CONVEXTION 07.7 TILE IAW APPLICABLE TO TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
Explanatory Report by NZ E r i o W, Ess6n ( T r a n s l a t i o n of t h e
Permanent Bureau)
A
--
I n t r o d u c t i o nl Adopting the p r o p o s a l of t h e United Kingdom d e l e g a t i o n , t h e Tenth S e s s i o n of t h e Hague Conference r e q u e s t e d t h e N e t h e r l a n d s Commission on P r i v a t e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and t h e Permanent Bureau t o examine whether i t was s u i t a b l e t o p u t t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e assumption of j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i n t o r t s ( d e l i c t s and q u a s i - d e l i o t s ) on t h e agenda of Vne E l e v e n t h Session (1968) o r of a f o l l o w i n g Session ( F i n a l Act, P a r t B, IT9 1
2 The Permanent Bureau, c a r r y i n g out t h i s d e c i s i o n , undertook prepara- t o r y s t u d i e s and s e n t t o t h e Governments t w o documents i n J a n u a r y 1967:
- -
a A P r e l i m i n a r y Document No 1 , e n t i t l e d MBmorandum r e l a t i f aux a c t e si l l i c i t e s --, en d r o i t i n t m n a t i o n a l p r i v 6 , by Bernard M, D u t o i t , then Secre- t a r y a t t h e Permanent Bureau;
-
b A P r e l i m i n a r y Document No 2, which c o n t a i n e d a Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e Governments,The Permanent Bureau asked t h e Governments t o r e p l y and add t h e i r obser- v a t i o n s , and t h e s e formed P r e l i m i n a r y Document No 3 which was forwarded t o t h e members of t h e S p e c i a l Commission convened t o d i s c u s s t h e r e p l i e s , , 3 The S p e c i a l Commission met a t t h e Permanent Bureau of t h e Hague Conference from t h e 16th u n t i l t h e 2 1 s t o f October 1967 and from the 22nd of A p r i l u n t i l t h e 4 t h o f May 1968. M r Y Loussouarn, P r o f e s s o r a t t h e F a c u l t 6 de d r o i t e t d e s s c i e n c e s Bconomiques de P a r i s was e l e c t e d Chairman and P'ir K,PVIII.H. Newman, A s s i s t a n t S o l i c i t o r , Lord C h a n c e l l o r ' s O f f i c e , House of Lords, was e l e c t e d Vioe-Chairman f o r t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n ivLr W,L.M, Reese, D i r e c t o r of t h e Parker Sohool of Foreign and Comparative Law, Columbia Law School, was e l e o t e d Vice-chairman f o r t h e second s e s s i o n which bTr Newnlan was u n a b l e t o a t t e n d , During t h e second s e s s i o n , M r E r i c W , Essen was asked
t o d r a f t t h e r e p o r t of t h e S p e c i a l Commission,
4 Discussion i n t h e S p e c i a l Commission r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f i e l d of t o r t s was too wide and heterogeneous t o be d e a l t with i n one s i n g l e oonvention,
It was decided t o s t u d y t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e and then a f t e r - wards p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y , The work of t h e S p e c i a l Commission r e l a t i n g t o t h e f i r s t - m e n t i o n e d m a t t e r l e d t o t h e drawing up of a d r a f t Convention on t h e Law Applicable t o T r a f f i c Accidents. 1
1 See the d r a f t Convention adopted by t h e Special Commission and the Report o f a!r 2-W, Xss&n, P r e l i m i n a r y Dooument No
4
of June 1968,It should be n o t e d , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , t h a t i?ne Eleventh S e s s i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e N e t h e r l a n d s Commission on P r i v a t e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law and the Permanent Bureau t o examine t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of p u t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y on t h e agenda of t h e Twelfth, o r a following S e s s i o n , 2
5
Basing i t s work on t h e d r a f ' c o f t h e q p e o i a l Commission and t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s of Governments on t h i s d r a f t1
9 t h e Second Commission of t h e Eleventh S e s s i o n of t h e ~ o n f e r e n c e was charged with t h e t a s k of d r a f t i n g a d e f i n i t i v e t e x t , M r Y, Loussouarn was Chairman of t h e Commiseion, w h i l e Messrs, W,L,i@, Xeese andE-W,
Zss8n continued i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o f f i c e s of Vice-Chairman and Xapporteur ,Although t h e main s t r u c t u r e of t h e d r a f t was conserved, t h e Commission made a number of changes; i t s u b m i t t e d , t o t h e p l e n a r y meeting, a d r a f - t Convention on t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t r a f f i c a o o i d e n t s , which was approved, B P General O a t l i n e
1 'The Convsntion d e a l s s o l e l y w i t h t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o c i v i l , non- c o n - t r a c t u a l l i a b i l i t y , a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s . Problems of j u r i s - d i c t i o n , o r of r e c o g n i t i o n and enforcement of d e c i s i o n s , i n t h i s f i e l d , remain o u t s i d e t h e scope of t h e Convention,
2 The Convention c o n t a i n s 21 a r t i c l e s , t h e f i r s t two d e l i m i t i n g i t s scope. A r t i c l e 3 enuincia-tes t h e main r u l e and a r t i c l e s
4
t o 6 s t a t e ex- c e p t i o n s t h e r e t o . A r t i c l e7
d e a l s w i t h t h e importance t o be accorded t o l o c a l r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e con-trol and s a f e t y of -tra:r:Fic, w h i l s t a r t i c l e 8 l a y s down -the scope of t h e a p p l i c a b l e law and a r t i c l e9
t a k e s up t h eq u e s t i o n of t h e d i r , e c t a c t i o n . A r t i c l e 10 c o n t a i n s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l pro- v i s i o n r e l a t i n g >o:.."ordr& p u b l i c " . By v i r t u e of a r t i c l e l l , t h e Convention
i s t o b e r e g a r d e d a s a uniform law of p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, w i t h o u t any r e s t r i c t i o n a c t i n g t h e r e o n . A r t i c l e s 12 t o
14
d e a l w i t h problems a r i s i n g i n t h e c o n t e x t o f o o u n t r i e s having non-unified l e g a l systems, A r t i c l e 15 s a t - t l e s the r s l a - t i o n s h i p between the Convention and o t h e r con.- v e n t i o n s and a r t i c l e s16
t o 21 c o n t a i n t h e f i n a l c l a u s e s ,3 .The of t h e Convention, acoord.ing t o a r t i c l e 1 , i s t o determine t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o c i v i l , non-contractual l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s , i n iiklatever k i n d of proceeding i - t i s sought t o e n f o r c e t h i s l i a b i l i t y , The term " t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t " i n t h e Convention means an' a c c i - d e n t wbich i n v o l v e s one o r more v e h i c l e s , whether motorized o r n o t , and i s connected w i t h t r a f f i c on t h e p u b l i c highway, i n grounds open t o t h e p u b l i c o r i n p r i v a t e ,Tr'ounds t o which c , e r t a i n persons h a v e a r i g h t of a c c e s s ,
It was, however, 'thought wise t o exclude from t h e s c o p e o f t h e Convention a l l m a t t e r s of l i a b i l i t y of m a n u f a c t u r e r s , s e l l e r s and r e p a i r e r s of vehi- c l e s , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e owner, o r t h a t of any o t h e r person f o r t h e inaintenance of a way o2en t o t r a f f i c o r f o r t h e s a f e t y of i t s u s e r s , and v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y , with t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e l i a b i l i t y of an owner of n v e h i c l e , o r of a p r i n c i p a l , o r of a master ( a r t i c l e 2), Furtherinore, t h e Convention does no-t z p p l y t o r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s among p e r s o n s l i a b l e , t o r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s and t o s u b r o g a t i o n 9 i n s o f a r a s i n s u r a n c e companies a r e concerned, nor does i t a p p l y t o a c t i o n s and r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s by o r a g a i n s t s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e i n s t i t u t i o n s , o t h e r s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s and p u b l i c automobile f u n d s , o r t o any exemption :from l i a b i l i t y l a i d down by t h e law which governs t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
