois, ‘Responsabilité civile: 23 propositions pour faire aboutir une réforme anoncée’ Rapport No 663 (2019-2020), 22 July 2020.

127 In 2016, traffic accidents were the fifth cause of death in the EU: Statista <https://www.statista.com/statistics/722823/mortality-rate-in-the-eu-from-various-causes/>.

128 J Teasdale, ‘Codification: A Civil Law Solution to a Common Law Conundrum’ (2017) 19 EJLR 247, 247.

129 J Bell and D Ibbetson, European Legal Development: The Case of Tort (Cambridge University Press 2012) 5.

130 See, for example, P Jestaz and C Jamin, La Doctrine (Legal Scholarship) (Dalloz 2004); and ‘The Entity of French Doctrine: Some Thoughts on the Community of French Legal Writers’ (1998) 18 LS 415.

131 ibid 9, 173.

132 R Sacco, ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law’ (1991) 39 AmJCompL 343, 346–7.

133 L Josserand, De la responsabilité du fait des choses inanimées (Librairie nouvelle de droit et de jurisprudence 1897). For a more contemporary take, see J-S Borghetti, ‘La responsabilité du fait des choses, un régime qui a fait son temps’ RTD Civ 2010.1.

134 P-G Jobin, ‘L'influence de la doctrine française sur le droit civil québécois’ (1992) 44 RIDC 381. See also G Helleringer, ‘Judicial Melodies and Scholarly Harmonies – The Music of French Legal Interpretation’ (2013) 77 RabelsZ 345 who describes scholars and judges as a ‘cantankerous couple’ interpreting legal rules together. For German law, see S Vogenauer, ‘An Empire of Light? II: Learning and Law-making in Germany Today’ (2006) 26 OJLS 627.

135 (n 134) 354.

136 M Billiau, ‘La doctrine et les codes – Quelques réflexions d'un civiliste français’ (2005) 46 Les Cahiers de droit 445, 460 (my translation).

137 See A Braun, ‘The English Codification Debate and the Role of Jurists in the Development of Legal Doctrines’ in M Lobban and J Moses (eds), The Impact of Ideas on Legal Development (Cambridge University Press 2012) highlighting the impact of informal, in addition to formal, sources. Braun adds, however, that the late development of negligence law may also be a reason why codification was never seriously contemplated in this field: 224.

138 ibid 204.

139 See Lord Wright, ‘The Study of Law’ (1938) 54 LQR 185, 186.

140 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 560 being the classic example. ‘That courts make law is nowhere more obvious than tort law in common law systems, especially in that most open-textured and therefore voracious tort: negligence’: Stapleton (n 14) 263.

141 See Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552.

142 See eg section 2: Justification and, to a large extent, section 3: Honest Opinion.

143 For a recent example, see Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23; [2020] 1 WLR 2455 on section 4.

144 See Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, although modified by section 1.

145 See sections 19, 42 and 54, Here the minimum harmonisation nature of the relevant EU directives facilitated the ‘common law way’.

146 AS Burrows, ‘The Relationship between Common Law and Statute in the Law of Obligations’ (2012) 128 LQR 232, 233.

147 Building on Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB).

148 Reynolds v Times Newspapers plc [2001] 2 AC 127.

149 Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; [2020] AC 612 (section 1 serious harm test); Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23 (s.4). For a critical overview, see A Mullis and A Scott, ‘Tilting at Windmills: The Defamation Act 2013’ (2014) 77 MLR 87.

150 See, for example, Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL 47; [2004] 1 AC 46.

151 P Cane, ‘Reforming Tort Law in Australia: A Personal Perspective’ (2003) 27 MULR 649.

152 See Explanatory Notes to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, para 6, citing a 2007 survey and political commitments following the 2010 general election. Morris argues, however, that such fears are exaggerated; A Morris, ‘Spiralling or Stabilising? The Compensation Culture and Our Propensity to Claim Damages for Personal Injury’ (2007) 70 MLR 349.

153 M Lunney, ‘Common Law Codification: Lessons and Warnings from Twenty-First Century Australia’ (2019) 10 JETL 183, 206.

154 Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] 1 WLR 835.

155 Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966.

156 M Jones (ed), Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (23rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2020) para 8-184.

157 R Mulheron, ‘Legislating Dangerously: Bad Samaritans, Good Society and the Heroism Act 2015’ (2017) 80 MLR 88. See also J Goudkamp, ‘Restating the Common Law? The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015’ (2017) 37 LS 577.

158 See Commonwealth of Australia, Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report (Canberra 2002). See R Davis, ‘The Tort Reform Crisis’ (2002) 25 UNSWLJ 865. In New South Wales, for example, the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) introduced significant changes to negligence liability, regulating matters such as personal injury damages, mental harm, public authority liability and the civil liability of good Samaritans and volunteers.

