The Renewal of the Old

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 80-95

  Johnston, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012510736     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S000819730001775X     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. P.G. Stein, “Legal thought in eighteenth century Scotland” (1957) Juridical Review 1–20 (reprinted in his The character and influence of the Roman civil law (London and Ronceverte 1988), pp. 361–380).
2. P.G. Stein, Roman law and English jurisprudence yesterday and today (Cambridge, 1969), reprinted, Juridical Review. pp. 151–165
3. J.P. Eckermann, Conversations with Goethe, trans. J. Oxenford (London 1971), p. 313.
4. F.W. Maitland, “The making of the German civil Code” in Collected papers ed. H.A.L. Fisher (Cambridge 1911), III 474–488 at 487.
5. G.W.F. Hegel, Lectures on the philosophy of world history, trans. H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge 1975), p. 21.
6. See recently Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. [1995] 2 A.C. 145
7. White v. Jones [1995] 2 A.C. 207.
8. Cf. on the relation between legal history and comparative law, H. Kötz, “Was erwartet die Rechtsvergleichung von der Rechtsgeschichte?” (1992) 47 Juristen Zeitung 20–22.
9. 1 discuss this more fully in sections IV and VI (iii) of my paper “Limiting liability: Roman law and the civil-law tradition” (1995) 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1515–1538.
10. Gaius, Institutes 4.75.
11. H. Donellus, Commentarii iuris civilis (ed. used: Opera omnia, Florence 1840–1847) 15.51.4.
12. The qualification is important, but Johannes Voet (see n. 14), writing in 1698, notes in this context that slaves are not in use “among us and many other peoples”: Commentarius 9.4.10.
13. H. Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis (ed. used: Blaue, Amsterdam 1646) 2.11.13.
14. J. Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas (ed. used: vol. I: Verbessel, Leiden 1698; vol. II: de Hondt, The Hague 1704).
15. Voet, Commentarius 14.1.5, 14.3.2.
16. Voet, Commentarius 14.1.5.
17. S. 185 and Sch. 7 part I. Cf. also The Tojo Man [1972] A.C. 243 (no right for salvors to limitation, a position subsequently reversed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 in adopting the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976)
18. The Nicholas H [1996] 1 A.C. 211, 227–228.
19. See W.R. Cornish and G. de N. Clark, Law and society in England 1750–1950 (London 1989), pp. 246 ff. for the faltering reception of ideas of limited liability in nineteenth century England.
20. Paul, lib. sing, de portionibus quae liberis damnatorum conceduntur D. 1.5.7
21. Julian, 69 digestorum D. 1.5.26
22. Paul, lib. sing, ad SC Tertullianum D. 50.16.231. 20 Summarised in D. 1.5.26.
23. Nor do many of the writers of the civil-law tradition, e.g. in France J. Domat, Les loix civiles dans leur ordre naturel (ed. used: Gosselin Paris 1713) 1.2.1.6
24. R.J. Pothier, Traite des successions 1.2.1
25. See the summary given by Dillon L.J. in Burton v. Islington Health Authority [1993] Q.B. 204, 226, 227.
26. For general discussion, see W. Selb, “Schädigung des Menschen vor Geburt: ein Problem der Rechtsfähigkeit?” (1966) 166 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 76–128
27. from a Scottish perspective, Scottish Law Commission report no. 30, Liability for antenatal injury (1973).
28. See e.g. § 1 BGB
29. for England, esp. Re F (in utero) [1988] Fam. 122
30. also Paton v. Trs. of BP AS [1979] Q.B. 276
31. C. v. s. [1988] Q.B. 135. ;Switzerland: ZGB art. 31; Netherlands: NBW I art. 2.
32. Japanese Civil Code s. 721.
33. France: Gaz. Pal. 1972.1.162, 165 (case of 1971)
34. Scotland: Cohen v. Shaw 1992 S.L.T. 1022
35. Quebec: Montreal Tramways v. Léveillé [1933] 4 D.L.R. 337.
36. In some jurisdictions the problem is dealt with by construing the terms of the Civil Code rather than by analysis of duty, breach etc.: e.g. in Germany, the right to sue for pre-natal injuries has been recognised by the court (though it is not in the BGB) by construing the words “of another” (eines anderen) in § 823(1) BGB: see BGHZ 58.48, 50 (1972)
37. also BGHZ 8.243, 248 (1952).