v--
2 See F i n a l Act, P a r t C , 2 .
3 P r ~ l i m i n a r y Docurncnt No
5 ,
--. Actes e t Documents de l a Oneikme s e s s i o n , Tome 111, p. 81,4
A r t i c l e 3 l a y s d o m t h e--
main r u l e of t h e Convention, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law of t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t , a r u l e which is i n l i n e with t h e p r a c t i c e of t h e m a j o r i t y : ~ f Member S t a t e s of t h e Hague Conference, The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p l a c e o f 'the a c t does n o t g i v e r i s e t o s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t y i n t h e c a s e o f r o a d a o c i d e n t s , a s t h e p l a c e where t h e wrong was p e r p e t r a t e d n e a r l y always corresponds t o t h e p l a c e where damage was s u f f e r e d . To d e a l w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e when t h e s e two p l a c e s a r e d i f f e r e n t , t h e Conference chose t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t a s t h e d e t e r - mining c r i t e r i o n , t h a t i s t o s a y t h e p l a c e of t h e t c r t i o u s a c t , i t b e i n g e a s i e r t o a s c e r t a i n . Indeed, t h e g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e f o l l o w e d i n t h e work of t h e Conference was t o c r e a t e a convention a d d r e s s e d n o t o n l y t o judges, b u t above a l l t o t h e s u b j e c t s of t h e law and t h e i r l e g a l a d v i s e r s , a s i t was r e a l i z e d t h a t almost a l l d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g from a o c i d e n t s a r e s e t t l e d w i t h o u t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h e judge, Consequently, t h e s o l u t i o n must be s i m p l e , p r e c i s e and e a s y t o apply.5
The Conference d i d n o t t h i n k i t could adopt a r u l e s a n c t i o n i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law of t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n s .In
c e r t a i n c a s e s , converging f a c t o r s p o i n t t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a law o t h e r than t h a t of t h e p l a c e of t h e t o r t , S p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s were thought n e c e s s a r y t o s a n c t i o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h a t law, These e x c e p t i o n s , which r e p r e s e n t a new c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e s o l u t i o n oft h e conf1ic.t of laws a r i s i n g from non-contractual l i a b i l i t y , a r e s e t o u t i n a r t i c l e s
4 , 5
and 6.5.1 I n t h e d r a f t Convention of t h e S p e c i a l Commission, t h e e x c e p t i o n s were e s s e n t i a l l y founded on t h e e x i s t e n c e of a common r e s i d e n c e of t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n a c o u n t r y o t h e r than t h a t i n which t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , The f i n a l t e x t , w h i l s t r e t a i n i n g t h e c r i t e r i o n of h a b i t u a l
r e s i d e n c e a s a s u b s i d i a r y l i n k , gave p r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p l a c e of r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e o r %el:icles, The advantage of t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s t h a t i t
i s
easy t o a s c e r t a i n and i t u n i t e s a number of c o n n e c t i n g f a c t o r s . Indeed, u s u a l l y , t h e c o u n t r y of r e g i s t r a t i o n will. c o i n c i d e w i t h t h a t of t h e h a b i t u - a l r e s i d e n c e of t h e d r i v e r and t h e owner and w i t h t h e s e a t of t h e i n -
surance company,
It was, however, thought n e c e s s a r y t o r e t a i n h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e a s a supplementary c r i t e r i o n . On t h e one hand, t h e p l a c e of r e g i s t r a t i o n i s o n l y taken i n t o account i f i t c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e .
e i t h e r of t h e owner o r of t h e d r i v e r of t h e v e h i c l e , If t h e r e i s no such concordance, t h e p l a c e of r e g i s t r a t i o n would r e a l l y be v o i d of any s i p a i f i c a n c e a s a connecting f a c t o r , On t h e o t h e r hand, habitual. r e s i d e n c e h a s some r e l e v a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a s s e n g e r s and p e r s o n s p r e s e n t a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e o r v e h i c l e s , A s r e g a r d s t h e last-mentioned p e r s o n s , t h e i r h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e mast c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e p l a c e of r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r an e x c e p t i o n t o be made t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of
t h e l e x l o c i , A s t o t h e passenger who i s t h e v i c t i m of an a c c i d e n t , t h e law of t h e c o u n t r y of r e g i s t r a t i o n w i l l n o t r e p l a c e t h e law of t h e p l a c e of t h e accident, i f t h e passenger had h i s h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e i n t h a t country.
5 . 2 The Convention f u r t h e r d i f f e r s from t h e d r a f t Convention o f t h e S p e c i a l Commission i n t h a t i t does n o t d e a l s e p a r a t e l y w i t h t h e t r a n s p o r t o f p e r s o n s , The d r a f t Convention c o n t a i n e d an a r t i c l e on g r a t u i t o u s t r a n s p o r t and a n o t h e r on non-gratuitous t r a n s p o r t , t h u s drawing a d i s - t i n c t i o n between t h e i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h a t is t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p be- tween t h e t r a n s p o r t e r and t h e t r a n s p o r t e d person, and t h e e x t e r n a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h x t i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r example between t h e person i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e and .the person o u t s i d e , By t h e s e r u l e s , t h e d r a f t Convention p r e s c r i b e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t l a w s , f o r example t o r e g u l a t e t h e c a s e between a passenger and h i s d r i v e r on t h e one hdndg and t h a t of t h e passenger and t h e d r i v e r of a n o t h e r v e h i c l e on -the o t h e r hand, even i f a l l t h e s e persons were i n v c l v e d . i n t h e same a c c i d e n t , T h i s
p1ural.i-ty h a s n o t been main.tained i n t h e d e f i n i t i v e t e x t of t h e Convention which i s more marked 'by a reinforcement of t h e p ~ i n c i p l e of u n i t y , The same c o n f l i c t s r u l e r e g u l a t e s i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a l l co--authors a r e governod by t h e same law a s r e g a r d s t h e i r 1 i a b i l i . t ~ towards each s e p a r a t e v i c t i m . Any o t h e r s o l u t i o n would have made d i v i s i o n of l i a b i l i t y i m p r a c t i c a b l e , On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l
v i c t i m s , t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i s determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r each of them, Indeed, t h e law governing each vic-tin! may be determined s e p a r a t e l y from t h a t govemi.ng t h e o t h e r v i c t i m s , even i f -the o t h e r v i c t i m s appear b e f o r e t h e same c o u r t , This s o l u t i o n 4 h a s t h e advantage t h a t i t f a c i l i t a t e s f o r e s e e a b i i i t y , f o r each v i c t i m i s a b l e t o c o n o e n t r a t e on h i s own claim w i t h o u t having t o e n q u i r e whether o t h e r v i c t i m s i n t e n d t o claim or n o t and w i t h o u t having t o i n v o s t i g c t e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e s , The d i s c o n t i n u a n c e of t h e s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t of t r a n s p o r t of persons h a s , i n comparison wj.th t h e d r a f t Convention, brought about t h e i n c r e a s e d im.-.
