title: Erik Prince

text: As of January 2011, Prince was training a force of 2,000 Somalis for anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. The program was funded by several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates and backed by the United States. Prince's spokesman, Mark Corallo, said Prince had "no financial role" in the project and declined to answer any questions about Prince's involvement. John Burnett of Maritime Underwater Security Consultants said, "There are 34 nations with naval assets trying to stop piracy and it can only be stopped on land. With Prince's background and rather illustrious reputation, I think it's quite possible that it might work."


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince leads a private equity firm called Frontier Resource Group, and until April 13, 2021, he was also chairman of Frontier Services Group Ltd, a Bermuda-incorporated logistics and transport company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Frontier Services Group is backed by China's state-owned CITIC Group and Hong Kong-based investor , with the Chinese government listed as the largest investor. Prince's ventures advise and support Chinese investment in oil and gas in Africa.


title: Erik Prince

text: In May 2014, it was reported that Prince's plan to build a diesel refinery in South Sudan, in which $10 million had already been invested, was suspended. The halted refinery project was reported to be supported personally by the country's president, Salva Kiir Mayardit. Frontier Services Group was reported to be paid $23.3 million by South Sudan's Ministry of Petroleum to transport supplies and perform maintenance on oil production facilities. Prince sold to the government of South Sudan for $43 million dollars three Mi-24 attack helicopters and two L-39 jets together with the services of Hungarian mercenary pilots to operate the aircraft. One of the Hungarian pilots attracted some infamy by using his Facebook page to boast about his daily killings.


title: Erik Prince

text: As part of Prince's Africa-focused investment strategy, Frontier Services Group purchased stakes in two Kenyan aviation companies, Kijipwa Aviation and Phoenix Aviation, to provide logistics services for the country's oil and gas industry. In October 2014, the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority denied Kijipwa Aviation an aviation license renewal.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince also purchased a 25% stake in Austrian aviation company Airborne Technologies. In 2014, Prince commissioned the company to modify Thrush 510G crop-dusters with surveillance equipment, machine guns, armor, and other weapons, including custom pylons that could mount either NATO or Russian ballistics. One of the modified crop-dusters was delivered to Salva Kiir Mayardit's forces in South Sudan shortly before a contract with Frontier Services Group was cancelled. Frontier Services Group owns two of the modified Thrush 510Gs, but since executives learned the craft had been weaponized by Prince, the company has declined to sell or use the aircraft to avoid violating U.S. export controls.


title: Erik Prince

text: "The New York Times" reported in May 2018 that Prince arranged an August 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, attended by himself, Donald Trump, Jr., George Nader and Joel Zamel, during which Nader reportedly told Trump Jr. the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were eager to help his father win the election, and Zamel pitched a social media manipulation campaign from his Israeli company Psy-Group. Prince had stated in his November 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that he had no formal communications or contact, nor any unofficial role, with the Trump campaign. Asked about this contradiction in March 2019, Prince replied, "I don't know if [the Committee] got the transcript wrong" and "not all the discussion that day was transcribed, and that's a fact." Prince acknowledged for the first time in March 2019 that he had attended the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, asserting he was there to "talk about Iran policy".


title: Erik Prince

text: Special Counsel investigators have examined a meeting around January 11, 2017, in the Seychelles that was convened by the UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (known as "MBZ"), which Prince attended. Also present at that meeting were Nader and Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the state-owned Russian Direct Investment Fund, who is close to Vladimir Putin. UAE officials reportedly believed that Prince was representing the Trump transition and Dmitriev was representing Putin. "The Washington Post" had reported on April 3, 2017, that American, European and Arab officials said the Seychelles meeting was "part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump." Prince denied in his November 2017 House Intelligence Committee testimony that he had represented the Trump transition or that the meeting involved any back-channel. "The Washington Post" reported on March 7, 2018, that the Special Counsel had gathered evidence that contradicts Prince, and ABC News reported on April 6, 2018, that Nader had met with Prince at a Manhattan hotel days before the Seychelles meeting and later provided him with biographical information about Dmitriev.


title: Erik Prince

text: The Mueller report later found that Nader had represented Prince to Dmitriev as "designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very very well connected and trusted by the New Team", while Prince "acknowledged that it was fair for Nader to think that Prince would pass information on to the Transition Team", although Bannon told investigators that Prince had not informed him of the Dmitriev meeting in advance. Prince testified to the House Intelligence Committee that "I didn't fly there to meet any Russian guy", although the Mueller report found that he and Nader made significant preparations to meet Dmitriev. Although Prince characterized a second meeting between him and Dmitriev in a hotel bar as a chance encounter of no consequence, the meeting was actually pre-arranged after Prince had learned from calls back home that Russia had moved an aircraft carrier off Libya and he wanted to convey that the United States would not accept any Russian involvement in Libya.


title: Erik Prince

text: House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff announced on April 30, 2019, that he was sending a criminal referral to the Justice Department alleging Prince had provided false testimony to the committee. United States Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd confirmed on February 4, 2020, that the Department of Justice was opening an investigation into Prince.


title: Erik Prince

text: On December 30, 2019, it was reported that Prince had traveled to Venezuela to meet with a top aide of Nicolas Maduro. Prince has been referred to the United States Treasury Department for possible violations of sanctions against the Maduro government.


title: Erik Prince

text: "The New York Times" reported in March 2020 that in recent years Prince had recruited former intelligence agents to infiltrate "Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda." Prince's efforts were reportedly conducted to assist Project Veritas, a widely discredited conservative organization that was described as disseminating "coordinated disinformation" due to its repeated use of deceptively edited videos in attempts to discredit Democrats, the media, and liberal groups. Until mid-2018, Richard Seddon, a former British spy, headed the field operations for the plots and trained operatives in Wyoming at the Prince ranch. Prince also reportedly arranged for Project Veritas employees to receive intelligence training, which ended when the trainer quit because the group "wasn't capable of learning". Prince continued to support Project Veritas after the organization's failure to disclose to state regulators the criminal conviction of its founder, James O'Keefe, resulted in the revocation of their charitable organization status in multiple states, and caused other donors to withdraw their financial support.


title: Erik Prince

text: In May 2021, "The New York Times" reported that Project Veritas, with the assistance of a former British spy and Erik Prince, secretly surveilled government employees during the Trump administration with the goal of discrediting perceived critics of former President Trump. Tactics included arranging dates for FBI employees with the intent to record them. The operation failed to record a single official disparaging Trump despite extensive expenditures including rental of an expensive Georgetown home.


title: Erik Prince

text: In April 2020, "The Intercept" reported that Prince has offered his services as a subcontractor to Russian Wagner group's activities in Mozambique and Libya, suggesting to provide aerial surveillance platforms and a ground force. Investigations by "Rolling Stone" and "The New York Times", based on an internal United Nations report, have since revealed a number of connections between Prince and the Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar's attempts in 2019 to overthrow the U.N.-backed government of Libya.


title: Erik Prince

text: On April 14, 2019, Erik Prince made a proposal of a $80 million deal to Libya's militia leader Khalifa Haftar to supply aircraft and other military equipment. Called the Project Opus, it involved purchase of surplus military helicopters from Jordan. The plan was designed to supply intelligence surveillance aircraft, drones, armed assault helicopters, maritime interdiction, and cyber intelligence and targeting capabilities to Haftar's forces. The project was, however, aborted in June 2019. The planning, management and financing of the Prince's project was done using three firms from the United Arab Emirates, including Lancaster 6 DMCC, L-6 FZE and Opus Capital Asset Limited FZE, which were using a web of shell companies.