38. Burton v. Islington Health Authority [1991] 1 Q.B. 638
39. [1993] Q.B. 204 (CA)
40. De Martell v. Merton & Sutton Health Authority [1993] Q.B. 204.
41. As, for example, in Watson v. Fram Reinforced Concrete Company (Scotland) Ltd. 1960 S.C. 92.
42. Cf, for German law, BGHZ 58.48, 49–50.
43. Cf. the analysis propounded by W.N. Hohfeld, Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning (ed. W.W. Cook, New Haven, 1923).
44. See Burton, at p. 228F
45. following the Australian case Watt v. Rama [1972] V.R. 353, 360–361.
46. Except by saying that we ought not to examine the components duty, breach and damage individually too closely: Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] A.C. 1004, 1052 per Lord Pearson
47. Burton, at p. 218B per Phillips J.
48. For the distinction drawn here, cf. P. Birks, “Fictions ancient and modern” in N. MacCormick and P. Birks (eds.), The legal mind (Oxford 1986), pp. 83–101.
49. 54 Contra, Burton, at p. 227D-E per Dillon LJ
50. J.M. Thomson, Delictual liability (London 1994), p. 191.
51. Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, which applies to births after 22 July 1976 (s. 4(5)). 36
52. Mc Williams v. Lord Advocate 1992 S.L.T. 1045, 1048
53. Hamilton v. Fife Health Board 1993 S.C. 369, 384A, 389H (Inner House)
54. welcome exceptions are Cohen v. Shaw 1992 S.L.T. 1022
55. Hamilton v. Fife Health Board 1992 S.L.T. 1026, 1029 (Outer House). Note, however, (i) that McWilliams and Hamilton were essentially concerned with statutory interpretation (the meanings of “person” and “personal injuries” in the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976); (ii) that, where the claim was by parents for loss of society, it could not be justified as being brought in the interests of the unborn child.
56. See Th. Mayer-Maly, “Die Wiederkehr von Rechtsfiguren” (1970) 23 Wissenschaft und Weltbild 270–275.;Date of birth: 15 August 1822; letters patent: 22 April 1847 (I owe this information to Mr H.G. Button).
57. H. Maine, “Roman law and legal education”, repr. in his Village Communities in the East and West (7th. ed., London 1895), pp. 330–383 at p. 376.
58. For fuller discussion, see P. Birks, “The foundation of legal rationality in Scotland” in R. Evans-Jones, The civil law tradition in Scotland (Edinburgh 1995), pp. 81–99.
59. For general discussion, see S.R. Munzer, A theory of property (Cambridge 1990), pp. 37 ff., 47 ff.
60. For further discussion of this subject and of Moore's case, see now J.W. Harris, “Who owns my body?” (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 55–84.
61. (1988) 249 Cal. Rep. 494 (Cal. CA): (1990) 793 Pacific Rep. 2d. 479 (Cal. Supreme Court).
62. For a conclusion to essentially the same effect in a quite different context, see S. Gardner, “Knowing assistance and knowing receipt: taking stock” (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 56–94, esp. at 90–94.
63. The notion that it is essential to property that it should be possible to place a money value on it is also found in the law of California: Yuba River Power Company v. Nevada Irrigation District (1923) 207 Cal. 521, 523.
64. Cf. the comment by the California Court of Appeal, cited n. 42 above, at p. 507: “Defendants' position that plaintiff cannot own his tissue, but that they can, is fraught with irony.”
65. see e.g. Staudingers Kommentar zum BGB (12th ed., Berlin 1989) 950 no. 11 (Wieland).
66. For some recent salutary scepticism about the guidance which economic analysis can offer to lawyers, see A.W.B. Simpson, “Coase v. Pigou re-examined” (1996) 25 Journal of Legal Studies 53–101.
67. See P.G. Stein, “The fate of the institutional system” Huldigungsbundel van Warmelo (Pretoria 1984)
68. id, “The quest for a systematic civil law” (1995 British Academy Maccabaean lecture in jurisprudence), (1995) 90 Proceedings of the British Academy 147–164
69. Birks, cited n. 40 above.
70. O.J. CI58/400.
71. See, e.g., R. van Caenegem, An historical introduction to private law (Cambridge 1992), p. 2.
72. As Lord Mansfield suggested, in advice to the Duke of Portland: CHS. Fifoot, Lord Mansfield (London 1936), p. 29.
73. Chashidingyi, Faxue zonglun (Peking 1989)
74. see in general Mi Jian, “Diritto cinese e diritto romano” (1991) 19 Index 343–357.