Insurance: Defenses of Liability Insurer against Third Party Injured by Assured under Statute Giving Injured Party Right of Action against Insurer: Constitutionality

1942 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 600 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Injured Party

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Part III Capacity and Parties, 9 Third Parties and Co-Parties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrews Neil
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Technical Rules

An agreement to confer a benefit on a third party is not actionable by the third party at Common Law. Statute has now intervened to modify the position: (i) a direct right of action can be expressly conferred on a named or identifiable third party; (ii) the contract can create by implication such a right, exercisable by a third party, if the contract `purports to confer a benefit’ on such a person. The statute has been examined in the courts and some subtleties have emerged. Claims by parties on behalf of third parties are also considered in this chapter. There is the distinct context in which a promise is made to more than one party, who are known as co-promisees. These technical rules are examined.

19. Vicarious Liability

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Independent Contractors ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Cost

Vicarious liability is liability imposed on an employer to a third party for the tort of his employee committed in the course of employment. Vicarious liability is another instance of stricter liability in the sense that the employer who is not at fault is made responsible for the employee’s default. It thereby gives the injured party compensation from the person who is better able to pay and spread the cost of the injury, namely the employer. Anyone who wishes to hold an employer vicariously liable must prove: that the offender was his employee; that he committed a tort; and that he committed it in the course of his employment. This chapter discusses each of this in turn. It also considers the Contribution between employer and employee; liability for the torts of independent contractors; and the changing contours of employers’ liability.

A Gloss to the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 26 July 2017 (III CZP 30/17) concerning the Exclusive Fault of a Third Party as an Exonerating Circumstance

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (102) ◽  
pp. 79-91
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Serwach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Absolute Certainty ◽  
Subjective Criterion ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Sound Mind

In the said Resolution, the Supreme Court held that in order for a person running an enterprise or an establishment which are set in motion by natural forces to be effectively released from liability, it was not necessary to identify an entity in question (Article 435 of the Polish Civil Code). It was sufficient to demonstrate that the person in question was of sound mind, i.e. unlikely to be found guilty. According to the Supreme Court, such a flexible interpretation was supported by both systemic reasons and the fact that the liability based on Article 435 of the Civil Code was very strict. It was a question of the increased danger linked to risk-based liability, as the provision itself did not require the subjective criterion to be applied. It was sufficient to prove the objective premises (absolute certainty was not necessary). The author of this gloss points out that the proposed interpretation of the above-mentioned exonerating circumstance significantly weakens the situation of an injured party, who, in many cases, is not be able to obtain compensation either from the entity running an enterprise or from a third party (since it has not been identified) or from the liability insurer. Consequently, it indirectly weakens the extended protection provided to the victim in the risk-based liability. Moreover, it requires a hypothetical assumption not only of the guilt of an unidentified third party, but also of the fact that it is a third party who is in no way connected with the motion of an undertaking (enterprise). Finally, the author raises other objections, especially given that the aforementioned interpretation could be applied under Article 435 of the Civil Code and in all cases of risk-based liability as well.

ELEKTRIČNI TROTINETI I OSIGURANjE OD AUTOODGOVORNOSTI

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milos Radovanovic
Keyword(s):  
Technological Progress ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Liability Insurance ◽  
Electric Scooter ◽  
Compulsory Insurance ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
To Receive

Technological progress, importance of taking care of the environment and need for the “micro-mobility” of humans in the cities, have led to increased usage of electric scooters. Every means of transportation, including the scooter, cause of risk of a damage. Possibility of causing of the damage opens a question of the obligation of owners of the electric scooters to conclude motor third party liability insurance. Th is paper tries to give an answer on the question. Author also seeks to fi nd an answer on a question is the injured party entitled to receive compensation of damage from guarantee fund, if the damage is caused by the uninsured electric scooter. Author gives the positive answer on these two questions. Author concludes that de lege lata electric scooter must have third party liability insurance, and that injured party is entitled to receive the compensation from the guarantee fund. Obligation of the owners of the electric scooter to conclude liability insurance, as well as injured party claim toward the guarnatee fund, is based on the fact that electric scooter is motor vehicle, according to the legal defi nition of the motor vehicle. Author considers that there is no legal gap in current laws of the Republic of Serbia, concerning insurance of the electric scooters. It is not necessary to change regulations on compulsory insurance in traffi c. Th ere is no need for the special rules for insurance of electric scooters. Legal issues concerning insurance of electric scooters and redress of damage caused by those scooters, can be resolve by interpretation of the applicable regulations.

19. Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duties

2019 ◽  
pp. 541-578
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Independent Contractors ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Relationship

Vicarious liability is liability imposed on an employer to a third party for the tort of his employee committed in the course of employment. Vicarious liability is another instance of stricter liability in the sense that the employer who is not at fault is made responsible for the employee’s default. It thereby gives the injured party compensation from the person who is better able to pay and spread the cost of the injury, namely the employer. Anyone who wishes to hold an employer vicariously liable must prove: that the wrongdoer was his employee, or that the relationship between them was ‘akin’ to employment; that he committed a tort; and that he committed it in the course of his employment. This chapter discusses each of this in turn. It also considers contribution between employer and employee; liability for the torts of independent contractors; the expanding categories of non-delegable duties; and the changing contours of employer’s liability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document