title: Erik Prince

text: Two of these Emirati firms, Lancaster 6 and Opus Capital Asset were linked to a team of private mercenaries and the unique Pilatus PC-6 ISR aircraft deployed to Libya to support Haftar. Besides, UAE's L-6 FZE owned a crop duster, LASA T-Bird, which was part of Erik Prince's Project Opus. A UN report in March 2021 revealed that the Light, Attack and Surveillance Aircraft (LASA), which debuted at the Paris Air Show in 2017, flew to Serbia for maintenance in August 2018. The UN stated that the 'agricultural' plane was modified to carry some deadly rockets, including a 32-57mm Rocket Pod, a 16-57mm Rocket Pod and a gun pod fitted with twin 23mm cannon under the aircraft's wings.


title: Erik Prince

text: Erik Prince was under an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for his alleged involvement in the attempted sale of Jordanian arms to the UAE-backed Khalifa Haftar, as part of the 2019 plan. Previous investigations had revealed that Prince and others breached the Libyan arms embargo. As per the reports, Prince worked with a Jordanian royal, Feisal ibn al-Hussein, to organize the sale and transfer of aircraft and other materiel from Jordan to Libya. Prince’s associate and an Australian pilot, Christiaan Durrant attempted to assure the Jordanian officials that he had “clearances from everywhere” and that the work was approved “at the highest level”. However, after Jordan rejected the deal, a meeting was called by Prince at the Army and Navy Club in the US. Also attended by Durrant and a member of Donald Trump’s National Security Council, the meeting had an agenda where Durrant explained the NSC official about Prince's Libyan campaign to support Haftar and asked for the US’ support. The United Nations had also tracked transfer of three aircraft owned by Erik Prince to a close associate for use in Libya. It was also reported that the planes were transferred from Prince’s companies to a mercenary firm connected to him and based in the United Arab Emirates. Apart from the investigations, Prince was not charged with a crime.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince lives in both Middleburg, Virginia and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. He converted to Catholicism in 1992 and describes himself as a practicing member of the church.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince describes himself as a libertarian. Prince said, "I'm a very free market guy. I'm not a huge believer that government provides a whole lot of solutions. Some think that government can solve society's problems. I tend to think private charities and private organizations are better solutions."


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince credits his time as a White House intern with some of his political views. He said that "having that White House internship responsibility and badges, I walked around some of these other cavernous federal agencies, and you want to talk about depressing? Walk through HHS or HUD or Commerce, you name it. Leviathan realized." Speaking of his internship, Prince said, "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with--homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act." Disenchanted, Prince became a backer of presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.


title: Erik Prince

text: Between 1998 and 2007, Prince donated more than $200,000 to Republican and third-party causes. In 2006, Prince contributed money to the Green Party of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania as part of a failed effort to help Republican Rick Santorum defeat Democrat Bob Casey. He has also donated to the Family Research Council, a beneficiary of the Prince and DeVos families since the 1980s, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group that "makes false claims about the LGBTQ community based on discredited research and junk science."


title: Erik Prince

text: In 2016 Prince contributed $250,000 to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and $100,000 to Make America Number 1, a Trump-aligned super PAC helmed by Rebekah Mercer.


title: Erik Prince

text: Other Republican politicians that Prince has contributed to include Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Joe Miller, Todd Tiarht, Mike Pence, Dana Rohrabacher, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Duncan L. Hunter, Ted Poe, Jon Kyl, Pete Hoekstra, and Mitt Romney.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince serves as vice president of the Prince Foundation, an organization his parents founded in 1979. In the 1990s Prince founded the Freiheit ("Liberty") Foundation, a nonprofit charity which funded a number of conservative causes. Publicly available tax records indicate the foundation has been largely inactive since 2008 after claiming a $1.8 million loss in 2007 (more than 50% of the foundation's assets) related to its investment in Seligman New Technologies Fund, whose manager was accused of engaging in illegal market timing activity. Prince has frequently donated to conservative Christian organizations, including the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and the Prison Fellowship, and conservative political groups such as the Council for National Policy, of which his father was vice president at the time of his death. After the Nisour Square massacre in which Blackwater employees opened fire in a crowded square in Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and seriously wounding 20 more, Prince supported a Muslim orphanage in Afghanistan and built mosques at Blackwater bases.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince is the younger brother of former United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and the brother-in-law of former Alticor (Amway) president Dick DeVos.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince's first wife, Joan Nicole, died of cancer in 2003 at age 36. She introduced Prince to Catholicism. They had four children. He later wrote that he had an affair with Joanna Ruth Houck, his children's nanny, while his wife was dying. Prince and Houck married in 2004. He is now married to Stacy DeLuke, a former Blackwater spokesperson.


