La culpa grave en la responsabilidad civil
ENG- This research endeavours to explore how gross negligence (or recklessness) acquires particular significance within the Law of Torts, distinguishing itself from ordinary negligence, which generally serves as the prevailing standard for the imposition of civil liability. The objective is to analy...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | CBUC, CESCA |
| Repositorio: | TDR. Tesis Doctorales en Red |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/695912 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10803/695912 |
| Access Level: | acceso embargado |
| Palabra clave: | Culpa greu Culpa grave Serious guilt Negligència greu Negligencia grave Gross negligence Imprudència Imprudencia Recklessness 347 |
| Sumario: | ENG- This research endeavours to explore how gross negligence (or recklessness) acquires particular significance within the Law of Torts, distinguishing itself from ordinary negligence, which generally serves as the prevailing standard for the imposition of civil liability. The objective is to analyse the legal institutions wherein this type of fault assumes distinctive relevance, identifying the various modalities through which it may operate and the specific legal consequences that arise when such conduct is manifested within the legal order. The inquiry into the rationale behind this distinctive treatment entails the exploration of historical, cultural, social, philosophical, and political causes that have shaped or influenced the recognition of this category in various legal systems. The ultimate purpose is to uncover comparative commonalities that reasonably justify its application. To this end, the study engages with the most influential Continental European, Common Law, and Latin American legal systems—particularly those shaped by the Código de Andrés Bello—alongside the most relevant soft law instruments in this field: namely, the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL), the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), and the American Restatement (Second) of Torts. Through comparative analysis, the research shows that gross negligence is conceptually and normatively distinct from intent (dolus), yet a tendency toward their functional equivalence emerges in various jurisdictions. Such assimilation is generally accepted unless specific grounds exist to afford intent a differentiated legal treatment. Moreover, in certain contexts, gross negligence constitutes the sole foundation for liability, meaning that only conduct amounting to this level of fault enables the injured party to seek compensatory damages. This occurs in areas concerning economic relationships, personal autonomy and life planning, state liability -including the liability of public officials- and within patrimonial family and succession law |
|---|