Editing Tort (section)

==Other jurisdictions==
===China===
{{further|Tort Law in China|Civil Code of the People's Republic of China}}

====History====
Civil and criminal law were not clearly delineated in Ancient Chinese law as they are in modern legal systems. Therefore, while Tort Law was not a distinct area of law, concepts familiar to tort law were present in the criminal laws.<ref name=Li5>Li (2014), p. 5</ref> However, by the late [[feudalism]] period, [[personal injury]] and [[property damage]] torts were mostly focused on compensation.<ref name=Li6>Li (2014), p. 6</ref>

The earliest "tort case" known from Ancient China is from the [[Zhou dynasty]]. During a famine one person robbed another's barn by sending his slave to steal the grain. He was sued and the court ordered double the original grain restored to the victim to compensate the damages.<ref name=Li4>Li (2014), p. 4</ref> The [[Qin Code]] made some changes to tort liabilities introducing the concept of subjective fault ([[fault liability]]). In a case where one person borrows farm equipment, compensation would be required for damage to the equipment if the damage is caused by the condition of the equipment when it was borrowed.<ref name=Li4/> In addition to fault liability, some defences were developed. A person would not be [[liable]] if public property were damaged by fire or other natural forces outside the person's control. There was no liability for killing livestock, if the livestock was about to hurt someone.<ref name=Li4/>

In contemporary China, however, there are four distinct legal systems in force, none of which are derived from classical Chinese law: Portuguese civil law in Macau, common law in Hong Kong, a German-style civil law system adopted by the Republic of China following Japan's model, and a primarily civil law system in the mainland.

====Republic of China====
In areas administered by the Republic of China,{{efn|The area under the definition consists of:
* [[Geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]] ({{zh|t=台灣}})
* [[Penghu]] ({{zh|t=澎湖}})
* [[Kinmen]] ({{zh|t=金門|p=Jīnmén}})
* [[Matsu Islands]] ({{zh|t=馬祖列島|p=Mǎzǔ Lièdǎo}})
* [[List of islands of Taiwan|Other nearby islands]]}} the legislative basis of tort law is the Civil Code of the Republic of China<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 161</ref> whose legal system was modelled after the Japanese [[Six Codes]] system, which itself was primarily based on the German [[Pandectists|pandectist]] approach to law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=25471&CtNode=13792&mp=202|title=Ministry of Justice, R.O.C. (Taiwan)|access-date=4 April 2022|archive-date=17 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217190839/http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=25471&CtNode=13792&mp=202|url-status=dead}}</ref> In general, article 184 provides that a person who "intentionally or negligently" damages another person's rights is required to compensate them for any resulting injury, and provides for [[strict liability]] where such harm is caused by the violation of a statutory provision aimed at protecting members of the community from harm.<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 184</ref> Additionally, tort liability exists for the owner of a defective building or structure where such building or structure causes damage,<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 191</ref> for the driver of an automobile that causes injury,<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 191-2</ref> and for individual's responsible for business activities that posed a risk of harm to the plaintiff.<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 191-3</ref> Tort liability in the Republic of China also extends to the violation of certain non-pecuniary interests under article 195 which provides for reasonable compensation in the case of damage to the body, health, reputation, liberty, credit, privacy, or chastity of another, or to another's personality in a severe way.<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 195</ref>{{efn|A similar cause of action exists under article 193 for plaintiffs to seek compensation for lost capacity to work<ref>[https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 Civil Code of the Republic of China] Article 193</ref>}}

====Mainland China====
In 2021, the mainland adopted the [[Civil Code of the People's Republic of China]] (CCPRC), Book Seven of which is titled "Tort Liability" and codifies a variety of torts, providing that an individual "who through his fault infringes upon another person's civil-law rights and interests shall bear tort liability".<ref name=CCPRC7>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Book_Seven_Tort_Liability|title=Civil Code of the People's Republic of China|first=National People's|last=Congress|via=Wikisource}}</ref> Book Seven outlines seven distinct categories of torts:

* [[Product Liability]] ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_IV_Product_Liability Chapter IV])
* Liability for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_V_Liability_for_Motor_Vehicle_Traffic_Accidents Chapter V])
* Liability for [[Medical Malpractice]] ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_VI_Liability_for_Medical_Malpractice Chapter VI])
* Liability for Environmental Pollution and Ecological Damage ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_VII_Liability_for_Environmental_Pollution_and_Ecological_Damage Chapter VII], comparable to [[toxic torts]] in common law jurisdictions)
* Liability for Ultra-hazardous Activities ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_VIII_Liability_for_Ultra-hazardous_Activities Chapter VIII], essentially codifying the [[Ultrahazardous activity|common law doctrine]] of the same name)
* Liability for Damage Caused by Domesticated Animals ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_IX_Liability_for_Damage_Caused_by_Domesticated_Animals Chapter IX])
* Liability for Damage Caused by Buildings and Objects ([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China/Book_Seven#Chapter_X_Liability_for_Damage_Caused_by_Buildings_and_Objects Chapter X])

