In light of the 20th anniversary of the ruling in Francovich, Michael Haba analyzes the principle of Member State Liability, which provides a right to damages whenever EU law is breached by Member States. His research ascertains that the doctrine evolved through three stages before becoming the unified approach that it is today. The author emphasizes that the principle’s base lay at the outset of the EEC, when the ECJ sought means to foster the enforcement of EC law. He shows that although State Liability was introduced in Francovich, there was not enough guidance on its application. He highlights that these matters were resolved in Brasserie/Factortame III, which refined the assessment of culpability, but was inconsistent and had to be further clarified in case law. He illustrates that the doctrine was expanded to breaches of EC law by last instance courts in Köbler. Finally, the author examines if breaches of European competition rules could lead to a right to damages under the principle, but concludes that no fourth stage of State Liability can be established.

Should states be liable towards individuals for failure to provide justice, good roads or timely administrative decisions? In this paper, we show that state liability can serve three different purposes, none of which implies that the state should be liable in tort, unless other specific conditions are met. One purpose is to provide incentives for state agencies and private individuals to act efficiently. Here, the effectiveness of liability depends on the channeling of incentives down the chain of command to the acting state employee. The second purpose of state liability is to remove incentives for private parties, when these incentives are distorted, as when compensating for wrongful conviction. The third aim of state liability is to allow a higher level of the administration to monitor the behavior of a lower level. In this case, the judicial system and private parties are means towards the end of generating information about wrongful behavior by public bodies and agencies. Within this framework, we discuss substantive and procedural aspects of state liability in torts. We provide an economic argument for court specialization in administrative law and explain why the different solutions around the world could be appropriate under local determinants.

On-going deterioration of the state of the environment and the continuous risk of an environmental disaster has forced society to reconsider its environmental and developmental objectives. For economic and environmental reasons, the costs of prevention and reparation of environmental harm should be channelled to the polluter. However, such channelling may run counter to legal principles. This work scrutinizes this field of tension between economic and legal principles at state level. It provides a unique analysis of traditional thinking on state liability for transboundary harm and the theories which have challenged it since the proliferation of hazardous activities in the 1960s. The author favours a return to traditional thinking, but has an eye for the theories that challenged it with the aim of safeguarding the compensation of victims of transboundary harm.

The aim of this paper is to discover the theoretical underpinnings of the case law of the European Court of Justice on Member State liability and the normative justification for such liability. The author argues that EU Member State liability presents the same formal characteristics as constitutional tort liability, and examines the theories of justice which might underlie a system of constitutional torts with a view to assessing their ability to explain the phenomenon of EU Member State liability. The author concludes that the theories of justice which provide a normatively adequate rationalization of constitutional tort liability are incapable of explaining the liability of Member States for violations of EU law. In the final part of the paper, the author suggests an explanation for the discrepancy and discusses the implications of this finding for further research on the issue of State liability in the European Union.

Bert Van Roosebeke analyses non-contractual state liability in the European Union. He explains differences in member states’ breaching behaviour and presents the state liability doctrine as developed by the European Court of Justice in a number of cases. He shows that compliance is the true economic aim of state liability legislation and presents a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of both private and public law enforcement mechanisms. He finally formulates improvements to the rules of state liability.

Tort Law Desk Reference Whether you are confronted with multi-state tort litigation, have the opportunity to litigate a tort case in one of several states, or must initiate or defend a case in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, Tort Law Desk Reference quickly gives you the information you need about the tort laws of each state. With succinct summaries of laws and citations to controlling statutes and case law, this indispensable guidebook answers vital questions about each state's tort laws, such as: Is the claim or lawsuit barred in the jurisdiction where it was filed? Does a "no-fault" statute limit the right to recovery? Do joint liability provisions require a minimally liable defendant to pay the entire judgment? If there is no breach of contract or breach of warranty claim, is a fraud and misrepresentation claim viable? Under what circumstances can a trespasser recover against a property owner? And much more You'll be able to quickly determine available causes of action, realistic defenses, and permissible damages...and you'll have at your fingertips current and leading citations necessary for more detailed research of specific issues. No other resource simplifies the process for making critical tort litigation choices like Tort Law Desk Reference. It's the only single volume book that expertly digests the many significant provisions of every state's tort law in a clearly organized and uniform format. State-by-state, you get up-to-date coverage of statutes and case law covering "No-fault" limitations The standard for negligence Causation Res ipsa loquitur and ultra-hazardous activities Negligence per se Indemnity Bar of workers' compensation statute Premises liability Dram shop liability Economic loss Fraud and misrepresentation Wrongful death Attorney's fees State Laws Included: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.