A veszélyes üzemi felelősség jogtörténeti vizsgálata, különös tekintettel a bírói joggyakorlatra
The objective liability is still an actual question of the system of liability in the private law. There are different points of view in the legal literature whether the current system is based on a subjective or an objective liability. The doctrine of remedy is one of the most colourful and most an...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumentumtípus: | Cikk |
| Megjelent: |
2019
|
| Sorozat: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : forum : publicationes discipulorum iurisprudentiae
2 |
| Kulcsszavak: | Jogtörténet |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/70863 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | The objective liability is still an actual question of the system of liability in the private law. There are different points of view in the legal literature whether the current system is based on a subjective or an objective liability. The doctrine of remedy is one of the most colourful and most antinomic area of the private law, since several scholars’ opinion or propose can be read in this topic. However, such questions emerge constantly which put the systems of liability into new perspectives. The aim of the study is to present the formation of the liability for hazardous activities, its legal realisation and its judicial practice in the national legal system. I did my research in the Hungarian National Archives, in its Archive of Csongrád County, where I worked up the practice of the Royal Regional Court of Appeal of Szeged between 1930 and 1940. Structurally, the study may be divided into two parts. In the first part, I present the theoretical basics of the objective liability, I touch upon those principles interpreting it, refer shortly to the legal development in Europe and the importance of the Act XVIII of 1874. In the second chapter I examine the legal practice, how the courts reacted to the introduction of the liability for the hazardous activities. As a conclusion, the court applied the objective liability for the ‘classic’ hazardous activities very strictly in the examined period. By right of the presented cases it can be seen, that when the hazardousness of an activity had to, be stated from case to case, the legal practice was divergent. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 101-130 |
| ISSN: | 2560-2802 |