While Book Seven (titled "Tort Liability") of the [[Civil Code of the People's Republic of China|CCPRC]], which is influenced by a variety of common law and civil law jurisdictions, codifies the torts which exist under the law of Mainland China,<ref name=CCPRC7/> Book One of the CCPRC provides a comprehensive list of remedies for torts in Article 179:<ref name=CCPRC1VIII/>
:　　(1) cessation of the infringement;
:　　(2) removal of the nuisance;
:　　(3) elimination of the danger;
:　　(4) restitution;
:　　(5) restoration;
:　　(6) repair, redoing or replacement;
:　　(7) continuance of performance;
:　　(8) compensation for losses;
:　　(9) payment of liquidated damages;
:　　(10) elimination of adverse effects and rehabilitation of reputation; and
:　　(11) extension of apologies.
These remedies apply to all categories of torts outlined in Book Seven or by any other provision of law. To this end, Book Seven specifically provides that "where a tortious act endangers another person's personal or property safety, the infringed person has the right to request the tortfeasor to bear tort liability such as cessation of the infringement, removal of the nuisance, or elimination of the danger".<ref name=CCPRC7/> Book One additionally provides that [[force majeure]]{{efn|Defined in Article 180 as "objective conditions which are unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable"}} constitutes a valid defence for tort liability while Article 184 in that book is a [[Good Samaritan law]] eliminating liability under tort law for individuals acting to save or rescue a potential plaintiff.<ref name=CCPRC1VIII/> Article 1176 in Book Seven provides a partial defence where an injury is caused in the course of a sport in which the plaintiff was consensually participating.<ref name=CCPRC7/>

===France===
Tort liability in France (''responsabilité extracontractuelle'') is a distinct system which has developed over the course of history stemming from the [[Napoleonic Code]]<ref>G. Marty, L'expérience française en matière de responsabilité civile et les enseignements du droit comparé, in ''Mélanges offerts à Jacques Maury'' ''Tome II Droit comparé théorie générale du droit et droit privé'' Librairie Dalloz & Sirey, p. 174.</ref> which, together with the German [[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]], forms the basis for private law in the majority of civil law countries with civil codes. French tort law is based on the principle that all injuries and other wrongs give rise to a remedy, typically in the form of damages, regardless of any other moral or [[Equity (law)|equitable]] considerations; nevertheless, there are limits on the types of injuries which give rise to a remedy as well as the extent to which damages may be claimed.<ref name=":8"/> French jurisprudence has established that, in order to attract a remedy, an injury should generally be certain and direct (prohibiting speculative damages or compensation for [[pure economic loss]]) and affect a legitimate interest; however, judges do not recognise a hard and fast rule, meaning that great weight is given to the specific circumstances in each case with precedent serving to guide rather than control jurisprudence.<ref name=":8"/> The main principle in French tort law is that of fault, the principle that the individual who causes damage ought generally to be liable for it; however, following the [[Industrial Revolution]], [[vicarious liability]] and [[strict liability]] have developed through both precedent and legislative action in response to the need to address damage caused by [[product liability|products]], machines, and the actions of agents or employees.

French tort law is primarily governed by articles {{Légifrance|base=CC|numéro=1240|texte=1240}} to {{Légifrance|base=CC|numéro=1245-17|texte=1245-17}} of the civil code, which establish a number of distinct regimes for tort liability. Liability for one's own actions is governed by articles 1240 and 1241,<ref>Previously 1382 et 1383</ref> while other provisions of the code provide for vicarious and other ''sui generis'' forms of liability. In addition, liability in specific cases (e.g. [[product liability]] and [[defamation]]) have been provided for in separate statutes outside the code and in European Union directives.

===Germany===
====Outline====
German tort law is codified in Book 2 of the [[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]] (BGB), which provides for [[damages]] in circumstances in which there is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. German tort law protects plaintiffs against violations of:
* Legal interests ({{langx|de|Rechtsgut|link=yes}}, literally: "[[legal good]]"): A legal interest is a good or interest protected by the legal system.<ref>[http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Rechtsgut ''Rechtsgut, das''] duden.de, retrieved 29 August 2017</ref> Legal interests protected by tort are in particular life, the body, health, freedom and property.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__823.html|title=§ 823 BGB - Einzelnorm|website=www.gesetze-im-internet.de}}</ref> The type and number of protected legal interests are not conclusively defined and, where multiple such interests are at odds, they must be weighed against each other (e.g. human dignity versus freedom of speech in the context of the tort of [[defamation]]).
* Absolute rights ({{langx|de|Absolutes Recht|link=yes}}): Absolute rights provide a beneficiary with an exclusive, legally protected right to over a specific legal position (e.g. [[property]] rights), which everyone must respect.<ref>Brox, Hans and Walker, Wolf-Dietrich: ''Allgemeiner Teil des BGB.'' 42. Auflage. München 2018, S. 281 f.</ref>
* Protective laws ({{langx|de|Schutzgesetz|link=yes}}): In essence, a protective law is a provision of a written law which the [[Bundestag]] or a [[Landtag]] intended to protect individuals from some category of harm (e.g. a product liability or consumer protection law).

There are three distinct categories of liability recognised under the BGB: liability for "culpable injustice", "injustice in rebuttable presumed liability", and strict liability arising from "endangerment". Liability for culpable injustice, the default position in German tort law, is where an individual directly violates another person's legal interest or absolute right either intentionally or negligently. Rebuttable presumed liability is the principle that an individual is [[vicarious liability|vicariously liable]] where a legal interest or absolute right is violated by another person (e.g. an agent, child/other person in their custody), where such a violation is committed by an animal, or where such a violation takes place on the first individual's property. Strict liability for endangerment exists with regard to violations of protective laws (e.g. product liability, environmental laws, motor vehicle regulations) and in cases in which an individual is especially vulnerable due to the nature of a circumstance (e.g. medical or legal malpractice).