portanoe of t h e
--.-
l e x . l o o i . ,5.3 i n l a y i n g down t h e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e &ex l o c i , t h e Conventi0.n d i s t i n g u i s h e s between damage t o p e r s o n s and. , v e h i c l e s , which i s d e a l t wi-th i n a r t i c l e 4 , and damage t o 'goods, d e a l t with i n a r t i c l e
5 ,
5.4 I n view of t h e complexity of t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r , i t was n e c e s s a r y i n . a r - t i c l e 4 -to s e p a r a t e d i f f e r e n t hypo-theses, s t a r t i n g w i t h the s i m p l e s t s o a s - t o l e a d up -to t h e most complex,
i i r t i s l e
4
a e n v i s a g e s t h e c a s e where a s i n g l e v e h i c l e i s involved i n an a c c i d e n t .&Kd i s r e g i s - t e r e d i n a S t a t e o t h e r than t h a t i n which t h e a c o i - - d s x t o c c u r r e d , I n t h a t c a s e t h e i n t e r n a l law of t h e S t a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y--
-towards t h e d r i v e r , owner o r any o t h e r person having c o n t r o l of o r an i n t e r e s t i n the v e h i c l e , i r r e s p e o t i v e of t h e i r h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e ,-
towards a v i c t i m who i s a passenger whose h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n o e i s i n a S t a t e o t h e r than t h a t where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred.,-
towards a v i c t i i n who i s o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e a t the p l a c e of t h e accid-en-t and whose h a b i t u a 1 , r e s i d e n c e i s i n the S-tate of r e g i s - t r a t i o n .A r t i c l e 4 b d e a l s w i t h t.he s i t u a t i o n where s e v e r a l velzicles a r e involved i n -the a c c y d e n t , i n . t h i s c a s e t h e r u l e s of a f - t i c l e
4
2 o n l y a p p l i i f a l l the veklioles a r e r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e same S t a t e , Thus t h e r e 1nu.s-t b e u n i t y of r e g i s t r a t i o n t o a v o i d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e l e x l o c i ,4 See B a t i f f o l , "La On~iBmo s e s s i o n de l a Conf6rence de La Iiaye de d r o i t i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r i v g " , Revue c r i t i q u e de & o i t i n - t e r n a t i o n a l p r s , 1969, ' P . 233, and Loussouarn,, "La Convention de La Eaye s u r l a l o i a p p l i -
Gable i n m a t i 6 r e d ' a c o i d e n t s de l a c i r c u l a t i o n - r o u t i B r c u i Clunet,
7969,
P. 17.A r t i c l e
4. 2
a p p l i e s when one o r more p e r s o n s o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e o??v e h i c l e s a t t h e p l a o e of t h e a c c i d e n t a r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t and may b e l i a b l e . I n t h i s c a s e e x c e p t i o n i s o n l y made t o t h e l e x l o c i i n f a v o u r of t h e law of t h e S t a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n i f a l l t h e s e persons had ( o f f i c i a l t e x t r h a v e ) t h e i r h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e i n t h e S t a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e o r v e h i c l e s involved i n t h e a c c i d e n t ,
5.5
AS r e g a r d s damage t o goods, a r t i c l e5
d i s t i n g h u i s h e s between goods c a r r i e d i n t h e v e h i c l e and goods o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e , C a r r i e d goods a r e d i v i d e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s depending on whether t h e goods belongt o t h e passenger
-
i n which c a s e t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y i s governed b y t h e same law a s t h a t d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l i a b i l i t y towards t h e passenger-
o r on t h e o t h e r hand belong t o a n o t h e r person, I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , t h e same r u l e s w i l l apply a s those which govern t h e l i a b i l i t y towards t h e owner of t h e v e h i c l e , A s f o r t h e l i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o goods.o u t s i d e t h e v e h i c l e o r v e b i c l c s , t h e l o c a l law w i l l i n t h e main apply, e x c e p t a s r e g a r d s t h e p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s of t h e v i c t i m , which a r e governed by t h e law which determines t h e l i a b i l i t y towards t h e v i c t i m f o r p h y s i c a l damage.
5.6
I n t h e e a s e of v e h i c l e s which have no r e g i s t r a t i o n o r wh?se r e g i s - t r a t i o n i s meaningless, t h e i n t e r n a l law o f t h e S t a t e i n which they a r e h a b i t u a l l y s t a t i o n e d r e p l a c e s by v i r t u e of a r t i c l e 6 t h a t of t h e S t a t eof r e g i s t r a t i o n ,
6 Aocording t o a r t i c l e
7 ,
i f t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i s a law o t h e r than t h a t of t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t , one must a l l t h e same t a k e i n t o account t h e laws, r e l a t i n g to, -the c o n t r o l and s a f e - t y of t r a f f i c which were i n f o r c e a t t h e p l a c e and time of t h e a c o i d e n t .7
A r t i c l e 8 specifies t h e scope o f t h e a p p l j - c a b l e l a x , The Conference decided t o accord t h e w i d e s t p o s s i b l e f i e l d of a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e a p p l i - c a b l e law, h11 m a t t e r s which c i v i l law a s s i g n s t o t h e realm o f t o r t i o u s l i a b i l i t y f a l l w i t h i n t h i s f i e l d , Thus t h e a p p l i c a b l e law determines f o r example' t h e b a s i s and e x t e n t of l i a b i l i t y , t h e grounds f o r exemption from l i a b i l i t y , any l i m i t a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y , any d i v i s i o n of l i a b i l i t y , t h e e x i s t e n c e and k i n d s of i n j u r y o r damage which may have t o b e ccmpen- s a t e d , t h e k i n d s and e x t e n t of damages, t h e ques-tion whether a. r i g h t t o damages may b e a s s i g n e d o r i n h e r i t e d , t h e p a r s o n s who have s u f f e r e d damage and who may claim damages i n t h e i r own r i g h t , t h e l i a b i l i t y of a p r i n c i p a l f o r t h e a c t s of h i s a g e n t or of a master f o r t h e a o t s of h i s s e r v a n t , t h e r u l e s of p r e s c r i p t i o n and l i m i t a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g r u l e s r e - l a t i n g t o t h e commencement of a p e r i o d of p r e s c r i p t i o n o r l i m i t a t i o n , and t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n and suspension of t h i s p e r i o d .8 h s p e c i a l a r t i c l e , a r t i c l e 9 , d e a l s rii-th t h e d i r e c t a c t i o n of a
v i c t i m a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r of t h e person l i a b l e , so a s t o a l l o w t h e v i c t i m t o t a k e a d v m t a g e of such an a c t i o n i n t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e number of c a s e s , Such an a c t i o n i s p e r m i t t e d n o t only when i t is s a n c t i o n e d by t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o l i a b i l i t y , b u t a l s o when i t i s s a n c t i o n e d by t h e law of t h e country i n which t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , even i f t h i s law i s n o t t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y . I n t h i s c a s e , t h u s , a r e t u r n t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law of t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t i s admitted i n favour o f t h e d i r e c t a c t i o n , F i n a l l y , i f n e i t h e r of t h e s e laws p r o v i d e s any such r i g h t , i t may s t i l l e x i s t i f i t i s provided by t h e law gpvorning t h e c o n t r a c t o f i n s u r a n c e ,
9
Following the p r a c t i c e of t h e Hague Conference, t h e "ordxe p u b l i c "p r o v i s i o n , r e t a i n e d i n a r t i c l e 1 0 , i s v e r y l i m i t e d , and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of any of t h e laws d e c l a r e d applicable may be r e f u s e d o n l y when i t i s m a n i f e s t l y c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c p o l i c y ( " o r d r e p . b l i c " ) ,
10 The " o r d r e p u b l i c " p r o v i s i o n was, t o g e t h e r with o t h e r s , adopted a s a s a f e t y v a l v e , due r e g a r d b e i n g p a i d t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of a r t i c l e 1 1 , which s t a t e s t h a t t h e Convention i s a uniform law of p r i v a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l .-p- law without r e s t r i c t i o n , T h e r e f o r e , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a r t i c l e s 1 t o 10 of t h e Convention i s independent of any requirement oC r e c i p r o c i t y . The Convention a p p l i e s even i f t h e a p p l i c a b l e law is n o t t h a t of a C o n t r a c t i n g S t a t e ,
11 A r t i c l e s 12 t o 14 aim t o s o l v e t h e v a r i o u s problems p r e s e n t e d by S t a t e s w i t h no&-~nified l e g a l systems,
-
11 , l A r t i c l e 12 l a y s down t h e r u l e t h a t any t e r r i t o r i a l e n t i t y forming p a r t of a S t a t e having a non-unified l e g a l system s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d a s a S t a t e f o r t h e purposes of a r t i c l e s 2 t o 1 1 when i t h a s i-ts own l e g a l system, i n r e s p e c - t of c i v i l n o n - c o n t r a c t u a l l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s .