title: Erik Prince

text: Prince has seven children. His youngest child, Charles Donovan Prince, was named after William "Wild Bill" Donovan.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The Brazil versus Germany football match that took place on 8 July 2014 at the Mineirão stadium in Belo Horizonte, was the first of two semi-final matches of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Both Brazil and Germany reached the semi-finals with an undefeated record in the competition, with the Brazilians' quarter-final with Colombia causing them to lose forward Neymar to injury, and defender and captain Thiago Silva to accumulation of yellow cards. Despite the absence of these players, a close match was expected, given both teams performed comparably well throughout the tournament. Also, both were regarded as two of the biggest traditional FIFA World Cup forces, sharing eight tournaments won and having previously met in the 2002 FIFA World Cup Final, where Brazil won 2–0 and earned their fifth title.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: This match, however, ended in a historic loss for Brazil; in a massive show of dominance, Germany led 5–0 within 29 minutes, with four goals being scored inside a six-minute span, and subsequently brought the score up to 7–0 in the second half. Brazil scored a consolation goal in the last minute, ending the match 7–1. Germany's Toni Kroos was selected as the man of the match.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The game marked several tournament records. Germany's win marked the largest margin of victory in a FIFA World Cup semi-final. The game saw Germany overtake Brazil as the highest-scoring team in World Cup tournament history and become the first team to reach eight World Cup Finals. Miroslav Klose scored his 16th career World Cup goal and surpassed Brazil's own Ronaldo as the tournament's all-time record goalscorer. Brazil's loss broke their 62-match unbeaten streak at home in competitive matches, going back to the 1975 Copa América (where they lost 3–1 to Peru in the same stadium), and equalled their biggest margin of defeat in a match alongside a 6–0 loss to Uruguay in 1920. It was also Brazil's worst margin of defeat in a World Cup match, with their previous worst loss in that category being their 3–0 loss to France in the 1998 final at the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, Paris.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Ultimately, the match was described as a national humiliation. The game has subsequently been dubbed the Mineiraço () in reference to the Mineirão stadium, evoking a previous "spirit of national shame" known as the "Maracanaço" in which Brazil unexpectedly lost in the final of the 1950 FIFA World Cup on home soil to Uruguay. Brazil subsequently lost 3–0 to the Netherlands in the third-place play-off, while Germany went on to win the World Cup for the fourth time, defeating Argentina in the final.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazil was hosting the FIFA World Cup for the second time (the first being 1950), and had won the tournament on five previous occasions. Germany was a three-time winner but had not won the tournament in 24 years. Brazil was in the semi-finals for the first time since 2002, from which they emerged victorious and subsequently won the tournament against Germany; while Germany was in a record-breaking fourth consecutive semi-final. Both teams had entered the tournament among the favourites to win, with Germany ranked 2nd and Brazil ranked 3rd in the FIFA World Rankings. It was only the second World Cup match between the two sides.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazil's route to the semi-final included a group stage with Croatia, Mexico and Cameroon in Group A, from which they advanced with seven points before beating Chile in the Round of 16 in a penalty shoot-out, and Colombia in the quarter-finals. Germany had been drawn with Portugal, Ghana and the United States in Group G, and advanced with seven points before beating Algeria in the Round of 16 (after extra time) and France in the quarter-finals. The two teams had met in 21 previous matches, but their only previous encounter in the single-elimination round of the World Cup was the final of the 2002 FIFA World Cup that was a 2–0 victory for Brazil, which was Luiz Felipe Scolari's first tenure as manager of Brazil while Miroslav Klose was in Germany's starting lineup.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazil defender and captain Thiago Silva was suspended for the match due to accumulation of yellow cards, despite an appeal against the suspension by the Brazilian Football Confederation. Forward Neymar was also unavailable for the match, having been sidelined for the rest of the tournament after suffering a fractured vertebra in the quarter-final match against Colombia. Dante and Bernard, making their first starts of the tournament, replaced Thiago Silva and Neymar respectively with Luiz Gustavo replacing Paulinho in defensive midfield. Germany were unchanged from their quarter-final. Goalkeeper Júlio César and stand-in captain David Luiz paid tribute to Neymar by holding his shirt during the national anthem ceremony. Even with the absences, analysts expected a close match, feeling the home crowd could provide an advantage.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Both teams had reached the semi-finals undefeated in their previous matches of the tournament. The officiating team was led by Mexican referee Marco Antonio Rodríguez, in what would be the final match of his career.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Both teams started with attacking play, with Brazilian Marcelo's shot going wide in the third minute and German Sami Khedira's shot in the seventh minute being inadvertently blocked by his teammate Toni Kroos. In the 11th minute, the Germans scored from their first corner of the game. Thomas Müller escaped his marker, David Luiz, in the penalty box, and Toni Kroos's delivery found him wide open for a side-footed shot into the net. In the following minutes Brazil tried to respond but their attacks came to nothing, although Philipp Lahm delivered a tackle to keep Marcelo from setting up a chance in the penalty box. Instead, in the 23rd minute, Germany scored again after Kroos and Müller combined to set up Miroslav Klose, who scored on the rebound after his initial shot was saved by goalkeeper Júlio César. It was Klose's 16th goal at a World Cup, passing Brazilian player Ronaldo as the all-time World Cup top scorer while playing in Brazil.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Klose's goal initiated a flurry of German scoring as Brazil lost control of the game. In the 24th minute, Kroos scored with a left-footed strike from the edge of the area after Lahm's cross was deflected. Then, in the 26th minute, just a few seconds after Brazil kicked off, Kroos caught Fernandinho in possession in his own half and played a one-two with Khedira before scoring again. Kroos' goals came just 69 seconds apart. Khedira himself scored in the 29th minute after exchanging passes with Mesut Özil. All five of Germany's first half goals came within the first half-hour, with four of them coming in one six-minute period. In contrast, Brazil had no shots on target in the first half. Many Brazil supporters in the crowd were visibly in shock or reduced to tears, and many would leave the stadium before the second half. The resulting fights in the Mineirão stands forced the Military Police to send a special forces squad into the stadium.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazil's substitution of Paulinho for Fernandinho and Ramires for Hulk resulted in an improvement in their play after the restart; Germany goalkeeper Manuel Neuer saved shots in quick succession from Oscar, Paulinho and Fred. By the 60th minute, though, the Germans came close to scoring again, with Júlio César denying Müller twice. Another German goal nonetheless came in the 69th minute – Lahm's low cross found substitute André Schürrle, who side-footed the ball into the net from close range. 10 minutes later, Schürrle ran onto Müller's cross from the left and hit a powerful shot over César at the near post. At this point with the score at 7–0, the remaining home fans gave the Germans a standing ovation, applauding both Schürrle's goal and Germany's overall performance. Close to the end, Özil received a through ball but just missed the chance to make it an eighth goal. Seconds later, Oscar received a long ball and scored in the 90th minute to make it 7–1. The final score matched Brazil's worst loss (6–0 to Uruguay in 1920) and ended a run of 62 competitive home matches unbeaten for Brazil. The Brazilian players left the pitch in tears to a chorus of boos and jeers.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Toni Kroos was selected Man of the Match, with three shots, two goals, 93% pass accuracy, one assist and two chances created.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazilian striker Fred, who was replaced by Willian in the 70th minute, received a particularly hostile reaction from the home fans. According to Opta Sports, Fred failed to make a single tackle, cross, run or interception during the match, and actually spent the majority of his time in possession of the ball on the centre spot due to six restarts.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The game's result was the biggest winning margin in a World Cup semi-final or final. The outcome was also the worst loss by a host country in World Cup history, as the six-goal difference doubled the previous record margin. By the end of the game, a total of 167 goals had been scored at the 2014 World Cup, the 2nd-most at a single World Cup, after 1998 with 171 goals. With 18 total shots on target, the match had the joint-most shots on target of any match in 90 minutes at the 2014 World Cup. The match also had the fastest four goals scored in World Cup history, with Germany scoring in the span of six minutes (from 23′ to 29′); in 1954, Austria took seven minutes (25′ to 32′) and in 1982, Hungary also took seven minutes (69′ to 76′) to score four goals. Germany equalled the record for most goals scored against the host nation of the World Cup, with Austria defeating Switzerland 7–5 in the 1954 World Cup. Germany also overtook Brazil to become the all-time highest-scoring team in FIFA World Cup history, their total of 223 at full-time passing Brazil's 221. Before the match Brazil and Germany were even with seven World Cup finals each; the German victory made them the only squad to reach 8 finals.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: For Brazil, the result became one of their two worst losses, equalling a 6–0 defeat to Uruguay in Valparaíso in 1920, and was their worst defeat at home; their previous worst defeat at home was a 5–1 defeat by Argentina in Rio de Janeiro in 1939. The loss broke Brazil's 62-match home unbeaten streak in competitive matches, dating back to their 1–3 loss to Peru in the 1975 Copa América; this match was also played at Estádio Mineirão in Belo Horizonte. The last time Brazil had lost a World Cup semi-final was in 1938, in a dramatic game against Italy in Marseille, and had emerged victorious from this stage the previous six times they had reached it, since the loss in 1974 against Netherlands was not formally a semi-final. Brazil had never before conceded seven goals at home, although they once conceded eight goals in an 8–4 friendly defeat to Yugoslavia on 3 June 1934; the last time they conceded at least five was in a 6–5 win in the 1938 World Cup versus Poland; at least four was in a 4–2 defeat at the 1954 World Cup against Hungary. Brazil's largest losing deficit at the World Cup prior to the match was three goals, which came in the 3–0 defeat to France in the 1998 final. The game's outcome also marked Brazil's worst result against Germany, passing a 2–0 defeat in a 1986 friendly.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: For Germany, the final result meant that, for the fourth straight time, they were positioned among the tournament's top three teams; moreover, the victory allowed the Germans to become the first side to reach eight World Cup finals. Germany became the first team to score 7 goals in a World Cup semi-final. The last time a team scored six goals was West Germany in 1954 versus Austria, same as in both semi-finals in 1930. Only two teams have previously trailed by at least five goals at half-time: Zaire (versus Yugoslavia in 1974) and Haiti (versus Poland in 1974). The seven goals scored by Germany reflected a better goal-scoring record in the World Cup Finals than that of 28 other nations in their respective history of the World Cup.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Germany's Miroslav Klose equalled the Brazilian Cafu as the player with most matches being on the winning side at the World Cup, with 16 victories. Klose played his 23rd World Cup match, equalling Paolo Maldini on 2nd place on most World Cup matches, with only Lothar Matthäus remaining with more (25). Klose has played in more knockout games than Matthäus or Cafu – 13, and also became the only player to take part in four World Cup semi-finals (Uwe Seeler previously played in three semi-finals). In the match, he broke the record for the most goals scored at the World Cup with 16, overtaking Brazil's Ronaldo's total of 15; Ronaldo was in attendance at the match as a commentator. Thomas Müller's goal was Germany's 2,000th in the history of their national team. Toni Kroos' first-half double scored in 69 seconds was the fastest pair of goals scored in World Cup history by the same player.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: According to reports, after Germany had scored their fifth goal with Khedira, Neymar, who was also watching the match on television in his home in Brazil, in Guarujá, switched off his set and went to play poker. World Cup-winning Brazil manager Luiz Felipe Scolari said the result was the "worst loss by a Brazilian national team ever" and accepted all responsibility for the defeat. He called it "the worst day of my life", and resigned after the tournament. Stand-in captain David Luiz and goalkeeper Júlio César both offered apologies to the people of Brazil. Fred, who was booed by Brazilian fans during the match, said it was the worst defeat in his and his teammates' careers. He later announced his retirement from international football following the tournament. Recovering from his injury, Neymar expressed his support to his teammates and, despite the 7–1 score, said he was proud to be a part of the team.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: During the match, the German team seemed to realise that what was unfolding was not a normal football event. In a post-match statement, Mats Hummels said that the German team had decided that they did not want to humiliate the Brazilians during the second half and after the match:


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Accordingly, the Germans cut theatrics from their goal celebrations; arms were raised but there was no jumping or screaming after scoring. Coach Joachim Löw stated his team had "a clear, persistent game-plan", and as they realised Brazil were "cracking up", they took advantage as in contrast to the Brazilians' nervousness the German players were "extremely cool". Toni Kroos, who was chosen as Man of the Match, added that as the Germans felt that in "no game of the Cup, [the Brazilians] played their best", the squad entered with the tactical knowledge on how to counter Brazil: "we took all the balls, and scored the goals". Müller said he was "shocked by just how open Brazil were" as "Gustavo, Luiz, Dante, Fernandinho and Marcelo were shambolic in their positioning", being confused and disorganized, noting that his German teammates benefited overwhelmingly as "the spaces were bigger than against defence-minded teams".


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Löw also declared the team had "no euphoria" during or after the game, as they knew that the 7–1 win meant nothing for the upcoming final, saying "We didn't celebrate. We were happy, but we still have a job to do".


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Following the match, the German players and managers offered words of consolation to the Brazilians. Löw and players Per Mertesacker and Philipp Lahm even compared the pressure on the Brazilian team and resulting heartbreaking defeat with Germany's own when they hosted the 2006 FIFA World Cup and also lost in the semifinals. Lahm added in an interview after the tournament that he had felt "very uneasy" during the match and "not at all euphoric" since the Brazilian team had made mistakes that "don't usually happen at this level", and Mertesacker noted that despite featuring the Germans at the top of their game, "even from the bench, [the semifinal] was crazy to watch". Kroos stated that, despite Brazil having good players, "they couldn't show their best performance" due to all the outside pressure, and expressed faith in "them returning with a good squad". Löw observed in the immediate aftermath of the match that the Brazilian people were applauding his team. Later the Brazilian newspaper "O Globo" expressed appreciation for the gestures of the German players, calling them "world champions of sympathy".


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazilian footballing icon Pelé tweeted, "I always said that football is a box of surprises. Nobody in this world expected this result," followed by, "[Brazil] Will try to get the sixth title in Russia. Congratulations to Germany." Carlos Alberto Torres, the captain of Brazil's winning team in 1970, said that the country lost due to a "feeling of 'we've already won'". He added that "Germany played how I like to see and Scolari's tactics for this match were suicidal". In contrast, Argentinian icon Diego Maradona was seen singing a song mocking the Brazilian defeat.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: In Germany, the match's coverage by ZDF set a record for the country's most watched TV broadcast, with 32.57 million viewers (87.8% of all viewers), beating the Germany–Spain match at the 2010 World Cup. This record was beaten five days later with the final. In contrast, despite a weekly spike in audience, the broadcast by Brazilian Rede Globo saw the viewers total fall with each German goal.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The match was the most discussed sports game on Twitter with over 35.6 million tweets, surpassing Super Bowl XLVIII, with 24.9 million tweets during the game. At first incentive hashtags such as "#PrayForBrazil" were common, but once Germany built a 5–0 lead Brazilian users instead lent their frustration into self-deprecatory humor, comparing Germany's goals with the Volkswagen Gol car and stating the Brazilian team looked like "11 Freds". Other Twitter users compared Germany's dominating performance to their military efforts during World War II and The Holocaust, for example, dubbing it the "Goalocaust". Bung Moktar Radin, a member of parliament of Malaysia, came under heavy criticism from the Malaysian public and the German ambassador, Holger Michael, for posting such a comment. The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, stated on Twitter following the match that "like all Brazilians, I am deeply saddened by our loss." The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Yigal Palmor, mentioned the match when countering Brazil's claim that his country was using disproportionate force in the Gaza conflict, saying "This is not football. In football, when a game ends in a draw, you think it is proportional, but when it finishes 7–1 it's disproportionate."


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Due to the pressure on the home nation Brazil, who were odds-on favorites to win the World Cup, and the subsequent shock of the loss, the media and FIFA dubbed the game the "Mineirazo" ("Mineiraço" in Brazil), meaning "The Mineirão blow", evoking the "Maracanazo" ("Maracanaço") in which Brazil were defeated on home soil by outsiders Uruguay in the "de facto" final of the 1950 World Cup. The daughter of goalkeeper Moacir Barbosa, who was scapegoated for the 1950 defeat, said the loss was enough to redeem her father's legacy, while Uruguayan striker Alcides Ghiggia, responsible for the Cup-winning goal of the "Maracanazo", felt that though both games were traumatic they could not be compared as the 1950 match had more at stake. Following the match, German fans were escorted out of the stadium by police and police were put on alert for possible riots. Observers noted that while the German supporters had shown respect to the defeated hosts, Argentinian fans were celebrating Brazil's elimination.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: There were reports of a mass robbery at a fan party in Rio de Janeiro and of fans setting fire to Brazilian flags in the streets of São Paulo even before the match was over. A number of buses were burned across São Paulo and an electronics store was looted.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Brazilian newspapers greeted the result with headlines such as "The Biggest Shame in History" ("Lance!"), a "Historical humiliation" ("Folha de S.Paulo") and "Brazil is slain" ("O Globo"). German paper "Bild" heralded the "7–1 Madness" by the "Lightning DFB team", with a front page headline of "Ohne Worte" (Without Words). The French "L'Équipe" simply said, "Le Désastre" (The Disaster). Writing for Sky Sports, Matthew Stanger described the game as the "ultimate embarrassment", while Miguel Delaney of ESPN referred to the match as the "Mineirazo", echoing the term invented for the event by the South American Spanish language press.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Barney Ronay in "The Guardian" described it as "the most humiliating World Cup host nation defeat of all time", and Joe Callaghan of "The Independent" described it as "the darkest night in Brazil's footballing history". Wyre Davies, the BBC's Rio de Janeiro correspondent, said of Brazilian's reactions at the stadium and fan parks, "The collective sense of shock, embarrassment and national humiliation across Brazil was impossible to ignore". Football journalist Tim Vickery postulated that the result might be the catalyst for overdue reform of Brazilian club football, which in his opinion had become complacent in comparison to other countries, resting on the laurels of the national team's history of success. In his words, this was a chance to "recapture parts of its historic identity and reframe them in a modern, global context". Reports had many comparisons with the "Maracanazo" that cost Brazil a title at home in 1950, with the Brazilian media even considering that the 2014 defeat redeemed the 1950 squad.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: Analysts deconstructed all the tactical and technical deficiencies that led to the blowout result. Scolari still relied on the team that won the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup despite many players going through dry spells, and most of them not having any World Cup experience. Neymar was such a focal point that the team barely trained any formations without him. In his absence, Scolari replaced Neymar with Bernard to maintain the attacking tradition of Brazilian football, instead of the "'logical call' [which] was surely to bring in an extra midfielder" against the Germans. The assistant coaches even supported bringing in the more defensive-minded Ramires and Willian. Thus, Fernandinho and Luiz Gustavo were overwhelmed by the Germany midfield trio of Toni Kroos, Sami Khedira and Bastian Schweinsteiger. The defense that had already been questioned in previous games collapsed as Dante was proven to be an inadequate replacement for the suspended Silva, while David Luiz made uncharacteristic errors during the semi-final. Other errors included setting up Marcelo to a more attacking play, while Gustavo was tasked with covering him, and the ineffective role of Fred who is often regarded as a tactical striker rather than goal-scoring striker.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: As a result of being eliminated in the semi-finals, Brazil had to settle for the third place play-off at the Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha in Brasília, and never got to play at their home stadium of the Maracanã in Rio de Janeiro for the entire tournament despite being hosts. Brazil finished fourth after being defeated 3–0 in the third place play-off by the Netherlands on 12 July, where two of the three goals were conceded in the first 17 minutes. The defeat meant that Brazil had conceded a total of 14 goals throughout the tournament, which was the most they had conceded in a single tournament, the most conceded by a World Cup host, and the most conceded by any team since Belgium allowed 15 during the 1986 tournament. Germany went on to win the World Cup for the fourth time and the first as a unified nation, after defeating Argentina 1–0 in extra time in the Final on 13 July at the Maracanã. Germany had the support of the Brazilian crowd despite having eliminated the home team, given Brazil has a long-standing football rivalry with neighbours Argentina.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The two consecutive losses, Brazil's first consecutive home defeats since 1940, led to coach Scolari's resignation on 15 July. Two weeks later, the Brazilian Football Confederation brought back Dunga as head coach of the Brazil national team. He had managed the team from 2006 until 2010, being dismissed following a 2–1 loss to the Netherlands in the 2010 FIFA World Cup quarter-finals. He was dismissed for a second time, however, following Brazil crashing out at the group stage of the Copa América Centenario in the United States two years later.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: The Brazil senior team did not play a match at the Estádio Mineirão again until a 3–0 win over Argentina in a World Cup qualifier in November 2016. The next time Brazil and Germany faced each other again in a senior international match was a friendly played in Berlin in March 2018; Brazil won 1–0 on a first half goal from Gabriel Jesus.