The BGB makes specific provisions for several different categories of torts pertaining to damages available, including damages and injunctions to prevent the commission of a tortious act. These provisions are supplemented by specific legislation, particularly protective laws. With regard to product liability, protective laws implementing European Union directives provide for a system of strict liability similar to that adopted in many common law jurisdictions; however, German tort law does not recognise class action lawsuits or the notion of [[mass tort]]s.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Class Actions Law Review: Germany|first=Henning|last=Bälz|url=https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-class-actions-law-review/germany#:~:text=Class%20actions%20in%20a%20formal,to%20German%20civil%20law%20procedure.|website=The Law Reviews|date=21 April 2022|access-date=26 May 2022|url-access=subscription|archive-date=27 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220527020445/https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-class-actions-law-review/germany#:~:text=Class%20actions%20in%20a%20formal,to%20German%20civil%20law%20procedure.|url-status=dead}}</ref> German tort law additionally does not permit punitive damages.

====Jurisprudence====

In terms of tort liability, the BGB represents a school of legal jurisprudence – the [[pandectists]] – heavily shaped by 19th century [[classical liberalism]] and, accordingly, places great emphasis on minimising impairment to individual freedom of action.<ref name=":8">''L'influence du droit allemand sur la responsabilité civile française''– Oliver Berg – Revue Trimestrielle de Droit civil, 2006, p.53</ref> In this regard, it can be contrasted with the [[Napoleonic Code]], which was authored a century earlier and placed greater emphasis on the protection of individuals from the actions of others. As the two codes form the basis for private law in a variety of jurisdictions across the world, with one or the other being substantially copied by most civil law jurisdictions on every continent, the differences underpinning the BGB and the Napoleonic Code represent a major schism in jurisprudence between civil law jurisdictions. Since 1900, both the judges and German legislators decisively rejected the idea of a general principle of civil liability commonly found in civil codes inspired by the Napoleonic Code as well as in those of [[#Japan|Japan]] and the [[#China|Republic of China]] which are otherwise based primarily on the same [[pandectist]] school as the BGB and that of the [[#Philippines|Philippines]].<ref>See BGH, 25 janv. 1971, BGHZ55, 229, 234.</ref>

One distinguishing feature of German law is the extent to which liability depends not just on the damage caused but on the action of the purported tortfeasor.<ref name=":8"/> Sometimes it is enough to prove negligence, while in other cases a more serious fault is required.<ref name=":8"/> Thus, anyone who unlawfully interferes, intentionally or through recklessness, with the life, body, health, freedom or property of others is liable to others to repair the resulting damage.<ref name=":8"/> On the other hand, less protection is granted in the event of damage to purely intangible interests, nicht-gegenständliche Interessen, that is to say when the victim only suffers purely economic or moral damage. Such is the case of a pecuniary loss caused by erroneous information or vexatious remarks. Apart from a rather marginal hypothesis provided for by article § 823 paragraph 2(9), the recourse will then suppose an intentional fault.<ref name=":8"/> The protection thus granted has proven to be incomplete.<ref name=":8"/> Consequently, over the course of the 20th century, case law has extended liability for recklessness to other cases, in particular by admitting that § 823 paragraph 1 BGB aims to protect a "general right to personality" and a "right to the company" or by recognising, alongside tort liability, the theory of [[culpa in contrahendo]].<ref name=":8"/> Although Boris Starck makes no express reference to it, there are serious reasons to think that this right strongly inspired him in his elaboration of the theory of the guarantee.<ref name=":8"/> First, it takes up the idea of considering the event giving rise to the right to compensation, starting from the nature of the interest affected. Moreover, there is an astonishing resemblance between the respective formulations: § 823 paragraph 1 BGB is supposed to protect the integrity of property and persons by granting protection "to life, body, health, freedom, to property". Starck, for his part, claims "a right to life, to bodily integrity and to the material integrity of the objects belonging to us".<ref name=":8"/> Finally, on both sides, it is with the same arguments, such as the need to protect the freedom to act, that a less intense protection of purely economic and moral interests is justified. Nevertheless, Boris Starck departs from the German model by raising the protection of physical integrity by a notch, believing that the only breach here generates a right to compensation.<ref name=":8"/>