159 (1980) 146 CLR 40, 47–48.

160 Ipp Report (n 158) [7.14]. See also B McGivern and P Handford, ‘Two Problems of Occupiers’ Liability’ (2015) 39 MULR 507, 514: ‘One of the most stringent criticisms made of the law of negligence (as it had come to be applied) was in relation to the approach to standard of care and breach of duty determinations.’

161 Ipp Report (n 158) [7.17].

162 Commentators have also suggested a correct reading of Shirt should not, in any event, have given rise to excessive liability: B McDonald, ‘The Impact of the Civil Liability Legislation on Fundamental Principles and Policies of the Common Law of Negligence’ (2006) 14 TLJ 268, 272–5.

163 See Shaw v Thomas [2010] NSWCA 169; Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 319 (CA).

164 B McDonald, ‘Teaching Torts: Where to Start in an Age of Statutes?’ (2010) 18 TLJ 173.

165 This is contrary to the strong recommendation of the Ipp Report that uniform civil liability legislation be introduced across the different Australian jurisdictions.

166 The ‘duty of care’ concept being an obvious omission which remains subject to the general common law of Australia.

167 See Cane (n 151) 665–7. The Ipp Panel was given two months to conduct a review of the entire tort of negligence which gave it very limited opportunity for wider consultation.

168 Lady Hale, ‘Legislation or Judicial Law Reform: Where Should Judges Fear to Tread?’ Lecture at the 2016 Society of Legal Scholars conference (7 September 2016) 14.

169 Law Commission of England and Wales, Report n°249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness (1998).

170 See White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455, Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194, [2014] QB 15, para 24. Note similar issues in vicarious liability where, despite six Supreme Court decisions since 2012, uncertainty continues to exist: see J Lee, ‘The Supreme Court, Vicarious Liability and the Grand Old Duke of York’ (2020) 136 LQR 553.

171 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] AC 736.

172 Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, [2019] AC 831.

173 A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6.

174 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22.

175 Mental harm being the classic example.

176 Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, [2016] AC 677, para 54 (Lord Dyson). See also Lord Neuberger, ‘Some Thoughts on Principles Governing the Law of Torts’ (2016) 23 TLJ 89.

177 See AWB Simpson, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Legal Treatise: Legal Principles and the Forms of Legal Literature’ (1981) 48 UChiLRev 632. Simpson notes that some attempts were made to adopt a style similar to codification, but these were soon abandoned: 666–7. For early examples of treatises, see F Hilliard, The Law of Tort or Private Wrongs (Little, Brown & Co 1859) and T Addison, A Treatise on the Law of Torts or Wrongs and their Remedies (Stevens & Sons 1860).

178 Braun (n 137) 219.

179 Varga (n 36) 161.

180 A Rodger, ‘The Codification of Commercial Law in Victorian England’ (1992) 108 LQR 570, 589.

181 J Goudkamp and D Nolan, ‘Pioneers, Consolidators and Iconoclasts: The Story of Tort Scholarship’ in J Goudkamp and D Nolan (eds), Scholars of Tort Law (Hart 2019). They acknowledge that this division is not watertight eg Fleming's nine editions of The Law of Torts have been described as a short treatise: 19.

182 H Beale (ed), Chitty on Contracts (33rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2019).

183 Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (n 156).

184 J Goudkamp and D Nolan, Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts (20th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2020). Note also R Mulheron, Principles of Tort Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2020) whose ambitious textbook seeks to tease out general principles of tort law.

185 The Commission also benefits from membership drawn from academia and practice. The Chair of the Commission is either a High Court or an Appeal Court judge, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice for up to three years.

186 See, for example, Lord Neuberger in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] AC 467, para 170; Australian Chief Justice, S Kiefel, ‘The Academy and the Courts: What Do They Mean to Each Other Today?’ Australian Academy of Law Patron's Address, Brisbane (31 October 2019).

187 Law Commission Report n°249, Liability for Psychiatric Illness (1998).

188 Law Commission Report n°270, Limitation of Actions (2001).

189 N Andrews, Contract Rules: Decoding English Law (Intersentia 2016) vii.

190 J Gordley, ‘European Codes and American Restatements; Some Difficulties’ (1981) 81 ColumLRev 140, 142.

191 <https://www.ali.org/about-ali/>. The ALI also collaborates with the Uniform Law Commission to develop and monitor the Uniform Commercial Code, which addresses most aspects of commercial law.

192 eg Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998).

193 (Oxford University Press 1st edn, 2016, 2nd edn, 2020). See also A Burrows, A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment (Oxford University Press 2012).

