El Concepto de los daños punitivos o Punitive Damages

Este artículo presenta un estudio de derecho comparado entre el sistema de daños punitivos aplicable en el sistema anglosajón y su mirada desde el derecho colombiano

Punitive damages in Brazilian law and the boundaries between criminal and civil liabilities

This article demonstrates the existence of civil responsibility with punitive purposes in Brazilian Law, explaining how it was introduced by jurisdictional activity in cases involving moral damages. Next, it points out main problems this situation represents to Brazilian Law from the standpoint of our juridical dogmatics and public policies. Additionally, it proposes the execution of an empirical research for comprehension of the structure and fundamentals of jurisprudence on the punitive character of civil responsibility for moral damages and establishes criteria for use in this research based on theories of punishment. Finally, it positions the problem of punitive function of civil responsibility in the broader ambit of relationships and boundaries between civil and criminal responsibility.

A qualificação do lucro da intervenção:responsabilidade civil ou enriquecimento sem causa?

O presente estudo tem por objetivo demonstrar que, nas hipóteses em que alguém intervém na esfera jurídica alheia e obtém benefícios econômicos sem causar danos ao titular do direito ou, causando danos, o lucro obtido pelo ofensor é superior aos danos causados, as regras da responsabilidade civil, isoladamente, não são suficientes, à luz do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, enquanto sanção eficaz pela violação de um interesse merecedor de tutela. Isto porque, como a principal função da responsabilidade civil é remover o dano, naquelas hipóteses, não fosse a utilização de um remédio alternativo, o interventor faria seu o lucro da intervenção, no primeiro caso integralmente e, no segundo, no valor equivalente ao saldo entre o lucro obtido e a indenização que tiver que pagar à vítima. A tese pretende demonstrar que o problema do lucro da intervenção não deve ser solucionado por intermédio das regras da responsabilidade civil, devendo, portanto, ser rejeitadas as propostas de solução neste campo, como a interpretação extensiva do parágrafo único, do artigo 944, do Código Civil, as indenizações punitivas e o chamado terceiro método de cálculo da indenização. Como alternativa, propõe-se o enquadramento dogmático do lucro da intervenção no enriquecimento sem causa, outorgando ao titular do direito uma pretensão de restituição do lucro obtido pelo ofensor em razão da indevida ingerência em seus bens ou direitos. Defende-se que a transferência do lucro da intervenção para o titular do direito tem por fundamento a ponderação dos interesses em jogo à luz da Constituição Federal, com especial atenção ao princípio da solidariedade, e da teoria da destinação jurídica dos bens. A tese procura demonstrar, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro não exige um efetivo empobrecimento do titular do direito para a configuração do enriquecimento sem causa e que a regra da subsidiariedade não impede a cumulação de ações, de responsabilidade civil para eliminar o dano (e no limite do dano), e de enriquecimento sem causa, para forçar a restituição do saldo positivo que permanecer no patrimônio do ofensor após o pagamento da indenização, se houver. Finalmente, a tese pretende provocar a discussão acerca da quantificação do objeto da restituição, propondo alguns critérios que deverão orientar o aplicador do direito.

Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

La sanction préventive en droit de la responsabilité civile : contribution à la théorie de l'interprétation et de la mise en effet des normes

Thèse réalisée en cotutelle avec la faculté de droit de l'Université d'Orléans en France.

L'efficacité du régime de responsabilité civile comme mesure de contrainte au respect de l'obligation de sécurité des renseignements personnels.

Dans un contexte où les renseignements personnels sont aujourd’hui une « devise » commerciale importante, il importe de s’attarder à la responsabilité de leur protection. Les lois encadrant la protection des renseignements personnels imposent notamment aux entreprises du secteur privé une obligation de sécurité. Par contre, elles ne prévoient pas de sanction monétaire en cas de violation. Il faut donc se tourner vers le droit de la responsabilité civile afin de contraindre les entreprises à adopter des mesures de sécurité. Or, le régime de responsabilité civile actuel est mal adapté aux obligations associées à la sécurité des renseignements personnels. Le flou normatif entourant le contenu de l’obligation de sécurité et les difficultés d’exercice du recours rendent peu efficace le régime de responsabilité civile compensatoire. Dans un souci d’améliorer son efficacité, deux propositions méritent d’être considérées, soit : la revalorisation des dommages-intérêts punitifs et l’encadrement statutaire d’une obligation de notification des atteintes à la sécurité des renseignements personnels. Ces deux propositions sanctionnent les violations à l’obligation de sécurité là où le régime de responsabilité civile compensatoire semble échouer. Par contre, elles ne sont elles-mêmes efficaces que si leur exercice respecte les fonctions qui leur sont sous-jacentes. Au final, la responsabilité de la sécurité des renseignements personnels ne repose pas seulement sur un régime responsabilité, mais sur une culture de responsabilité.