===Israel===
Israeli tort law is codified in the Tort Ordinance, originally passed under British rule, and is largely based on common law principles with influences from civil law jurisdictions. The Jewish law of [[Damages (Jewish law)|rabbinic damages]] in Israel is another example of tort, although the Tort Ordinance is far more relevant in secular life, having been enacted by [[Mandate for Palestine|British Mandate of Palestine]] authorities in 1944 and taking effect in 1947. The Tort Ordinance additionally provides that any civil court may grant either or both compensation or an injunction as a remedy for a tort and codifies common law rules regarding liability and defences to tort claims. Chapter Three of the ordinance provides a list of torts recognised under Israeli law, including:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://goslaw.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/tort-ordinance.pdf|title=Israeli Tort Ordinance}}</ref> 
* [[Assault]] (article one): Assault is defined as the "intentional application of any kind of force"{{efn|"by way of striking, touching, moving or otherwise, to the body of a person"}} either without their consent or by obtaining consent through fraud. It also includes "any attempt" to do so if the plaintiff reasonably feared injury. The act provides that self defence, the use of reasonable force to protect property or executing a lawful warrant constitute valid defences to the tort of assault. Additional defences apply where both the plaintiff and the defendant are members of the [[Israeli Defence Forces]] or where the plaintiff suffered from a mental illness.  
* [[False imprisonment]] (article two): False imprisonment is defined as "the deprivation of the liberty of any person, unlawfully and absolutely, for any period of time by physical means or by a show of authority." 
* [[Trespass]] to moveable and immovable property (article three): Any unlawful interference with the plaintiff's immovable or moveable property 
* [[Negligence]] (article four): The act provides that an individual is liable where they violate a [[duty of care]] owed to members of the general public. 
* "Damage caused by dog" (article four A), [[nuisance]] (article five): The owner of a dog is vicariously liable for tortious conduct on the part of the dog.
* Misappropriation of property (article six): This tort provides a remedy for the unlawful detention of property and for [[Conversion (law)|conversion]]. 
* Deceit (article seven): This tort provides a remedy for [[fraud]] and [[injurious falsehood|injurious falsities]]  
* [[Malicious prosecution]] (article eight) 
* Causing [[breach of contract]] (article nine), 
* Breach of statutory duty (article ten).

===Japan===
Like the [[Napoleonic Code|French Civil Code]], the Japanese Civil Code only has a single provision on tort liability.<ref name=":6">{{Cite book|last=Oda|first=Hiroshi|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232185.001.1/acprof-9780199232185|title=Japanese Law|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-19-923218-5|chapter=Law of Torts|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232185.001.1}}</ref> Article 709 of the Civil Code states: "A person who has  intentionally or negligently infringed  any  right of others, or legally  protected interest of others, shall  be  liable to compensate any damages resulting in consequence."<ref name=Tsunematsu>Tsunematsu, Jun. (2010). Tort Liability in Japan: : How is it understood by Japanese legal professionals?. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318641471_Tort_Liability_in_Japan_How_is_it_understood_by_Japanese_legal_professionals PDF]</ref> Tort liability in Japan therefore exists when three conditions are met: negligence or intentionality on the part of the tortfeasor, infringement of some legally recognised right, and a causal link between the tortfeasor's action and the infringement in question.<ref name=Tsunematsu/> As this leaves room for a broad and potentially unrestricted scope of tort liability, Japanese tort law gradually developed based on case law, including cases on pollution.<ref>J. Gresser et al., ''Environmental Law in Japan'' (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 128–130.</ref> Statutes outside the Civil Code also regulate specific types of torts, such as the Law on the Compensation of Losses arising from Car Accidents enacted in 1955, the 1973 Law on the Remedies of Harm Caused to Human Health by Pollution, and the 1994 Law on Product Liability.<ref name=":6" /> The standard of proof in Japanese tort litigation is that of "proof of a high degree of probability", a higher standard than the balance of probabilities utilised for tort liability in common law jurisdictions but lower than the reasonable doubt standard used in most legal systems for criminal trials, which the Japanese Supreme Court described in the leading case Miura v. Japan (a case on liability for medical malpractice):<ref name=PLJapan/>
{{blockquote|
Proving causation in litigation, unlike proving causation in the natural sciences (which permits no doubt at any point), requires proof of a high degree of probability that certain facts have induced the occurrence of a specific result by taking into necessary and sufficient account that the judge has been persuaded of the truthfulness to a degree where an average person would have no doubt.<ref>Miura v. Japan, 29-9 Minshû 1417 (Sup. Ct., 24 Oct. 1975). See also X v. Y, 1724 Hanrei jihô 29 (Sup. Ct., 18 July 2000).</ref>}}

Contemporary Japanese product liability law forms a distinct area of tort liability in which litigation may proceed under Article 709 of the Civil Code or the Product Liability Act of 1994.<ref name=PLJapan>{{Cite web|title=The Product Regulation and Liability Review: Japan|first1=Akihiro|last1=Hironaka|first2=Kota|last2=Hoshina|first3=Chisa|last3=Fukudome|url=https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-product-regulation-and-liability-review/japan|website=The Law Reviews|date=25 March 2022|access-date=26 May 2022|url-access=subscription|archive-date=1 June 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220601210339/https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-product-regulation-and-liability-review/japan|url-status=dead}}</ref> Under the Product Liability Act, which defines "products" as including any "movable item that is manufactured or processed"; manufacturers bear [[strict liability]] where a plaintiff proves the existence of:<ref name=PLJapan/>
* A defect in the product,
* Damage to life, body, or property, and
* A causal link between the defect and damage in question.