194 Contrast with the ALI that has a membership of up to 4,000.

195 Burrows (n 193)., ix.

196 Part 1, 2, for example, defines ‘contract’ as: ‘an agreement that is legally binding because – (a) it is supported by consideration or made by deed (see s. 8); (b) it is certain and complete (see section 9); (c) it is made with the intention to create legal relations (see s. 10); and (d) it complies with any formal requirement needed for the agreement to be legally binding (see s. 11(2)(a)).’

197 Andrews (n 189). The style is noticeably more civilian in nature.

198 Freedom of Contract; Objectivity; pacta sunt servanda; Estoppel; Good Faith and Fair Dealing: arts 1–5.

199 K Kühnel-Fitchen, ‘Review’ (2018) 22 EdinLR 176.

200 Note also the work in commercial law by McMeel who is currently seeking to draft a restatement of commercial law by 2025 with feedback sought from judges, practitioners and academics. See G McMeel, ‘Are There Any General Principles of Commercial Law?’ in C Mitchell and S Watterson (eds), The World of Maritime and Commercial Law (Hart 2020).

201 Leggatt, G, ‘Review’ (2017) 133 LQR 521Google Scholar.

202 See Zimmermann, R, ‘The Present State of European Private Law’ (2009) 57 AmJCompL 479, 480–4Google Scholar; Liebman, L, ‘The American Law Institute: A Model for the New Europe?’ in Cafaggi, F and Muir-Watt, H (eds), Making European Private Law: Governance Design (Edward Elgar 2008) 209ffGoogle Scholar.

203 European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law (Springer 2005).

204 J Spier, ‘Introduction’ ibid, 15. See, generally, Koch, BA, ‘The “European Group on Tort Law” and Its “Principles of European Tort Law”’ (2005) 53 AmJCompL 189Google Scholar.

205 The PETL have been cited by courts in Spain, Italy, Lithuania and Portugal: <http://www.egtl.org/materials.html>.

206 (n 16).

207 Bar, C von (ed), Principles of European Law: Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another (Oxford University Press 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Consider also the foundational work of von Bar, C, The Common European Law of Torts I and II (Oxford University Press 1998 and 2000)Google Scholar which sought to discover common elements of the law of torts of all EU Member States founded on the belief that the approximation of European laws should not be left to the directives and regulations of Brussels alone.

208 See Lando, O and Beale, H (eds), Principles of European Contract Law (Kluwer Law International 2000)Google Scholar and Zimmermann, R, ‘Principles of European Contract Law and Principles of European Tort Law: Comparison and Points of Contact’ in Koziol, H and Steininger, B (eds), European Tort Law Yearbook 2002 (Springer 2003)Google Scholar.

209 See J Blackie, ‘Tort/Delict in the Work of the European Civil Code Project of the Study Group on a European Civil Code’ in R Zimmermann (ed), Grundstrukturen des Europäischen Deliktsrechts. (Nomos 2003).

210 See (n 170) above.

211 J Stapleton, Lecture 1 of the 2018 Clarendon Lectures, ‘Taking the Judges Seriously’, now published as Three Essays on Torts (OUP 2021); McKee, D, ‘The Responsibility of Common Law Scholarship: A Case Study’ (2016) 118 RevNotariat 283, 286Google Scholar.

212 See, for example, Mulheron (n 184) xxvi, who, in the Preface to her textbook, identifies as key characteristics of tort law: pockets of uncertainty, unsettled law and appellate judgments that differ.

213 Neuberger (n 176) 90.

214 (80th edn, CH Beck 2021).

215 (6th edn, Casa Editrice La Tribuna 2020).

216 Cane (n 20).

217 Priel, D, ‘“That Is Not How the Common Law Works”: Paths to Tort Liability for Harassment’ (2021) 52 Ottawa L Rev 87, 131Google Scholar.

218 These are case commentaries that follow reported cases that not only explain the decision, but its significance more generally within the legal system. Given the brevity of many French decisions, these play a vital role in French law in explaining the reasoning underlying the court's decision. Consider, for example, the notes by leading French scholars Esmein and Saleilles in the Teffaine case: Cass. Civ. 16 June 1896 S 1897.1.17 note A Esmein ; D 1897.1.433 note R Saleilles.

219 One might usefully compare the Recueil Dalloz with, for example, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Both are excellent but engaged with different types of legal scholarship.

220 See also A Burrows, ‘Challenges for Private Law in the Twenty-First Century’ in Barker (n 7) 40 and Birks, P, ‘The Academic and the Practitioner’ (1998) 18 LS 397, 399–400Google Scholar.

221 For example, the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) ranks work which is outstandingly novel and game-changing above work that contributes to incremental and cumulative advances in knowledge.