title: Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

text: In Brazil, the result, "7–1" (), has become a metaphor for a devastating and crushing defeat, while "Goal for Germany" () is used as an exclamation after a mishap.


title: Tort

text: A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.


title: Tort

text: While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from customary English tort law. In civil law jurisdictions based on civil codes, both contractual and tortious or delictual liability is typically outlined in a civil code based on Roman Law principles. Tort law is referred to as the law of delict in Scots and Roman Dutch law, and resembles tort law in common law jurisdictions in that rules regarding civil liability are established primarily by precedent and theory rather than an exhaustive code. However, like other civil law jurisdictions, the underlying principles are drawn from Roman law. A handful of jurisdictions have codified a mixture of common and civil law jurisprudence either due to their colonial past (e.g. Québec, St Lucia, Mauritius) or due to influence from multiple legal traditions when their civil codes were drafted (e.g. Mainland China, the Philippines, and Thailand). Furthermore, Israel essentially codifies common law provisions on tort.


title: Tort

text: In common, civil, and mixed law jurisdictions alike, the main remedy available to plaintiffs under tort law is compensation in damages, or money. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction, such as in the English case of "Miller v Jackson". Usually injunctions will not impose positive obligations on tortfeasors, but some jurisdictions, such as those in Australia, can make an order for specific performance to ensure that the defendant carries out certain legal obligations, especially in relation to nuisance matters. At the same time, each legal system provides for a variety of defences for defendants in tort claims which, partially or fully, shield defendants from liability. In a limited range of cases varying between jurisdictions, tort law will tolerate self-help as an appropriate remedy for certain torts. One example of this is the toleration of the use of reasonable force to expel a trespasser, which is typically also a defence against the tort of battery.


title: Tort

text: In some, but not all, civil and mixed law jurisdictions, the term delict is used to refer to this category of civil wrong, though it can also refer to criminal offences. Other jurisdictions may use terms such as extracontractual responsibility (France) or civil responsibility (Québec). In comparative law, the term tort is generally used. The word 'tort' was first used in a legal context in the 1580s, although different words were used for similar concepts prior to this time. A person who commits a tortious act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action in civil torts is not necessarily the result of criminal action. A victim of harm, commonly called the injured party or plaintiff, can recover their losses as damages in a lawsuit. To prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit must generally show that the tortfeasor's actions or lack of action was the proximate cause of the harm, though the specific requirements vary between jurisdictions.


title: Tort

text: Torts and crimes in common law originate in the Germanic system of compensatory fines for wrongs, with no clear distinction between crimes and other wrongs. In Anglo-Saxon law, most wrongs required payment in money paid to the wronged person or their clan. Fines in the form of "wīte" (literally 'blame, fault') were paid to the king or holder of a court for disturbances of public order, while the fine of "weregild" was imposed on those who committed murder with the intention of preventing blood feuds. Some wrongs in later law codes were "botleas" 'without remedy' (e.g. theft, open murder, arson, treason against one's lord), that is, unable to be compensated, and those convicted of a "botleas" crime were at the king's mercy. Items or creatures which caused death were also destroyed as deodands. Alfred the Great's Doom Book distinguished unintentional injuries from intentional ones, and defined culpability based on status, age, and gender. After the Norman Conquest, fines were paid only to courts or the king, and quickly became a revenue source. A wrong became known as a "tort" or "trespass", and there arose a division between civil pleas and pleas of the crown. The petty assizes (i.e. of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment) were established in 1166 as a remedy for interference with possession of freehold land. The trespass action was an early civil plea in which damages were paid to the victim; if no payment was made, the defendant was imprisoned. It arose in local courts for slander, breach of contract, or interference with land, goods, or persons. Although the details of its exact origin are unclear, it became popular in royal courts so that in the 1250s the writ of trespass was created and made "de cursu" (available by right, not fee); however, it was restricted to interference with land and forcible breaches of the king's peace. It may have arisen either out of the "appeal of felony", or assize of novel disseisin, or replevin. Later, after the Statute of Westminster 1285, in the 1360s, the "trespass on the case" action arose for when the defendant did not direct force. As its scope increased, it became simply "action on the case". The English Judicature Act passed 1873 through 1875 abolished the separate actions of trespass and trespass on the case.


title: Tort

text: In 1401, the English case "Beaulieu v Finglam" imposed strict liability for the escape of fire; additionally, strict liability was imposed for the release of cattle. Negligently handling fire was of particular importance in these societies given capacity for destruction and relatively limited firefighting resources. Liability for common carrier, which arose around 1400, was also emphasised in the medieval period. Unintentional injuries were relatively infrequent in the medieval period. As transportation improved and carriages became popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, collisions and carelessness became more prominent in court records. In general, scholars of England such as William Blackstone took a hostile view to litigation, and rules against champerty and maintenance and vexatious litigation existed. The right of victims to receive redress was regarded by later English scholars as one of the rights of Englishmen. Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", which was published in the late 18th century, contained a volume on "private wrongs" as torts and even used the word "tort" in a few places.


title: Tort

text: In contemporary common law jurisdictions, successful claimants in both tort and contract law must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty. Legal injuries addressable under tort law in common law jurisdictions are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts). Modern torts are heavily affected by insurance and insurance law, as many cases are settled through claims adjustment rather than by trial, and are defended by insurance lawyers, with the insurance policy setting a ceiling on the possible payment.


title: Tort

text: While individuals and corporations are typically only liable for their own actions, indirect liability for the tortious acts of others may arise due by operation of law, notably through joint and several liability doctrines as well as forms of secondary liability. Liability may arise through enterprise liability or, in product liability cases in the United States, market share liability. In certain cases, a person might hold vicarious liability for their employee or child under the law of agency through the doctrine of respondeat superior. For example, if a shop employee spilled cleaning liquid on the supermarket floor and a victim fell and suffered injuries, the plaintiff might be able to sue either the employee or the employer. There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk allocation.


title: Tort

text: Absolute liability, under the rule in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, in Indian tort law is a unique outgrowth of the doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. Under the precedent established in the English case of Rylands v Fletcher, upon which the Indian doctrine of absolute liability is based, anyone who in the course of "non-natural" use of his land "accumulates" thereon for his own purposes anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes is answerable for all direct damage thereby caused. While, in England and many other common law jurisdictions, this precedent is used to impose strict liability on certain areas of nuisance law and is strictly "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land" under which "damages for personal injuries are not recoverable", Indian courts have developed this rule into a distinct principle of absolute liability, where an enterprise is absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity. This differs greatly from the English approach as it includes all kinds of resulting liability, rather than being limited to damage to land.