Under Japanese tort law, plaintiffs may seek compensation for both economic and non-economic damages, and there is no statutory cap on damages; however, punitive damages are forbidden on public policy grounds.<ref name=PLJapan/> Japanese courts regard the compensation of plaintiffs as the paramount purpose of damages under tort law, regarding punishment and deterrence as the exclusive domain of criminal law.<ref name=Tsunematsu/><ref name=Daisuke>Daisuke Mori & Shuichi Takahashi & Yasuhiro Ikeda, 2017. "Compensation, punishment, and deterrence: a survey on the purpose of tort damages in the case of a defective car accident in Japan", Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 589–624, October. DOI: 10.1007/s41685-017-0059-8</ref> Punitive damages awarded against tortfeasors by arbitral tribunals or foreign courts are unenforceable in Japan.<ref>Northcon I, Oregon Partnership v. Mansei Kôgyô Co Ltd, 51-6 Minshû 2573 (Sup. Ct., 11 July 1997)</ref><ref name=PLJapan/> Additionally, Japanese civil procedure does not allow for class actions and does not recognise [[mass tort]] liability.<ref name=PLJapan/>

As a result of the structure of Japan's tort system, the country experiences a significantly lower litigation rate than other jurisdictions. In a 1990 article,<ref name="ReferenceB">Takao Tanase, "The Management of Disputes: Automobile Accident Compensation in Japan", ''Law and Society Review'' 24 (1990), 651.</ref> Takao Tanase posited that the structure of Japan's civil court system and its tort jurisprudence account for its low litigation rate, rather than any fundamental difference in culture between Japan and other countries.<ref>R. Kagan On the Routinization of Tort Claims: Takao Tanase's "The Management of Disputes" This paper was presented at a Sho Sato Conference held on 12–13 February 2005 at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.</ref> Indeed; present literature finds that, although Japanese jurists take a narrow view of tort law as solely serving to compensate plaintiffs for proven damages, the general Japanese public views punishment and deterrence as being just as desirable in civil litigation as the public in other countries.<ref name=Tsunematsu/><ref name=Daisuke/> In Japan in 1986, fewer than 1% of automobile accidents involving death or an injury resulted in litigation, compared to 21.5% in the United States, a difference Tanase argues can be attributed to the availability of non-litigious methods of assessing fault, advising victims, determining compensation, and ensuring payment.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Non-litigious dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation services, consultation centres operated by governments, the bar association, and insurance companies. The Japanese judiciary also works hard at developing clear, detailed rules that guarantee virtually automatic, predictable, moderate compensation for most accident victims. This contrasts with the tort system in common law jurisdictions, where the legal rules concerning both [[Legal liability|liability]] and [[Damages#General damages|general damages]] (i.e. non-economic loss) are stated in general terms, leaving a great deal to the judgment of constantly rotating lay juries—which in turn makes courtroom outcomes variable and difficult to predict.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> The result was a system that is vastly more efficient and reliable in delivering compensation than in common law jurisdictions, albeit without punitive or exemplary damages. Tanase estimated that legal fees comprised only 2% of the total compensation paid to injured persons. In the United States in the late 1980s, according to two big studies of motor vehicle accident tort claims (not just lawsuits), payments to lawyers equaled 47% of the total personal injury benefits paid by insurers. This expense drives up the cost of insurance to the point that huge numbers of drivers are uninsured or under-insured, which means that victims of their negligent driving will get little or nothing from the tort system.<ref name="ReferenceB" />

=== New Zealand ===

In 2024, the [[Supreme Court of New Zealand|New Zealand Supreme Court]] gave leave for [[Māori people|Māori]] climate activist [[Mike_Smith_(activist)|Mike Smith]] to sue seven corporations for their roles in causing [[effects of climate change|climate change]] and the common law harms that resulted.<ref name="corlett-2024">
{{cite news
 | last1 = Corlett | first1 = Eva
 | title = The Māori climate activist breaking legal barriers to bring corporate giants to court
 | date = 6 March 2024
 | work = The Guardian
 | location = London, United Kingdom
 | url =  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/mike-smith-maori-climate-activist-right-to-sue-companies
 | access-date = 2024-03-06
}}
</ref><ref name="new-zealand-supreme-court-2024">
{{cite book
 | author = New Zealand Supreme Court
 | title = Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited [2024] {{nowrap|NZSC 5}} — Judgment for case {{nowrap|SC 149/2021}}
 | date = 7 February 2024
 | publisher = Supreme Court of New Zealand / Kōti Mana Nui o Aotearoa
 | location = Wellington, New Zealand
 | url = https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZSC-5.pdf
 | access-date = 2024-03-06
}} All respondents in order: [[Fonterra|Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited]], [[Genesis Energy Limited]], Dairy Holdings Limited, [[New Zealand Steel|New Zealand Steel Limited]], [[Z Energy|Z{{nbsp}}Energy Limited]], Channel Infrastructure NZ Limited, and BT Mining Limited.
</ref><ref name="unep-2020">
{{cite book
 | author = UNEP
 | title = Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review
 | publisher = UN Environment Programme
 | location = Nairobi, Kenya
 | isbn = 978-92-807-3835-3
 | url = https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf
 | access-date = 2024-03-06
}}  Job no: {{nowrap|DEL/2333/NA}}.  See pages 22, 38, 42, 44.  Note document misspells "Fronterra".
</ref>  Several aspects of [[Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd|Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited]] are notable.  Smith argued that the principles of [[tikanga Māori]]{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} a{{nbsp}}traditional system of obligations and recognitions of wrong{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} can be used to inform New Zealand common law.  Smith argued that the activities of the seven defendants{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} by directly emitting [[greenhouse gas emissions|greenhouse gasses]] or supplying [[fossil fuel|fossil fuels]]{{nbsp}}{{mdash}} fall under the established torts of public nuisance and negligence and a new tort of climate change damage.  Smith further argued that these seven corporations are harming his tribe's land, coastal waters, and traditional culture.  Smith belongs to the Northland [[Iwi|tribes]] of [[Ngāpuhi]] and [[Ngāti Kahu]].  This judgment simply allows Smith to pursue these matters in the [[High Court of New Zealand|High Court]].  The defendants have indicated that they will seek to convince the court that climate change responses are better left to government policy and not subject to civil litigation.