I 1 - 2 So a s t o avoid S t a t e s w i t h non-unifled l e g a l systems having t o a p p l y t h e Convention even t o i n t e r n a l a c c i d e n t s , a r t i c l e 13 s p e c i f i e s t h a t such a S t a t e i s n o t bound t o apply t h e Convention t o a c c i d e n t s o c c u r r i n g i n
t h a t S t a t e which i n v o l v e o n l y v e h i c l e s r e g i s t e r e d i n t e r r l t c r i a l u n i t s of t h a t S t a t e ,
1 1 " 3 A r t i c l e
14
c o n t a i n s a f e d e r a l c l a u s e whereby a S t a t e having a non- u n i f i e d l e g a l system may d e c l a r e t h a t t h e Qonvention s h a l l extend t o a l l i t s l e g a l systems or o n l y t o one or more of them and may a t any time modify i t s d e c l a r a t i o n ,l 2 F i n a l - l y i t was thought n e c e s s a r y t o s o l v e a s f a r a s could be done t h e problem of c o n f l i c t i n ~ n v e n t i o n s , A r t i c l e
15
t h u s s t a t e s t h a t t h e Conven-tion s h a l l n o t piievail over o t h e r conventions i n s p e c i a l f i e l d s t o which t h e C o n t r a c t i n g S t a t e s a r e or may become P a r t i e s and which c o n t a i n p r o v i s i o n s concerning c i v i l non-contractual l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g o u t o f at r a f f i c a c c i d e n t ,
C Commentar~ a r t i c l e by a r t i c l e Preamble
1 Followj.ng t h e p r a c t i c e of -the Hague Conference, t h e preamble i s v e r y s h o r t , It has two main o b j e c t s , The f i r s - t i s t o make i t c l e a r t h a t t h e Convention o n l y c o v e r s p a r t of t h e f i e l d of t o r t s . Indeed, t h i s f i e l d i s -too v a s t and heterogeneous 20 b e u s e f u l l y d e a l t w i - t h i n a s i n g l e Convention, The Convention o n l y c o n t a i n s r u l e s t o s o l v e problems of t h e conf1ic.t of laws r e l a t i n g t o c i v i l non-con.tractua1 l i a b i l i t y
a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s . The Conference, i n adop-ting t h i s l i m i - ' t a t i o n , was i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h e s e a r e t h e mos-t f r e q u e n t t o r t s and t h a t t h e p r a c - t i c a l n e c e s s i t y of f i n d i n g a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problems of c o n f l i c t of laws h a s been made a l l t h e more p r e s s i n g
by t h e r a p i d growth of i n t e r - S t a t e t r a f f i c . The s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o f f i n d i n g t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s h a s t h e f u r t h e r advantage t h a t i t i s easy to d e l i m i t and l e n d s i t s e l f r e a d i l y t o u n i f i c a t i o n ,
2 Seoondly, the preamble shows t h a t t h e convention o n l y d e a l s w i t h ' t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e a p p l i c a b l e law, A l l problems of j u r i s d i c t i o n , and o f t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and enforcement of judgments i n c a s e s of t r a f f i c a c c i - d e n t s a r e l e f t o u t s i d e t h e Convention, These two q u e s t i o n s a r e r e g u l a t e d by t h e Convention on t h e Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments i n C i v i l and Commercial N a t t e r s ,
A
f i r s t d r a f t of a convention d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , which rias drawn up by t h e Permanent Bureau f o l l o w i n g .d i r e c t i v e s of a sub-committee d u r i n g t h e meeting of t h e S p e c i a l Commission of A p r i l t o May 1968 on t o r t s , was n o t d i s c u s s e d a t t h e Zleventh S e s s i o n . A r t i c l e 1
1 T h i s a r t i c l e d e f i n e s t h e scope o f t h e Convention,
2 Taking up t h e terms of t h e preamble, a r t i c l e I s t a t e s t h a t t h e Con- v e n t i o n s h a l l determine t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o c i v i l , non-contractual l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s .
2,1 The Convention o n l y d e a l s w i t h t h e LRW a p p l i c a b l e t o @ l i a b i l i t y as opposed t o c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y ,
t h e n t h e q u e s t i o n a r o s e a s t o whether t h e law d e s i g n a t e d by t h e Convention should s t i l l be a p p l i e d t o c l a i m s brought i n a c r i m i n a l c o u r t f o r compen- s a t i o n f o r t o r t i o u s a c t s , t h e Conference c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a b l e law should i n no way be r e p l a c e d by a n o t h e r , when t h e v i c t i m o r p e r s o n s cteeriving t h e i r r i g h t s from him ( a y a n t s d r o i t ) appear c i v i l l y i n a crimi- n a l c a s e . Indeed, t b e l i n k which a l l i e s t h e c i v i l a c t i o n t o t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y procedural by n a t u r e and does n o t t a k e away from
t h e c i v i l a c t i o n i t s own c h a r a c t e r . Consequently, t h e law which governs t h a t a c t i o n by v i r t u e of t h e Convention shov-ld c o n t i n u e t o a p p l y even i n c r i m i n a l cour-ts. T h i s s o l u t i o n i s implied i n t h e p a r t of t h e a r t i c l e which r e a d s : " i n whatever k i n d of proceeding it i s sought t o e n f o r c e
t h i s l i a b i l i t y " . The wording i s v e r y wide and w i l l even cover t h e case i n which an a c t i o n f a l l s t o be adjudged i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings.
2,2 I n t h e f i e l d of c i v i l l i a b i l i t y , m a t t e r s a r i s i n g a r e c u s t o m a r i l y d i v i d e d i n t o two v e r y d i s t i n c t groups: on t h e one hand t h o s e which r e l a t e t o c o n t r a c t u a l l i a b i l i t y , on t h e o t h 3 r hand tnose whioh p e r t a i n t o non- c o n t r a c t u a l l i a b i l i t y , T h i s s e p a r a t i o n h a s a l s o been e f f e c t e d i n t h i s Convention, whioh a p p l i e s o n l y non-contractual l i a b i l i t y ,
The term employed means t h a t t h e Convention does n o t cover o n l y the c i v i l l i a b i l i t y which a person i n c u r s f o r any harm due t o h i s f a u l t , n e g l i g e n c e
o r l a c k of c a r e caused t o a n o t h e r , b u t a l s o l i a b i l i t y founded on r i s k ( a b s o l u t e l i a b i l i t y ) .