La réclamation en dommages punitifs et son effet sur l’assurance responsabilité : analyse de la faute intentionnelle et de l’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle

Les réclamations pour dommages punitifs en vertu de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne se multiplient depuis plusieurs années devant les tribunaux. Pour être accueillie, cette réclamation implique la démonstration d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle à un droit ou une liberté protégé par cette charte. Les recours en responsabilité peuvent faire l’objet d’une couverture d’assurance. Or, le Code civil du Québec prévoit spécifiquement que l’assureur n’est pas tenu de couvrir la faute intentionnelle de l’assuré. Est-ce à dire que l’assureur n’a pas d’obligation envers son assuré lorsque des dommages punitifs sont réclamés? Il s’agit donc de déterminer si le concept de faute intentionnelle et celui d’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle sont des concepts qui s’équivalent ou qu’il est nécessaire de distinguer. Pour cette analyse, ces deux concepts seront abordés en profondeur. Il sera question de l’origine de ces deux notions, de leurs fondements et de leur interprétation pour finalement définir ces termes le plus précisément possible. Ces définitions permettront d’opposer ces deux notions et de déterminer au final qu’il existe plusieurs éléments qui différencient ces concepts, notamment à l’égard de l’intention requise, faisant en sorte qu’ils ne peuvent être assimilés. Cette conclusion aura un impact certain sur les obligations de l’assureur de défendre l’assuré et d’indemniser la victime pour ses dommages compensatoires lorsqu’il existe une réclamation en dommages punitifs et, par conséquent, l’assureur ne pourra faire reposer son refus de défendre ou d’indemniser sur la seule base de la preuve d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle.

The High Cost of Hasty Hiring

Carefully reading employment applications and checking out all references and prior-employment records is vital to hotel managers and personnel directors today. Many legal suits are the result of employees who, hired quickly because of an immediate need, commit some crime in relation to guest rooms or property.

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?

Intent behind payments determines impact on assessment of damages

In Zheng v Cai (2009) 261 ALR 481 the High Court had to determine whether voluntary payments made to the appellant by a third party were to be taken into account when assessing a claim for damages for personal injury.

Assessment of damages for property damage

In Gagner Pty t/as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691, the assessment of damages awarded for the rectification work to the premises of the respondent was in issue. The appellant operated a restaurant above the respondent’s jewellery store in Sydney. When the kitchen of the restaurant flooded, water escaped causing damage to the jewellery store’s fit-out. The escape of the water was held to be due to the negligence of persons for whom the appellant was vicariously liable. The trial judge awarded damages, measured by the amount required to return the premises as close as was possible to the condition prior to the flood damage as well as an allowance for interruption to the business for 10 days. The 10 day allowance reflected the number of days the store would have been closed for if it was to be returned to its previous condition. The evidence was that the flooding has only affected approximately 10% of the floor area of the store. However, instead of having work carried out to bring the premises back to its condition as before the water damage, the respondent closed the business for 29 working days for a complete internal refurbishment – at a cost substantially more than simple rectification. On appeal it was argued that the trial judge had assessed the damages incorrectly as by undertaking a complete refurbishment had the effect that the respondent did not suffer any loss as a consequence of the negligence in relation to the fit-out. It was asserted that the claim for damages was in the circumstances a claim for betterment. It was also argued that the damages should not include a component for GST. Campbell JA gave reasons, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing.

Uncetainty in claiming damages for defects in property

In Project Management Company No 2 Pty Ltd v Cushway Blackford & Associates Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 102 the appellant sought leave to join its parent company party (Project Management Company No 1) as a plaintiff to the proceedings and to amend its statement of claim. It was argued that the parent company had suffered the loss claimed in the proceedings, rather than the appellant. Rule 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows a court at any stage of the proceeding to order that ‘a person whose presence before the court would be desirable, just and convenient to enable the court to adjudicate effectually and completely on all matters in dispute connected with the proceeding’ be include as a party. To determine this issue, the Court of Appeal had to review the law relevant to the proceedings – a claim in negligence for pure economic loss, in particular, the principles espoused by the High Court in Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 609 and Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515.

The Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice: Cultures of Control and Rights of Compliance in Western Europe and the USA

Separate systems of justice for children and young people have always been beset by issues of contradiction and compromise. There is compelling evidence that such ambiguity is currently being `resolved' by a greater governmental resort to neo-conservative punitive and correctional interventions and a neo-liberal responsibilizing mentality in which the protection historically afforded to children is rapidly dissolving. This resurgent authoritarianism appears all the more anachronistic when it is set against the widely held commitment to act within the guidelines established by various children's rights conventions. Of note is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, frequently described as the most ratified human rights convention in the world, but lamentably also the most violated. Based on international research on juvenile custody rates and children's rights compliance in the USA and Western Europe, this article examines why and to what extent `American exceptionalism' might be permeating European nation states.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.