===North Korea===
North Korea's approach to tort liability is relatively unique in the 21st century since, as a result of its [[Juche]] ideology and centralised planned economy, its legal system puts little emphasis on civil liability between private citizens; instead, it views correcting damages caused by tortious acts as the prerogative of the state through its economic intervention and criminal penalties.<ref>{{Cite web|author=Dae Kyu Yoon|title=North Korea's transformation: a legal perspective|work=The Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Kyungnam University.|date=12 February 2009|url=https://www.nkeconwatch.com/nk-uploads/microsoft-word-ifes-paper-dae-kyu-yoon.pdf}}</ref> Nevertheless, the Law on the Compensation of Damages adopted on 22 August 2001 provides for tort liability, including [[vicarious liability]] on the part of principals for the actions of agents, employers for the actions of employees, parents or guardians for the actions of children, and owners for the actions of pets or other animals under their control. North Korean tort law also recognises capacity as an important factor in determining whether or not someone may be held liable for their own actions.

===Philippines===
The Philippines is a mixed law jurisdiction, shaped primarily by Spanish civil law and American common law as codified in the Philippine Civil Code. For the most part, the equivalent of tort law (insofar as it concerns negligence and product liability) in the Philippines is the law of [[quasi-delict]]. Article 2176 of the civil code provides that, in the absence of a contractual or quasi-contractual{{efn|Under the Philippine civil code, there are three specific categories of obligation referred to as quasi-contractual and governed by special provisions of the civil code:
* [[Negotiorum gestio]]: Article 2144 provides that an individual (other than someone acting as an agent or under a contractual relationship) who takes on the management of another's affairs is obligated to continue to do so until directed otherwise or until such affairs are terminated and bears full liability for losses incurred.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2144</ref>
* Solutio indebiti: Article 2154 provides that an individual who receives something of value by accident must, under most circumstances, return it.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2154</ref>
* Other quasi contracts: Article 2164 provides that, where an individual provides support (e.g. financial support or medical assistance) without the knowledge of the recipient, the individual has a right to compensation except where it appears that the support was given "out of piety and without intention of being repaid".<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2164</ref>
Quasi-contracts are a distinct category of obligation more akin to a contract implied in law than to a quasi-delict/tort}} relationship, a person who "by act or omission causes damage to another" by way of fault or negligence{{efn|Article 1173 states that "The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place."}} is "obliged to pay for the damage done".<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2176</ref> Article 1174 (which is made applicable by article 2178) provides that an individual is generally exempt from liability if the events giving rise to the damage were unforeseeable or inevitable.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 1174 & Article 2178</ref>

The Philippine law of quasi-delict is largely a codification of common law principles and doctrines. For instance, the common law doctrine of [[comparative negligence]] is codified in article 2179, providing for compensation to be reduced in proportion with the plaintiff's own fault for the damage they incurred.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2179</ref> Similarly, the [[duty of care]] established in [[Donoghue v Stevenson]] is codified by article 2187 with regard to "manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods",<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2187</ref> and is extended by article 2189 to provincial and local governments responsible for defective public amenities.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2189</ref> Similarly, article 2190 establishes liability for the owners of defective buildings or structures that cause damage.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2190</ref> Additionally, case law in the Philippines recognises the common law doctrine of [[res ipsa loquitur]].<ref>Africa v Caltex (Phil), GR No 72986, March 3, 1966, 16 SCRA 448 (1966).</ref>

Outside the law of quasi-delicts, the civil code also codifies other provisions of tort law in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title under the heading "Human Relations". This chapter provides that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith"<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 19</ref> and that "every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same".<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 20</ref> While negligence and product liability are primarily covered by the law of quasi-delicts, this chapter covers intentional wrongs in article 21, which provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage".<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 21</ref> This chapter makes several other provisions in the realm of tortious liability, including: liability for [[defamation]] (article 33);<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 33</ref> violations of another person's privacy, causing humiliation on account of religion or economic status, causing another person to be alienated from their friends (article 26);<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 26</ref> benefitting from (without causing) damage to another person's property (article 23).<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 23</ref>

Damages under Philippine law are provided for in the Philippine Civil Code, which establishes harmonised rules for damages arising under any kind of obligation.In addition to pecuniary or economic damages, the code provides for two categories of non-economic damages with regard to quasi-delicts. Firstly, moral damages (i.e. damages for "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury" resulting from a quasi-delict) may be awarded under article 2217.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2217</ref> Secondly, exemplary damages may be awarded under article 2231 if there was "gross negligence" on the part of the defendant.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2231</ref> In special cases, a court may choose to award nominal damages under article 2221 if it finds that, although it is unnecessary to compensate the plaintiff, it is nevertheless desirable to "vindicate" or "recognise" the violation of their right.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2221</ref> Additionally, where a court cannot determine the value of damage incurred with sufficient certainty to award economic damages, it may instead award "temperate or moderate damages" under article 2224, which are higher than purely nominal damages but less than compensatory economic damages.<ref>[https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220511021749/https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html |date=11 May 2022 }} Article 2224</ref>