2,3
As t h e Convention i s l i m i t e d t o non-contractual l i a b i l i t y , t h e problem of c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n a r r s e s . The Conrerence d i d n o t t h i n k it wise t o i n c l u d e a r u l e on c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i n t h e Convention; conse- q u e n t l y , t h e g e n e r a l c o n f l i c t s r u l e s i n each of t h e C o n t r a c t i n g S t a t e s w i l l apply t o t h i s m a t t e r and i n t h e m a j o r i t y of c a s e s t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n w i l l bo e f f e c t e d by t h e law of t h em.
2-4 The disadvantage o f t h i s s o l u t i o n i s t h a t i t opens t h e d o o r . b y way of d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s t o a v a r y i n g a p p l i c a t i o r l of -the Convention i n d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y so i n t h e c a s e of t r a n s p o r t o f
p e r s o n s . The t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i . n c . t i o n s i s t h a t be-tween grztui-Lous and n o n - g r a t u i t o u s - t r a n s p o r t . F i r s t l y a s r e g a r d s g:catuitous t r a n s p o r t , which presupposes t h e l a c k of a c o n t r a o L between a t r a n s p o r t e r and t h e person -trarisported, and which t h u s f a l l s w i t h i n t h e Convention, t h e r i s k of a v a r y i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Convention does n o t sedn -to be v e r y g r o a t , s e e i n g t h a t t h c n o t i o n of g r a t u i t o u s t r a n s p o r - t does n o t seem t o d i f f e r
! ~ u c h i n one country from a n o t h e r , For t h e r e t o be gratuitous t r a n s p o r - t , t h e t r a n s p o r t e d person must a s a r u l e have been taken i n t o t h e v e h i c l e
" o u t of k i n d n e s s and g r a . t u i t o u s i y " ( " p a r co!nplaisance e t gratui-tement", k r t i o l e
59
of t h e Swiss F e d e r a l Law on Road T:caffic). I n Fome c o u n t r i e s t h i s c r i t u r i o n i s vory s t r i o . t l y adhered -to, while i n o t h e r s oertaj-n t r a , n s p o r t which i s not e n t i r e l y f r e e i s c o n s i d r e d t o be g r a t u i t o u s , f o r exanlplo t h e t r a n s p 0 r . t of a person wbo s h a r e s tile expenses of t h e t r a n s - p o r t.
Wnen one c o n s i d e r s non--gratuitous t r a n s p o r t , views t e n d t o d i f f e r t o o g r e a t e r e x t e n t . . This n o t i o n i s -the o p p o s i t e of the n o t i o n of g r a t u i t o u s t r a n s p o r t . For t h e r e t o be n o n - g r a t u i t o u s t r a n s p o r t , a c o n t r a c t must have been concluded be-tween t h e person l i a b l e and t h e v i c t i m .
The t y p i c a l c a s e of n o n - p a t u i - t o u s t r a n s p o r t i s a bus journey. As a r u l e , a c o n t r a c t of c a r r i a g e e x i s t s when n e i t h e r of -the p a r - t i e s i n t e n d s
t o perform a s e r v i c e g-ratui-tously, I f t h e r e i s ?A e x p r e s s c l a u s e r e - l a t i n g t o l i a b i l i t y , i - t , seems t o be g e n e r a l l y admit-ted t h a t such l i a - b i l i t y i s con.tractua1 and c o n s e q u e n t l y f a l l s o u t s i d e t h e Convention,
I n o t h e r c a s e s , t h e r e may be l e s s uniform i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , For example, i n f i a n c e , a s t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h e .non-gmtuitous t r a n s p o r t e r i s
c o n s i d e r e d t o be c o n t r a c t u a l , even i n t h e absence of an e x p r e s s c l a u s e , a French judge would no-t a p p l y t h e Convention t o t h i s p o i n t , I n o t h e r c o u . n t r i e s , t h e Convention w i l l be a p p l i e d , a s the l i a b i l i t y w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d t o be t o r t i o u s , Yet o t h e r l e g a l sys%ems would g i v e a ohoice between t o r t i o u s and c o n t r a c t u a l l i a b i l . i t y and would allow '&he v i c t i m
t o r e l y e i t h e r on t h e law of t h e c o n t r a c t , i f he chooses t o invoke oon- t r a c t u a l l i a b i l i t y , o r -the law d e s i g n a t e d a s a p p l i c a b l e by t h e Convention, i f he invokes t h e - t o r t i o u s l i a b i 1 i . t ~ o:E' t h e de:Pendant, F i n a l l y , o t h e r l e g a l systems allow t h e v i o t i m -to r e l y siinultaneously on the two laws
( f o r example Swiss l a w ) .
'This divergence may, i n a l i m i t e d s p h e r e , b r i n g about E l i m p i n g a p p l i - c a t i o n of t h e Convention which would t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n t g i v e r e i n t o
"forum s h o p p i n g " by t h e v i c t i m , However, i t must be emphasized t h a t t h e s e drawbacks soem t o be more t h e o r e t i c a l than p r a c t i c a l , Further-- more t h e y a r e i n e v i t a b l e , a s l o n g a s one i s n o t ready t o impose charac- t e r i z a t i o n s on n a t i o n a l judges. The Convention would, moreover, l o s e a g r e a t d e a l of i . t s p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t , i f t h e c a r r i a g e of p e r s o n s o r goods
W- excluded from i t s soope.
2.5 The ques-tion a s t o whether p a r t i e s may choose t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i s n o t s e t t l e d by t h e Convention. I t t h u s depends on t h e law of t h e ' forum t o determine whether a c o n t r a c t ' d e s i g n a t i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e law w i l l have t h e e f f e c t t h a t a l l t h e r e l a - t i o n s h i p s be-tween t h e p a r t i e s be- come c o n t r a c t u a l o r i n any c a s e governed by the law of t h e o o n t r a c t , o r whether on t h e o t h e r hand son~c p a r t of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p may be non- c o n t r a o t u a l aind t h u s governed by t h e r u l e s of -the Convention, notwi-th- stainding t h e choice of t h e p a r t i e s , The law of -the forum must a l s o
s t i p u l a t e whether l i t i g a t i n g p a r t i e s i n a non-oontractual claim may, a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , a g r e e on t h e law t o be a p p l i e d , and whether such an agreement must be made e x p r e s s l y o r whether i t may be made i m p l i e d l y .