title: Tort

text: In New Zealand, the tort system for the majority of personal injuries was scrapped with the establishment of the Accident Compensation Corporation, a universal system of no-fault insurance. The rationale underlying New Zealand's elimination of personal injury torts was securing equality of treatment for victims regardless of whether or the extent to which they or any other party was at fault. This was the basis for much of Professor Patrick Atiyah's scholarship as articulated in "Accidents, Compensation and the Law" (1970). Originally his proposal was the gradual abolition of tort actions, and its replacement with schemes like those for industrial injuries to cover for all illness, disability and disease, whether caused by people or nature. In addition to the development of the Accident Compensation Corporation to eliminate personal injury lawsuits, the tort system for medical malpractice was scrapped in New Zealand, both following recommendations from the Royal Commission in 1967 for 'no fault' compensation scheme (see The Woodhouse Report).


title: Tort

text: In the case of the United States, a survey of trial lawyers identified several modern innovations that developed after the divergence of English and American tort law, including strict liability for products based on "Greenman v. Yuba Power Products", the limitation of various immunities (e.g. sovereign immunity, charitable immunity), comparative negligence, broader rules for admitting evidence, increased damages for emotional distress, and toxic torts and class action lawsuits. However, there has also been a reaction in terms of tort reform, which in some cases have been struck down as violating state constitutions, and federal preemption of state laws.


title: Tort

text: Torts may be categorised in several ways, with a particularly common division between negligent and intentional torts. Quasi-torts are unusual tort actions. Particularly in the United States, "collateral tort" is used to refer to torts in labour law such as intentional infliction of emotional distress ("outrage"); or wrongful dismissal; these evolving causes of action are debated and overlap with contract law or other legal areas to some degree. In some cases, the development of tort law has spurred lawmakers to create alternative solutions to disputes. For example, in some areas, workers' compensation laws arose as a legislative response to court rulings restricting the extent to which employees could sue their employers in respect of injuries sustained during employment. In other cases, legal commentary has led to the development of new causes of action outside the traditional common law torts. These are loosely grouped into quasi-torts or liability torts.


title: Tort

text: The tort of negligence is a cause of action leading to relief designed to protect legal rights from actions which, although unintentional, nevertheless cause some form of legal harm to the plaintiff. In order to win an action for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: duty, breach of duty, causation, scope of liability, and damages. Further, a defendant may assert various defences to a plaintiff’s case, including comparative fault and assumption of risk. Negligence is a tort which arises from the breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. Although credited as appearing in the United States in "Brown v. Kendall", the later Scottish case of "Donoghue v Stevenson" [1932] AC 562, followed in England, brought England into line with the United States and established the 'tort of negligence' as opposed to negligence as a component in specific actions. In "Donoghue", Mrs. Donoghue drank from an opaque bottle containing a decomposed snail and claimed that it had made her ill. She could not sue Mr. Stevenson for damages for breach of contract and instead sued for negligence. The majority determined that the definition of negligence can be divided into four component parts that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence.


title: Tort

text: Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm. Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. However, at their heart, the various definitions of what constitutes negligent conduct are very similar. Depending on jurisdiction, product liability cases such as those involving warranties may be considered negligence actions or fall under a separate category of strict liability torts. Similarly, cases involving environmental or consumer health torts which other countries treat as negligence or strict liability torts are treated in India as absolute liability torts.


title: Tort

text: In establishing whether a duty of care exists, different common law jurisdictions have developed a variety of distinct but related approaches, with many jurisdictions building on the test established in "Anns v Merton LBC". In Singapore, the current leading case is "Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency", which builds on "Anns" by establishing a two step test comprising an analysis of proximate cause and public policy as a universal test, independent from the individual circumstances of a given case, for determining the existence of a duty of care. The Supreme Court of Canada established a similar test in the context of assessing damages for pure economic loss owing to negligence derived from "Anns" which consists of a two step examination of the existence of a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties and public policy considerations; however, the Canadian test is more sensitive to the individual circumstances of a given case and the first step is generally deemed to be met where a case falls into one of three sets of circumstances recognised by precedent while the Singaporean test is independent of precedent. In English tort law, "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman" established a tripartite test for the existence of a duty of care per which harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a potential result of the defendant's conduct; the parties must be in a relationship of proximity; and it must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty.


title: Tort

text: Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories:


title: Tort

text: An intentional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. Causation can be satisfied as long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing the harm.


title: Tort

text: "Nuisance" is traditionally used to describe an activity which is harmful or annoying to others such as indecent conduct or a rubbish heap. Nuisances either affect private individuals (private nuisance) or the general public (public nuisance). The claimant can sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. In English law, whether activity was an illegal nuisance depended upon the area and whether the activity was "for the benefit of the commonwealth", with richer areas subject to a greater expectation of cleanliness and quiet. The case "Jones v Powell" (1629) provides an early example, in which a person's professional papers were damaged by the vapors of a neighboring brewery. Although the outcome of this case is unclear, Whitelocke of the Court of the King's Bench is recorded as saying that since the water supply in area was already contaminated, the nuisance was not actionable as it is "better that they should be spoiled than that the commonwealth stand in need of good liquor".


title: Tort

text: In English law, a related category of tort liability was created in the case of "Rylands v Fletcher" (1868): strict liability was established for a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals as long as the cause was not remote. In "Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc" (1994), chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's water reservoirs. The "Rylands" rule remains in use in England and Wales. In Australian law, it has been merged into negligence.


title: Tort

text: Economic torts typically involve commercial transactions, and include tortious interference with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from contractual cases involving misrepresentation in that there is no privity of contract; these torts are likely to involve pure economic loss which has been less-commonly recoverable in tort. One criterion for determining whether economic loss is recoverable is the "foreseeability" doctrine. The economic loss rule is highly confusing and inconsistently applied and began in 1965 from a California case involving strict liability for product defects; in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the doctrine in "East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Deleval, Inc". In 2010, the supreme court of the U.S. state of Washington replaced the economic loss doctrine with an "independent duty doctrine".


title: Tort

text: Economic antitrust torts have been somewhat submerged by modern competition law. However, in the United States, private parties are permitted in certain circumstances to sue for anticompetitive practices, including under federal or state statutes or on the basis of common law tortious interference, which may be based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts §766.


title: Tort

text: Negligent misrepresentation as tort where no contractual privity exists was disallowed in England by "Derry v Peek" [1889]; however, this position was overturned in "Hedley Byrne v Heller" in 1964 so that such actions were allowed if a "special relationship" existed between the plaintiff and defendant. United States courts and scholars "paid lip-service" to "Derry"; however, scholars such as William Prosser argued that it was misinterpreted by English courts. The case of "Ultramares Corporation v. Touche" (1932) limited the liability of an auditor to known identified beneficiaries of the audit and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s. The Restatement (Second) of Torts expanded liability to "foreseeable" users rather than specifically identified "foreseen" users of the information, dramatically expanding liability and affecting professionals such as accountants, architects, attorneys, and surveyors. As of 1989, most U.S. jurisdictions follow either the "Ultramares" approach or the Restatement approach.


title: Tort

text: The tort of deceit for inducement into a contract is a tort in English law, but in practice has been replaced by actions under Misrepresentation Act 1967. In the United States, similar torts existed but have become superseded to some degree by contract law and the pure economic loss rule. Historically (and to some degree today), fraudulent (but not negligent) misrepresentation involving damages for economic loss may be awarded under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" rule (damages identical to expectation damages in contracts) which awards the plaintiff the difference between the value represented and the actual value. Beginning with "Stiles v. White" (1846) in Massachusetts, this rule spread across the country as a majority rule with the "out-of-pocket damages" rule as a minority rule. Although the damages under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" are described as compensatory, the plaintiff is left better off than before the transaction. Since the economic loss rule would eliminate these benefits if applied strictly, there is an exception to allow the misrepresentation tort if not related to a contract.