===Québec===
Private law in the Canadian province of Québec derives from the pre-Napoleonic French law then in force, but was eventually codified in the [[Civil Code of Lower Canada]] and later the present [[Civil Code of Quebec|Code Civil du Québec (CCQ)]]. While tort law in Canada's other provinces follows common law jurisprudence under which distinct nominate torts are recognised by precedent or statute, CCQ provides for a general and open-ended concept of "civil liability" or ''la responsabilité civile'' in article 1457:<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1457</ref>
{{blockquote|Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature. He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody.}}

The CCQ provides for and defines the scope of civil liability for damages caused by inanimate objects. Article 1465 makes the general provision that the custodian of a thing or object (''bien'') is liable for any damage caused by it,<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1465</ref> while article 1466 provides that the owner of an animal is liable for damage or injury caused by it even if it had escaped from their custody at the time of the incident. Similarly, article 1467 imposes liability for damages caused by the ruin of an immovable (i.e. a building or other fixed structure) upon its owner even if construction defects are the ultimate cause of the ruin.<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1467</ref> Strict liability is imposed upon the manufacturers of moveable things (i.e. [[product liability]]) by article 1468 for injuries caused by safety defects.<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1468</ref>{{efn|Article 1469 provides that: "A thing has a safety defect where, having regard to all the circumstances, it does not afford the safety which a person is normally entitled to expect, particularly by reason of a defect in design or manufacture, poor preservation or presentation, or the lack of sufficient indications as to the risks and dangers it involves or as to the means to avoid them".<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1469</ref>}} An individual is exempt from civil liability in cases of [[force majeure]] (article 1470),<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1470</ref> harm caused in the process of assisting or rescuing another (article 1471),<ref>[[Civil Code of Quebec|CCQ]] 1471</ref> and in certain other cases prescribed by law.

In general, there are four conditions necessary for a finding of civil liability under the CCQ:<ref>Baudouin, Jean-louis. "[https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/delict Law of Delict in Québec]". ''The Canadian Encyclopedia'', 23 September 2016, Historica Canada. Accessed 27 May 2022.</ref>
* Imputability: The [[Capacity (law)|capacity]] of a tortfeasor to "discern right from wrong", and to understand the consequences of their actions.
* Fault: The failure of a tortfeasor to act as "a normally prudent and reasonable person" would have in similar circumstances.
* Damage: Harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff
* Causation: A causal link between the fault of the tortfeasor and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

===Thailand===
Thai tort law, as with contemporary Thai law in general, is a codified admixture of principles derived from common law and civil law systems.<ref name=TNPSCS>Triamanuruck, Ngamnet; Phongpala, Sansanee; and Chaiyasuta, Sirikanang, "[http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lps_lsapr/4 Overview of Legal Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region: Thailand]" (2004). Overview of Legal Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region (2004). Paper 4.</ref> Title V of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand (CCT) establishes the principles of Thai tort law, with section 420 enshrining the basic doctrine that:<ref name=T420437>{{Cite web|url=https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/civil-and-commercial-code-torts-section-420-437/|title=Torts (Section 420-437) |website= Thailand Law Library|date=12 February 2015}}</ref>
{{blockquote|A person who, willfully or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, liberty, property or any right of another person, is said to commit a wrongful act and is bound to make compensation therefore.}}
This is analogous to Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code which establishes three criteria for tort liability:<ref name=Tsunematsu/> negligence or intentionality on the part of the tortfeasor, infringement of some legally recognised right{{efn|The Thai provision expressly refers to violations of "life, body, health, liberty, property, or any right"; which differs from the Japanese provision only insofar as it explicitly establishes life, body, health, liberty, and property as protected interests. Nevertheless, the residual category of "any right" produces an open-ended scope of potential liability similar to that under the Japanese Civil Code}} and a causal link between the tortfeasor's action and the infringement in question.<ref name=Tsunematsu/>

The CCT comprehensively outlines rules for tort liability and the burden of proof. In general, section 429 provides the default rule that everyone is liable for their own tortious acts and that the guardians of a child or other person lacking capacity are jointly liable.<ref name=T420437/>  While the burden of proof under Thai tort law is on the plaintiff by default, section 422 of the CCT provides that an individual who infringes "a statutory provision intended for the protection of others" is presumed to be liable.<ref name=T420437/> Sections 425 through 327 provide for vicarious liability in employer-employee and principal-agent relationships while providing that an employer or principal found vicariously liable may seek compensation from the employee or agent, respectively.<ref name=T420437/> Similarly, section 433 provides that the owner or caretaker of an animal is liable for any tortious conduct it may commit, with the caveat that the owner or caretaker may seek compensation for such liability from anyone who "wrongfully excited or provoked the animal" or from "the owner of another animal" which did so.<ref name=T420437/> Sections 434 to 436 provide special rules for liability for the owners and possessors/occupiers (e.g. tenants/lessees) of defective buildings and structures, whereby: 1) the possessor is liable for damage caused by defective construction or poor maintenance except if they exercised proper care to prevent the damage, 2) if the possessor exercised proper care, the owner is liable, 3) the occupier of a building is liable for damage caused by items that fall from the building, and 4) an individual who is at risk of damage or injury from such a building may require its owner or possessor to take preventive action.<ref name=T420437/> Certain provisions of the CCT also provide for strict liability with regard to specific categories of tortious conduct; for example, section 437 provides for strict liability for an individual in charge of a vehicle or conveyance which causes injury and for individuals possessing items which are "dangerous by nature" or "on account of their mechanical action", except where the individual demonstrates that the injury resulted from [[force majeure]]. Additionally, the CCT provides that self-defence, the aversion of a common danger,{{efn|A danger to the public or community}} the use of reasonable and necessary force, and (where the thing or person damaged was the source of such danger) the aversion of an individual danger{{efn|A danger to the defendant or a third person}} are defences against tort claims.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/civil-and-commercial-code-torts-section-449-452/|title=Torts (Section 449-452) |website= Thailand Law Library|date=13 February 2015}}</ref>