2,6
The Convention i s n o t incompatible with the system of the i n t e r - n a t i o n a l c a r d of i n s u r a n c e , t h e s o - c a l l e d "green c a r d " , This system o n l y c r e a t e s an u n d e r t a k i n g on t h e p a r t of t h e i n s u r e r t o cover t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h e i n s u r e d person towards t h i r d p a r t i e s , i n s o f a r a s such l i a b i l i t y i s determined by the law which i s deemed a p p l i c a b l e i n the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e ,2 , 7 The Convention does not t a k e any p o s i t i o n on t h e s o - c a l l e d problem of accumulation of c o n t r a c t u a l and t c r t i o u s l i a b i l i t y , Consequently, if a c c o r d i n g t o t h e law of t h e forum, t h e v i c t i m h a s t h e c h o i c e between a c o n t r a c t u a l a c t i o n and a t o r t i o u s a o t i c n , he may make h i s c h o i c e between t h e s e two t y p e s of l i a b i l i t y . Thus,. i f t h e law of t h e c o n t r a c t adequate- l y compensates the v i c t i m , he w i l l ohoose t o sue i n c o n t r a c t ; on t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e c o n t r a c t i n c l u d e s a l i m i t a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y , t h e Convention w i l l apply t o determine t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i n a t o r t i o u s a c t i o n ,
3 The second paragraph d e f i n e s the term' t r a f f i c " a c c i d e n t " ,
3.,1 The concept of a c c i d e n t h a s n o t been d e f i n e d . The word should be taken t o b e a r i t s u s u a l meaning, t h a t i s t o say an o c c u r r e n c e o c c a s i o n i n g damage,
I f t h e baggage of a passenger i s l o s t d u r i n g c a r r i a g o " , t h i s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o be a t r a f f i c a c o i d e n t , This c a s e f a l l s o u t s i d e t h e scope of t h e Convention,
3.2 The Convention o n l y d e a l s w i t h rqad t r a f f i c , t h u s e x c l u d i n g a i r , r a i l , r i v e r and. maritime t r a f f i c . Such t r a f f i c i s a l r e a d y d e a l t with by a number of conventions which almost t o t a l . 1 ~ exc1ud.e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
of c o n f l i c t s of law a r i s i n g o u t of t o r t s i n t h e s e f i o l d s . F'urthermore, f o l l o w i n g p a s t p r a c t i c e , t h e Hague Conference r e f r a i n s from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the work of more s p e c i a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
It should be n o t e d a t t h i s s t a g e t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s Convention and o t h e r conventions which d e a l with c i v i l non-con-bractual l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s , b u t i n p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d s , i s governed by a r t i c l e
15,
That a r t i c l e s t a t e s t h a t t h e Convention s h a l l n o t p r e v a i l over o t h e r conventions i n s p e c i a l f i e l d s ,3.3
The word " i n v o l v e s " ('km a c c i d e n t whioh i n v o l v e s one o r more vehicle$') was chosen so a s n o t t o r e s t r i c t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s Convention t ot h e c a s e i n which a v e h i c l e i s t h e a c t i v e cause of t h e a c c i d e n t , The Convention t h e r e f o r e c o v e r s damage s u s t a i n e d or caused by a p a s s i v e vehi- c l e $ t h u s i t w i l l a l s o a p p l y t o damage i n f l i c t e d upon a p a s s i v e v e h i c l e by a p e d e s t r i a n , an animal o r an o b j e c t o r , c o n v e r s e l y , by a p a s s i v e v e h i c l e on a road-user, It w i l l be seen t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n i s wide.,
3.4 The concept of " v e h i c l e " i s a l s o wide, and i t i n c l u d e s any means of locomotion, whether motorized o r n o t , Damage may t h e r e f o r e be done by a motorized v e h i c l e , a b i c y c l e , a s l e d g e , a perambulator, a t r a i l e r ,
even i f i t i s n o t a t t a c h e d t o a v e h i c l e , e t c . The same a p p l i e s t o a horse-drawn c a r r i a g e o r t o an animal, a s l o n g a s i t can be c o n s i d e r e d a s a moans o f locomotion, t h a t i s t o say a s l o n g a s i t i s used f o r t h e
c a r r i a g e of a person or t h i n g , Thc Convention a l s o extends t o a c c i d e n t s i n v o l v i n g a . v e h i c l e p e r t a i n i n g t o a r a i l w a y , i f i t a f f e c t s r o a d t r a f f i o , a s i n t h e c a s e of damage caused by a trarn o r t r a i n on a l e v e l c r o s s i n g , A for-tio& t r o l l e y b u s e s , which do n o t proceed on r a i l s , b u t f o l l o w overhead w i r e s , f a l l w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e Convention, The terms used would a l s o i n t h e f i b r e cover h o v e r c r a f t s moving over the ground,
3.5 The a c c i d e n t must be connectad w i t h t r a f f i c , This concept h a s n o t been d e f i n o d . I t means a s a r u l e t h a t one of t h e v e h i c l e s o r one o f t h e p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t should be i n motion. Eiowever, i t was r e a l i z e d t h a - t t h e concept could a l s o cover a v e h i c l r parked on a p u b l i o highway. The Convention a l s o a p p l i e s t o t h e c a s e i n which damage o c c u r s beyond t h e p u b l i c highway, f o r example when a v e h i c l e l e a v e s t h e r o a d arid c a u s e s damage t o a house, The terrn " t r a f f i c acciden-t" a l s o i n c l u d e s damage caused by s t o n e s thrown up by a ve11.iole a g a i n s t an a d j o i n i n g house.
On t h e o t h a r hand, t h e Conven-Lion w i l l n o t apply t o darnage caused by r i o t e r s s t o n i n g parked c a r s o r by an e x p l o s i o n i n a s t a t i o n a r y booby-
t r a p p e d c a r .
The term "conneoted w i t h t r a f f i c " t h e r e f o r e has a wide meaning, and t h e Conference expected t h a t i t would. b6 g i v e n a generous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 'The term does no-L imply t h e requirement o f a c h a i n of c a u s a t i o n .
3.6 When d e f i n i n g t h e p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e Conference took n o t e of a r t i c l e 2 , paragra,ph 1 of t h e f i r s t Annex t 0 thb European Convention on Compulsory Insurance a g a i n s t C i v i l L i a b i l i t y i n r e s p e c t of 810tor V e h i c l e s , The t e x t of the Iiague Conferonce, f o l l o w i n g t h i s p r o v i s i o n , r e f e r s t o - t r a f f i c "on -the p u b l i c hi.ghway, i n k ~ o u n d s open t o t h e p u b l i c o r i n p r i v a t e grounds t o which c o r - t a i n p e r s o n s have a r i g h t of a c c e s s " , T h i s enumeration covers p r a c t i c a l l y everywhere t h a t a v e h i c l e may b e , f o r example, i n p o r t s , r e i l w a y s t a t i o n s , c o u r t y a r d s , i n s i d e f a c t o r i e s o r shops, on oamping-grounds and o-thor p l a c e s which people a r e p e r m i t t e d t o f r e q u c r i t , This d e f i n i t i o n a l s o a p p e a r s -to cover an a c c i d e n t o c c u r r i n g i n a s t r e e t , t o which v e h i c l e s have no r i g h t of e n t r y ,
A r t i c l e 2
1 T h i s a r t i c l e , i n i t s s i x sub-paragraphs oxcludes c e r t a i n m e t i e r s from the scope of t h c Convention.