title: Tort

text: The remedies and defences available in common law jurisdictions are typically similar, deriving from judicial precedent with occasional legislative intervention. Compensation by way of damages is typically the default remedy available to plaintiffs, with injunctions and specific performance being relatively rare in tort law cases. Relatively uniquely for a common law jurisdiction, Singapore's Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) alters the common law by codifying a statutory tort of "interference with enjoyment or use of place of residence" and provides for a variety of remedies beyond damages, ranging from injunctions and specific performance to court-ordered apologies. Where a court order providing for a remedy other than damages is awarded under the CDRA is violated, sections 5-8 of the act require that the plaintiff apply for a 'special direction' to be issued in order to enforce the original remedy and section 9 provides that failure to comply with a special direction is grounds for the court to issue an order excluding the tortfeasor from their residence. Aside from legislatively created remedies such as the CDRA, courts in common law jurisdictions will typically provide for damages (which, depending on jurisdiction, may include punitive damages), but judges will issue injunctions and specific performance where they deem damages not to be a sufficient remedy. Legislatures in various common law jurisdictions have curtailed the ability of judges to award punitive or other non-economic damages through the use of non-economic damages caps and other tort reform measures.


title: Tort

text: Apart from proof that there was no breach of duty (in other words, that a tortious act was not committed in the first place), there are three principal defences to tortious liability in common law jurisdictions:


title: Tort

text: Discovery (or disclosure), a concept unique to common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can open-endedly demand evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. In tort litigation, the availability of discovery enables plaintiffs to essentially carry out a private investigation, subpoenaing records and documents from the defendant. Consequently, commentators in civil law jurisdictions regard discovery destructive of the rule of law and as "a private inquisition." Civil law countries see the underlying objectives of discovery as properly monopolised by the state in order to maintain the rule of law: the investigative objective of discovery is the prerogative of the executive branch, and insofar as discovery may be able to facilitate the creation of new rights, that is the prerogative of the legislative branch. The availability of discovery in common law jurisdictions means that plaintiffs who, in other jurisdictions, would not have sufficient evidence upon which to file a tort claim are able to do so in the hope that they will be able to obtain sufficient evidence through discovery. The primary drawbacks of this are that, on one hand, it creates the possibility that a plaintiff filing suit in good faith may not find enough evidence to succeed and incur legal expenses driven upward due to the cost of discovery; and, on the other hand, that it enables plaintiffs arguing in bad faith to initiate frivolous tort lawsuits and coerce defendants into agreeing to legal settlements in otherwise unmeritorious actions.


title: Tort

text: Among common law countries today, there are significant differences in tort law. Common law systems include United States tort law, Australian tort law, Canadian tort law, Indian tort law, and the tort law of a variety of jurisdictions in Asia and Africa. There is a more apparent split in tort law between the Commonwealth countries and the United States. Despite diverging from English common law in 1776, earlier than the other common law jurisdictions;United States tort law was influenced by English law and Blackstone's "Commentaries", with several state constitutions specifically providing for redress for torts in addition to reception statutes which adopted English law. However, tort law globally was viewed as relatively undeveloped by the mid-19th century; the first American treatise on torts was published in the 1860s but the subject became particularly established when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr wrote on the subject in the 1880s. Holmes' writings have been described as the "first serious attempt in the common law world to give torts both a coherent structure and a distinctive substantive domain", although Holmes' summary of the history of torts has been critically reviewed. The 1928 US case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. heavily influenced the British judges in the 1932 House of Lords case of Donoghue v Stevenson. The United States has since been perceived as particularly prone to filing tort lawsuits even relative to other common law countries, although this perception has been criticised and debated. 20th century academics have identified that class actions were relatively uncommon outside of the United States, noting that the English law was less generous to the plaintiff in the following ways: contingent fee arrangements were restricted, English judges tried more decisions and set damages rather than juries, wrongful death lawsuits were relatively restricted, punitive damages were relatively unavailable, the collateral source rule was restricted, and strict liability, such as for product liability, was relatively unavailable. The English welfare state, which provides free healthcare to victims of injury, may explain the lower tendency towards personal injury lawsuits in England. A similar observation has also been made with regard to Australia.


title: Tort

text: While Indian tort law is generally derived from English law, there are certain differences between the two systems. Indian tort law uniquely includes remedies for constitutional torts, which are actions by the government that infringe upon rights enshrined in the Constitution, as well as a system of absolute liability for businesses engaged in hazardous activity as outlined in the rule in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India. Similar to other common law jurisdictions, conduct which gives rise to a cause of action under tort law is additionally criminalised by the Indian Penal Code, which was originally enacted in 1860. As a result of the influence of its relatively early codification of criminal law, the torts of assault, battery, and false imprisonment are interpreted by Indian courts and the courts of jurisdictions that were formerly part of the British Indian Empire (e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh) and British colonies in South East Asia which adopted the Indian Penal Code (i.e. Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei) with reference to analogous crimes outlined in the code. For instance, assault is interpreted in the context of s.351 per which the following criteria constitute assault:


title: Tort

text: An area of tort unique to India is the constitutional tort, a public law remedy for violations of rights, generally by agents of the state, and is implicitly premised on the strict liability principle. In practice, constitutional torts in India serve the role served by administrative courts in many civil law jurisdictions and much of the function of constitutional review in other jurisdictions, thereby functioning as a branch of administrative law rather than private law. Rather than developing principles of administrative fairness as a distinct branch of law as other common law jurisdictions have, Indian courts have thus extended tort law as it applies between private parties to address unlawful administrative and legislative action.


title: Tort

text: Within Canada's common law provinces, there is currently no consistent approach to the tort of invasion of privacy. Four provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan) have created a statutory tort. Ontario has recognised the existence of the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion", which has also been held to exist under tort law in the United States. British Columbia, on the other hand, has held that the tort does not exist in that province under the common law. Like the United Kingdom and British Columbia, but unlike Ontario and most jurisdictions in the United States, Indian tort law does not traditionally recognise a common law tort of invasion of privacy or intrusion on seclusion. Nevertheless, there is a shift in jurisprudence toward recognising breech of confidentiality as an actionable civil wrong. Proponents of protection for privacy under Indian tort law argue that “the right to privacy is implicit” in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protections for personal liberties. Despite the lack of a tort addressing violations of privacy by private individuals, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutional right in 2017. Similarly, neither intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) nor negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is recognised as a tort in Indian jurisprudence. While claims seeking damages for infliction of emotional distress were historically an accessory claim in a tort action alleging another distinct tort, the doctrine has evolved in North America into a stand-alone tort while English jurisprudence has evolved to typically recognise only recognised psychiatric injuries as grounds for compensation. Indian courts, while recognising the infliction of emotional distress regardless of intention as an actionable wrong in matrimonial disputes, typically follow the English approach, although case law from both the United Kingdom and North America is frequently employed by judges ruling on cases in which damages for mental distress are sought.


title: Tort

text: Both Scots and Roman Dutch law are uncodified, scholarship-driven, and judge-made legal systems based on Roman law as historically applied in the Netherlands and Scotland during the Enlightenment. In both legal systems, when applied in English speaking countries, the term delict is used to refer to tortious liability (unlike, for instance, in Spain where the cognate of the term delict refers to a criminal offence). Unlike in systems based on civil codes or on the English common law, Scots and Roman Dutch law operate on broad principles of liability for wrongdoing; there is no exhaustive list of named delicts in either system; if the conduct complained of appears to be wrongful, the law will afford a remedy even in the absence of precedent pertaining to similar conduct. In South Africa and neighbouring countries, the Roman Dutch law of delict is in force, having been preserved after the United Kingdom annexed Dutch settlements in South Africa and spread as neighbouring British colonies adopted South African law via reception statutes. Roman Dutch law also forms the basis for the legal systems of Indonesia, Suriname, Timor Leste, and the Dutch Caribbean.