The rules regarding compensation under Thai tort law are prescribed by the CCT. In general, section 438 provides that courts may award such compensation as appears necessary with regard to "the circumstances and gravity of the act"; and that, in addition to damages, "compensation may include restitution" of any property of which the plaintiff has been deprived or which has decreased in value as a result of the tortious act.<ref name=T438448>{{Cite web|url=https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/civil-and-commercial-code-torts-section-438-448/|title=Torts (Section 438-448) |website= Thailand Law Library|date=13 February 2015}}</ref> Per section 439, an individual who defaults on an obligation to return property they had wrongly deprived another individual of is liable to compensate the other individual for "the accidental destruction" or "accidental impossibility of returning" the property in question, except where such destruction or impossibility would have occurred regardless of the wrongful deprivation.<ref name=T438448/> Section 440 provides that compensation may additionally include interest for lost time.<ref name=T438448/> Where the tortious act contributed to an individual's death, compensation must include funerary expenses; and, where the act resulted in damage to an individual's health or body, compensation must include reimbursement of medical expenses and lost wages, and may additionally include non-pecuniary damages.<ref name=T438448/> Where the tortious act involves harm to an individual's reputation, the court may order "proper measures to be taken" to restore the individual's reputation either together with or in lieu of damages.<ref name=T438448/>

===European Union===
{{main|European tort law}}
The legal framework of [[European Union|the European Union]] consists of the [[Treaties of the European Union|treaties]], [[European Union regulation|regulations]], [[European Union directive|directives]] and [[List of European Court of Justice rulings|case law]]. Specifically in the area of tort law, a number of rules can be found in tort law directives.<ref name="Muller-Graf">Peter-Christian Muller-Graf, 'EC Directives as a Means of Private Law Unification' in Hartkamp et al. (eds), Towards a European Civil Code (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2004).</ref> Examples of directives include the [[Product Liability Directive]] and the [[Directive 2005/29/EC The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive|Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices]]. A directives can be either a [[maximum harmonisation]] directives, which means member states are not allowed to deviate from it, or a [[minimum harmonisation]] directive, which only provide a general framework.<ref>Cees van Damn, 2006, European tort law, Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|9780199672264}}</ref> Article 288 of the TFEU, however, concedes that a directive 'shall be binding as to the result to be achieved, upon each member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods'. Liability can also be based on the violation of community provisions. Article 288 of the TFEU explicitly regulates the liability of Community Institutions for damage caused by the breach of Union Law. This article does not give precise liability rules but refers to the general principles common to the laws of Member States. It does not mean that 'the Community judicature must search for a solution favoured by a majority of Member States .... It simply means that the Community judicature must look to the national systems for inspiration in devising a regime of non-contractual liability adapted to the specific circumstances of the Community.'<ref  name="Muller-Graf" />

The development of a general principle of liability for breach of Union Law is also in the [[Francovich case]] law of the ECJ. In this 1991 decision, the ECJ acknowledged liability of the Member States towards individuals for violation of Union law as being inherent in the system of the Treaty and being necessary for the effectiveness of Community of law.<ref>ECJ 19 November 1991, Joined cases c-6/90 and C-9/90, ECR 1991, i-5357 (Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy)</ref> On the basis of the general principles to which Article 288 refers, the ECJ developed three requirements for liability:
#The rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals
#The breach must be sufficiently serious
#There must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties.
The fulfilment of these requirements is sufficient for a right to compensation, which is directly based in Union Law.

Within the European Union and neighbouring countries, the [[European Group on Tort Law]] promotes the harmonisation of tort law within the region. The group meets regularly to discuss fundamental issues of tort law liability as well as recent developments and the future directions of the law of tort. The Group has founded the [[European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law]] in Vienna. The Group has drafted a collection of Principles of European Tort Law similar to the [[Principles of European Contract Law]] drafted by the European Contract Law Commission.<ref>{{Cite web|title=European Group on Tort Law|url=http://www.egtl.org/|access-date=2022-01-15|website=www.egtl.org}}</ref> The ''Principles of European Tort Law''  are a compilation of guidelines by the European Group on Tort Law aiming at the harmonisation of European [[tort law]]. They are not intended to serve as a model code, even though their wording may resemble statutory texts. At least with respect to form and structure, they resemble an American ''[[Restatement of the Law]]''. The ''Principles of European Tort Law'' are intended to serve as a common framework for the further development of national tort laws and also of singular European legislation, which could avoid a further drifting-apart of piecemeal rule-making both on a national and on the European level.