2 I n sub-paragraph 1 , t h e Conven-tion i s s a i d not t o a p p l y t o t h e
&
b i l i t y
-
of m a n u f ~ c t u r o r s , s e l l e r s o r r e p a i r e r s of v e h i c l e s , It was thought t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t y o f t h i s t y p e of l i a b i l i t y , which c a l l s t o mind t h c American concept of p r o d u o t s ~ l i a b i l i - t y , n i l i t a - t e s a g a i n s t t h e Converition on T r a f f i c Accidents a p p l y i n g a1 so t o t h e l i a b i l i t y of m a n u f a c t u r e r s of motor v e h i c l e s f o r damage caused by f a u l t s i n t h e i r p r o d u c t s , e t c . Mor~eover, i t should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e . Eleven'ch S e s s i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e Netherlands Commission and t h e Permanent Bureau t o examine t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of p l a c i n g tho l i a b i l i t y of manufacturers f o r t h e i r procluots i n p r i o r i t y on t h e agenda of t h e Twelfth S e s s i o n o r of a f o l l o w i n g S e s s i o n ,T h i s e x c l u s i o n a p p l i d s n o t o n l y t o -the l i a b i l i t y of t h e manufaoturer of t h e c a r i t s e l f , b u t a l s o t o t h e l i a b i l i - t y o f t h e manufaoturer o r s e l l e r of a p a r t of the v e h i c l e , f o r example 'the t y r e manufaoturer,
3 Sub-paragraph 2 of t h i s a r t i c l e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e Convention does n o t a p p l y t o t h e ~ e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e owner, o r of any o t h e r person, f o r t h e maintenance of a way open t o t r a f f i o o r f o r t h e s a f e t y of i t s u s e r s . Seeing t h a t i n t h e m a j o r i t y of c a s e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f a l l s on a S t a t e p u b l i c s e r v i c e , or a p u b l i c body o r a p u b l i c c o n c e s s i o n a r y , i n which c a s e one cannot conceive any o t h e r law a p p l y i n g than t h a t of t h e S t a t e where t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , i t was thought p r e f e r a b l e t o l e a v e t h i s q u e s t i o n o u t s i d e the Convention,
The s:?cond p a r t of t h i s s e n t e n c e was added so a s t o cover t h e c a s e i n which t h e person l i a b l e t o maintain t h e way i s n o t t h e owner, f o r example a t e n a n t , o r a u s u f r u c t o r y eta,>
The p a r t of t h e s e n t e n c e which r e f e r s t o "-l;he s a f e t y of i t s u s e r s " t a k e s n o t e of t h e s i t u a t i o n i n some c o u n t r i e s , such a s t h e F e d e r a l Republic o f Germany,where l e g i s l a t i o n makes t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e maintenance of t h e r o a d and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s s a f e t y ,
4
Ry v i r t u e of sub-paragraph 3, t h e Convention does n o t a p p l y t o v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t x , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e l i a b i l i t y of the ownerof a v e h i c l e o r of t h e p r i n c i p a l o r of a m a s t e r , The Conferenoe con- s i d e r e d i t inopportune t o d e a l w i t h t h i s m a t t e r i n t h e Convention, e s p e c i a l l y a s t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e l i a b i l i t y of p a r e n t s f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r o h i l d r e n o r of t h e husband f o r h i s w i f e , e t c , i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o f a m i l y law.
4.1
The n o t i o n o f v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y is not d e f i n e d i n t h e Convention, The -term used h a s been borrowed from t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a r t i c l e 1384 of t h e French C i v i l Code, which r e f e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e l i a b i l i t y of a f a t h e r o r mother f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , t h e l i a b i l i t y of pro-.f e s s o r s , i n s t r u c t o r s and d i r e c - t o r s of h o l i d a y camps f o r c h i l d r e n c o n f i d e d i n t o t h e i r c a r e , t o i i a b i l i t y of craftsmen f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r ap-
p r e n t i c e s and t h e l i a b i l i t y of m a s t e r s and p r i n c i p a l s f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r s e r v a n t s , The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h i s concept w i l l be e f f e c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n f l i c t r u l e s , t h a t i s t o s a y , u s u a l l y by t h e law of t h e forum, on t h e b a s i s of t h e examples g i v e n ,
4*2
Dealing w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r of t h e --W l i a b i l a of p a r e n t s f o r damage caused by t h e i r c h i l d r e n , t h e Conferenoe c o n s i d e r e d t h a t such--
l i a b i l i t y should remain o u t s i d e t h e scope of t h e Convention, even i n t h e c a s e of t h o s e c o u n t r i e s where such 1 - i a b i l i t y was n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y . For example, a c c o r d i n g -to German law, p a r e n t s a r e p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e l a c k of s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e i r c h i l d x e n , How&ver, a c c o r d i n g t o French law, p a r e n t s a r e presumed t o have been n e g l i g e n t i n t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , b u t t h i s presumption can b e r e b u t t e d . However, b o t h i n German and i n French law, p a r e n t s a r e l i a b l e f o r damage caused by t h e i r c h i l d r e n , a s t h e i r l i a b i l i t y caiinot be made o u t u n l e s s damage h a s been caused by t h e c h i l d r e n ,A l l q u e s t i o n s of s t a t u s a s p a r e n t or c h i l d remain o u t s i d e t h e Convention, The law d e s i g n a t e d by t h e r u l e s of t h e forum t o govern m a t t e r s of person- a l s t a t u s w i l l , f o r example, determine t h e age of m a j o r i t y .
It should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a l l m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o l i a b i l i t y f o r damage caused by t h i n g s a r e w i t h i n t h e scope of t h e Convention, t h e m o s t p r a c t i c a l example i n t h i s c o n t e x t b e i n g t h e l i a b i l i t y of an owner of an animal f o r damage caused by i t .
4.3 The e x c l u s i o n from t h e Convention of t h e l i a b i l i t y of p a r e n t s f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r c h i l d r e n does n o t mean t h a t t h e Convention w i l l never a p p l y t o a o c i d e n t s . . .. . . . .. , . caused . .. . . . by ' c h i l b r e n , . ' S u c h a c c i d & n I i s . . a r e c o v e ~ e d by t h e
on vent ion;
b u t t h e h a b i t u a l r e s i d e n c e of t h e p a r e n t s i s n o t t o be .,
taken i n t o acoount, f o r example,in t h e c a s e s enumerated i n a r t i c l e 4
g,
f o r t h e purpose of cletermining the law a p p l i c a b l e t o l i a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r - more, t h e law deemed a p p l i c a b l e by v i r t u e of t h e Convention w i l l n o t
r e g u l a t e t h e q u e s t i o n a s t o whe-ther and .to what e x t e n t p a r e n t s are- l i a b l e f o r t h e a c t s of t h e i r c h i l d r e n ( n o t h i n g however p r e v e n t s t h e coininon law from r e f e r r i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . t o t h e same l a w ) . 140reover9 i f Yne p a r e n t s a r e t h e owners of t h e v e h i c l e , t h e i r l i a b i l i t y could w e l l be covered
under t h i s beading. And a l s o i f a f x t h e r i s t h e p r i n c i p a l of h i s i n f a n t son, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a r . t i c l e
8,
No7 ,
can b o a p p l i e d .4.4 Seeing t h a t i n sozio c o u n t r i e s t h e l i a b i l i t y of an o$mer of a v e h i c l e f a l l s w i t h i n t h e c a t e g o r y of v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y , i t was thought n e c e s s a r y t o s t a t e e x p r e s s l y t h a t t h e l i a b i l i t y of an owner
-
a fundamental p a r t of our s u b j e c t-
i s t o t a l l y covered by the Convention,4.5 The Convention a l s o a p p l i e s , by way of a d e r o g a t i o n t o t h e e x c e p t i o n of sub--paragraph 3, -to t h e l i a b i l i t y of a p r i n c i p a l o r master f o r t h e a c t s of h i s a g e n t o r s e r v a n t , t h e t o r t f e a s o r , ?'he a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Convention t o t h e p r i n c i p a l or, master i s f u r t h e r confirmed by sub-paragraph
7
ofa r t i c l e
8,
A s t o t h e meaning of p r i n c i p a l and master, s e e below un&er a r t i c l e 8, paragraph 10, page 3 1.