title: Tort

text: The elements of harm and conduct are fact-based inquiries, while causation is part-factual and part-normative, and wrongfulness and fault are entirely normative: that is, value-based, in that they articulate a wider societal policy perspective. Delict is "inherently a flexible set of principles that embody social policy."


title: Tort

text: Protected interests which can give rise to delictual liability can be broadly divided into two categories: patrimonial and non-patrimonial interests. Patrimonial interests are those which pertain to damages to an individual's body or property, which both Scots and Roman Dutch law approach in the context of the Roman Lex Aquilia. Non-patrimonial interests include dignitary and personality related interests (e.g. defamation, disfigurement, unjust imprisonment) which cannot be exhaustively listed which are addressed in the context of the Roman Actio iniuriarum, as well as pain and suffering which are addressed under jurisprudence that has developed in modern times. In general; where an individual violates a patrimonial interest, they will incur Aquilian liability; and, where an individual violates a non-patrimonial interest, they will incur liability stemming from the actio iniuriarum. While broadly similar due to their common origin, the nature of the remedies available under contemporary Scots and Roman Dutch law vary slightly, although the aquilian action and actio iniuriarum are the primary remedies available under both systems. The primary difference between the two remedies is that the aquilian action serves a compensatory function (i.e. providing economic damages to restore the plaintiff to their previous state) while the actio iniuriarum provides for non-economic damages aimed at providing solace to the plaintiff. In Roman Dutch law (but not in Scots law), there is also a distinct action for pain and suffering relating to pain and suffering and psychiatric injury, which provides for non-economic damages similar to those under the actio iniuriarum. The various delictual actions are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person to suffer various forms of harm at the same time, which means that a person may simultaneously claim remedies under more than one action.


title: Tort

text: In Scots law, the aquilian action has developed more expansively and may be invoked as a remedy for both patrimonial and certain types of non-patrimonial loss, particularly with regard to personal injury. By way of a legal fiction, 'personal injury' is treated as (physical) 'damage done', with the net effect that 'the "actio injuriarum" root of Scots law infuses the [nominate] delict assault as much as any development of the "lex Aquilia"' and wrongdoing that results in physical harm to a person may give rise to both an aquilian action and an actio iniuriarum. Additionally, the modern Scots law pertaining to reparation for negligent wrongdoing is based on the "lex Aquilia" and so affords reparation in instances of "damnum injuria datum" - literally loss wrongfully caused - with the wrongdoing in such instances generated by the defender's "culpa" (i.e., fault). In any instance in which a pursuer (A) has suffered loss at the hands of the wrongful conduct of the defender (B), B is under a legal obligation to make reparation. If B's wrongdoing were intentional in the circumstances, or so reckless that an 'intention' may be constructively inferred (on the basis that "culpa lata dolo aequiparatur" - 'gross fault is the same as intentional wrongdoing'), then it follows axiomatically that B will be liable to repair any damage done to A's property, person or economic interest: 'wherever a defender intentionally harms the pursuer - provided the interest harmed is regarded as reparable - the defender incurs delictual liability'. If the pursuer has suffered loss as the result of the defender's conduct, yet the defender did not intend to harm the pursuer, nor behave so recklessly that intent might be constructively inferred, the pursuer must demonstrate that the defender's conduct was negligent in order to win their case. Negligence can be established, by the pursuer, by demonstrating that the defender owed to them a 'duty of care' which they ultimately breached by failing to live up to the expected standard of care. If this can be shown, then the pursuer must also establish that the defender's failure to live up to the expected standard of care ultimately caused the loss (damnum) complained of.


title: Tort

text: There is a distinction between defences aimed at the wrongfulness element and defences which serve to exclude fault. Grounds of justification may be described as circumstances which occur typically or regularly in practice, and which indicate conclusively that interference with a person's legally-protected interests is reasonable and therefore lawful. They are practical examples of circumstances justifying a "prima fade" infringement of a recognised right or interest, according to the fundamental criterion of reasonableness. They are another expression of the legal convictions of the society.


title: Tort

text: Consent to injury, or "Volenti non fit injuria", is a full defence; if successful, there is no delict. As a general defence, it can take two forms:


title: Tort

text: Necessity is conduct directed at an innocent person as a result of duress or compulsion, or a threat by a third party or an outside force. Private defence (or self-defence) is conduct directed at the person responsible for the duress or compulsion or threat. There is, therefore, an important distinction between the two. In cases of necessity and private defence, the question is this: Under which circumstances would the legal convictions of the community consider it reasonable to inflict harm to prevent it? The test is objective. It requires a balancing of the parties' and of society's interests. The role of the person against whom the defensive conduct is directed is an important factor in determining whether defence or necessity is being pled. An act of necessity is calculated to avert harm by inflicting it on an innocent person, whereas an act of defence is always directed at a wrongdoer. A person acts in "private defence," and therefore lawfully, when he uses force to ward off an unlawful attack against his or someone else's property or person. A person acts in "self-defence" when he defends his own body against unlawful attack by someone else. One therefore cannot invoke the justification of self-defence when acting in the interests of another person, but it is possible to invoke the justification of private defence when acting in one's own interests. Conduct will be justified as an act in private defence or self-defence if it is


title: Tort

text: The violence used in defence must not exceed what is reasonably necessary to avert the threatened danger:


title: Tort

text: An act of necessity may be described as lawful conduct directed against an innocent person for the purpose of protecting an interest of the actor or of a third party (including the innocent person) against a dangerous situation, which may have arisen owing to the wrongful conduct of another or the behaviour of an animal, or through natural forces. Two types of emergency situations may be found:


title: Tort

text: 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. However, by the late feudalism period, personal injury and property damage torts were mostly focused on compensation.


title: Tort

text: 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. 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. 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.


title: Tort

text: 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.


title: Tort

text: In areas administered by the Republic of China, the legislative basis of tort law is the Civil Code of the Republic of China whose legal system was modelled after the Japanese Six Codes system, which itself was primarily based on the German pandectist approach to law. 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. Additionally, tort liability exists for the owner of a defective building or structure where such building or structure causes damage, for the driver of an automobile that causes injury, and for individual's responsible for business activities that posed a risk of harm to the plaintiff. 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.


title: Tort

text: 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". Book Seven outlines seven distinct categories of torts:


title: Tort

text: While Book Seven (titled "Tort Liability") of the 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, Book One of the CCPRC provides a comprehensive list of remedies for torts in Article 179:


title: Tort

text: 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". Book One additionally provides that force majeure 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. 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.


title: Tort

text: Tort liability in France ("responabilité extracontractuelle") is a distinct system which has developed over the course of history stemming from the Napoleonic Code;. which, together with the German Burgerliches 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 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. 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. 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 products, machines, and the actions of agents or employees.


title: Tort

text: French tort law is primarily governed by articles to 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 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.


title: Tort

text: 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:


title: Tort

text: 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 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).


title: Tort

text: 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 torts. German tort law additionally does not permit punitive damages.


title: Tort

text: 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. 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 and the Republic of China which are otherwise based primarily on the same pandectist school as the BGB and that of the Philippines.


title: Tort

text: 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. Sometimes it is enough to prove negligence, while in other cases a more serious fault is required. 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. 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. The protection thus granted has proven to be incomplete. 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. 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. 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”. 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.


title: Tort

text: 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 rabbinic damages in Israel is another example of tort, although the Tort Ordinance is far more relevant in secular life, having been enacted by 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:


title: Tort

text: Like the French Civil Code, the Japanese Civil Code only has a single provision on tort liability. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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):


title: Tort

text: 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. 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:


title: Tort

text: 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. 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. Punitive damages awarded against tortfeasors by arbitral tribunals or foreign courts are unenforceable in Japan. Additionally, Japanese civil procedure does not allow for class actions and does not recognise mass tort liability.