5
Sub-paragraph 4 of a r t i c l e 2 provides t h a t t h e Convention s h a l l n o t apply t o _recourse a c t i o n s.--
among p e r s o n s l i a b l e .5.1 Notwithstanding t h e f a c t tha,t t h e Convention i s based on the p r i n c i - p l e of t h e u n i t y of t h e a p p l i c a b l e law w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e l i a b i l i t y of co-authors of t h e a c c i d e n t , c a s e s may a r i s e i n ,$hioh t h e l i a b i l i - t y of d i f f e r e n t ' co-authors may he determined by differcent l a w s , Such w i l l be t h e c a s e f o r exainple if a s a r e s u l t of a,% a o c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g many a u t h o r s and many vict,ims, t h e v i c t i m s b r i n g an a c t i o n a g a i n s t d i f f e r e n - t co-
a u t h o r s . In t h i s c a s e , t h e problem of t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s between t h e co-authors t a k e s cn such a degree of complexity t h a t i t was c o n s i d e r e d wise t o l e a v e it a s i d e , The Conference, i n adopting t h i s s o l u t i o n a l s o took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t t h a - t t h e problem o f r e o o w s e a c t i o n s between persons l i a b l e i s o h a r a c - t e r i a e d a s quasi-.
c o n t r a c t u a l i n Common Law c o u n t r i e s , Thus t h e Convention excludes from i t s f i e l d of a p p l i c a t i o n a l l problems of rccou.rse a c t i o n s between persons l i a b l e , even when t h e l i a b i l i - t y of t h e co-authors i s determined by ono s i n g l e law.
6 A p a r t i c u l a r problem of r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s a r i s e s in. t h e roalm of i n s u r a n c e . For example t h e r e i s t h e c a s e of s u b r o g a w n - of t h e i n s u r e r t o -tne r i g h t s of t h e v i c t i m whom he h a s indemnified, a g a i n s t t h e a u t h o r , and t h e c a s e of t h e r e o o u r s e a c t i o n t h a t t h e i n s u r e d p e r s o n , -Me a u t h o r of .the a c c i d e n t , h'as a g a i n s t h i s own i n s u r e r , when t h e v i c t i m h a s been compensated, A s a l l t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e of a c o n t r a c t u a l n a t u r e , t h e Conimission decided t o exclude them e x p r e s s l y from t h e Convention, This e x c l u s i o n i s s e t o u t i n sub-paragraph
5
of a r t i c l e 2 ,. .
6 , 1 Sub-parapaph
6
p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e Convention s h a l l n o t a p p l y e i t h e r t o k c t i 0 . n ~ and r e c o u ~ a c t i o n s by o r _ a q i n s t s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e i n s t i - t u t i o n s , o t h e r s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s and g u b l i c automobile g u a r a n t e e funds o r t o any exemption from l i a b i l i t y l a i d down by the law which governs t h e s e i n s t i l u t i o n s g a s i t i s , t h e s e c a s e s i n g e n e r a l belong t o t h e realm of p u b l i c law.6.2 A s r e g a r d s p u b l i c automobile g u a r a n t e e funds, i t should be n o t e d t h a t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of such funds i s provided f o r i n a r t i c l e
9
of the European Convention on Compulsory I n s u r a n c e a g a i n s t C i v i l L i a b i l i t y i n Respect of :lotor V e h i c l e s , i n o r d e r t o compensate i n j u r e d p a r t i e s f o r damage caused i n circumstanoes g i v i n g r i s e t o a c i v i l l i a b i l i t y , whore t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o be i n s u r e d h a s n o t been complied w i t h o r t h e person l i a b l e h a s n o t boen i d e n t i f i e d o r w h e r e ' o r d i n a r y i n s u r a n c e i s excluded, v i z . when a person has taken c o n t r o l of t h e v e h i c l e e i t h e r by t h e f t or v i o l e n c e o r merely wi-thout t h e c o n s e n t of t h e owner o r person i n c h a r g e . However, merely t h e a c t i o n s and r e c o u r s e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t p u b l i c auto- mo'oile g u a r a n t e e funds f a l l o u t s i d e t h e scope of t h e Convention, P r i v a t e f u n d s , such a s e x i s t f o r example i n t h e F e d e r a l Republic o f Germany and i n Sweden a r e thus covered by t h e Convention,l This a r t i c l e l a y s down tho main r u l e o f tho Convention, t h e a p p l i - c a t i o n of t h e i n t o r n a l law of t h e S t a t e where the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . 2 By a d o p t i n g t h e c l a s s i c a l s o l u t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e
--
l e xl o c i c o m m i s ~ ~ i n t o r t i o u s m a t t e r s , t h e Convention conforms w i t h t h e
p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f Member S t a t e s of t h e Hague Conference, This ru1.e h a s been o ~ n f i r m e d e i t h e r by l e g i s l a t i o n o r by c a s e law i n
t h e follorving c o u n t r i e s : A u s t r i a , Belgium, Czechoslovakia, ~ e n m a r k , f i a n c e , Greece, I t a l y , Luxemburg, t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , Norway, P o r t u g a l , Spain, Sweden, S w i t z e r l a n d , Yugoslavia and probably a l s o F i n l a n d , I n t h e United S t a t e s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e l o c a l law had l o n g been t h e g e n e r a l r u l e ; however, t h e c a s e of Baboock v Jackson 1 2 N..Y, 2d 473, l91 N,E, 2d 279, 240 N.Y.S.. 2d 743 (1963) may have changed t h e p o s i t i o n . 3 In a d o p t i n g t h i s r u l e , t h e Conference d i d n o t m o t i v a t e i t s d e c i s i o n by t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . No r e f e r e n c e was made t o t h e t h e o r y t h a t a t r a f f i c a c a i d e n t g i v e s r i s e t o a non-contractual o b l i g a t i o n which can only be l o c a l i s e d a t i t s s o u r c e , t'nat i s to say t h e j u r i d i c a l f a c t which g i v e s b i r t h t o i t ; f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e Conference d i d n o t countenance t h e i d e a t h a t a person i n a c o u n t r y should b e p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t i n j u r y
o c c u r r i n g t o him by t h e law i n f o r c e i n t h a t c o u n t r y and t h a t t h e person l i a b l e should be s u b j e c t t o t h e same d u t y of compensation a s a l l o t h e r s . The Conferenoe was r a t h e r e u i d e d by t h e d e s i r e t o c r e a t e c l a r i t y i n t h i s f i e l d by a d o p t i n g a r u l e which would be s i m p l e , c l e a r and e a s y t o a p p l y , According t o t h e Conference, i t s work was -to p r e p a r e a convention, n o t o n l y f o r t h e a t t e n t i o n of judges, b u t above a l l f o r t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t s of t h e law and t h e i r a d v i s e r s so t h a t they could determine t h e i r r i g h t s with e a s e a f t e r t h e occurrence of an a c c i d e n t , We could c i t e a s an example a s t u d y r e c e n t l y undertaken by Swiss i n s u r e r s , which was made known t o t h e Commission by t h e Swiss D e l e g a t e , M r Panchaud, and which shows tha-t i n S w i t z e r l a n d
995
c a s e s o u t of a thousand of a l l a c c i d e n t s ckusing damage a r e s e t t l e d w i t h o u t c o u r t i n t e ; r v e n t i o n ,Consequently, t h e s o l u t i o n chosen had t o be p r e c i s e and p r a c t i c a l ,
