1.What do we mean by the term tort?

This term generally refers to human behavior that is not acceptable by law, as it violates a legal rule. A characteristic of tort is the emergence of civil liability for the tortfeasor = the one who commits the violation, meaning the obligation to compensate the victim for the damage caused through the illegal act.

Since damage is part of everyday life = it is inevitable that some damage will be caused by a person’s behavior to another, we must know 2 basic rules.

• To be liable for compensation, it is not enough for someone to commit only a tort, but they must also be ‘at fault’, that is, they must be liable.
• Not all damages suffered by the victim are legally restored but only those that concern the law.

2.What are its prerequisites?

For the victim of a tort to be able to claim compensation from the perpetrator, certain prerequisites must be met according to the law, which are:

• The perpetrator must have committed an illegal behavior (it can also be committed by omission, i.e., the perpetrator should have taken measures and omitted it).
• The perpetrator must cover their illegal behavior with liability (meaning they must either know that their behavior is illegal or be ignorant of it due to gross negligence = their ignorance cannot be justified).
• The victim suffered damage from the perpetrator’s illegal act (what matters is the damage suffered by the specific person as a victim, not the damage suffered by the average person in such cases).
• There must be a causal link between the perpetrator’s illegal act and the damage suffered by the victim (meaning the perpetrator’s act must have been the main cause of the victim’s damage and not be intervened by other events that would cause the exact same damage to the victim or even greater).

3.How does tort liability differ from contractual liability?

As we have seen, someone is liable for tort when they cause damage through an illegal act, for which they are at fault, to a third party. In contrast, liability arising from tort/contract refers to the liability of someone who fails to fulfill one of the obligations they undertook by contract, and for this reason, the other party may withdraw from the contract and claim compensation for non-performance of the contract.

For example, suppose A buys a car from B and they agree on a price of 5,000 euros. If A fails to pay the price to B, then A is contractually liable and will owe interest to B for the price, or may be obliged to return the car if B ultimately withdraws from the contract.

In the above example, if A crashes the car into B’s house and damages the wall, then A will be tortiously liable because with an illegal act, they caused damage to B’s property for which they are liable (they may have been negligent and not paying attention to driving). In this case, A will be required to compensate B for the damage to the wall (as well as any other damage deemed to have occurred).

4.When is an act not considered illegal?

There are certain cases where, according to the law, someone’s illegal behavior is excused for specific reasons:

• If the victim consents to the act (for example, when someone undergoes a medical procedure willingly, they acknowledge and accept the injury to their person, such as a scar on their body for the needs of the intervention).
• If the victim accepts the risks that may arise from an activity they participate in (an amateur boxer understands the physical harm they may suffer during the sport and may cause bodily harm).
• If the victim is in defense/an emergency situation/executes binding orders from superiors, etc. (so in this case, they do not have the freedom to choose between right and wrong and ‘weigh’ their choices, like a police officer following orders from the police chief and not having the leeway to question them, even if it causes damage to a third party with their actions).

5.What claims do I have if someone defames me?

It is not uncommon for someone to reproduce a negative judgment about someone else indirectly causing them harm, especially on a social or professional level by tarnishing their reputation. In order for the victim to be protected, the following conditions must be met according to the law:

• The perpetrator spreads news = general criticisms are not enough, but it must be about a specific event.
• These news items are not true, at least for the most part.
• By spreading this news, the professional reputation/social status of the victim is endangered.
• The perpetrator must know that this news is false and that through it, the victim may suffer harm to their legal goods.
• Finally, damage to the victim must occur due to these specific news items (e.g., Company A loses customers and therefore incurs lost profits because competitor B falsely spreads that A is going bankrupt).

If the above conditions are met, then the victim can sue the perpetrator and demand that the latter stop spreading false news, refrain from such spreading in the future, as well as satisfy the pecuniary damage suffered by the victim due to these specific news items.

In this case, in addition to the pecuniary damage suffered by the victim, they may also request satisfaction for their non-pecuniary damage, i.e., moral harm, which we will discuss in more detail below.

6.Am I responsible for the actions of my child?

Due to the complexity of the issue, the law establishes specific conditions for the liability of someone supervising a minor. These conditions are:

• There must be a legal or contractual obligation to supervise the minor (e.g., for parents or a teacher at school).
• There must be a culpable neglect of the supervision of the minor = the supervisor knew or should have known, due to gross negligence, that they were neglecting supervision.
• If the minor causes damage to a third party, it is presumed that the supervisor neglected supervision (but rebuttal is allowed).
• There must be actual damage to a third party (and if the minor is of relatively mature age, they may also be liable for reasonable compensation).
• The damage suffered by the third party must have resulted from the act/negligence of the minor (and not from another cause that contributed more to it).

If the above conditions are met, then the supervisor of the minor is obliged to rectify the damage suffered by the third party. The regulation by analogy also applies to cases where the damage is caused by someone under judicial assistance = their power to act alone has been removed by the court.

7.What if I am the owner of an animal?

Considering that animals may escape human control and cause damage to third parties, the legislator establishes the following for anyone who is the owner or keeper of an animal:

• They are objectively liable for the damage caused by the animal to another person.
• Objective liability applies = fault (intent/negligence) is not required, so it is enough for the animal to attack someone.
• It must be an animal, i.e., subject to human physical control = strays/wild animals roaming free are excluded.
• The owner is liable even if the animal indirectly causes damage to another person (e.g., it frightens someone, and as a result, they are injured).
• If the third person also contributed to the damage (e.g., provoked the animal with their behavior), if the relevant objection is raised, reduced compensation may be awarded compared to what would normally be given.

From the above, an exception is introduced in the case of a pet: It is established that the owner is exempt from liability if they prove that they have taken the necessary measures for the care/supervision of the animal. For example, if the animal caused damage to a third party and the owner proves that they had placed a muzzle/a relevant warning sign outside the house, then they will not be called upon to pay compensation, provided that the animal is used for guarding the home/feeding the owner.

8.What if a building/part of a structure falls on me?

In these cases, there are specific conditions set by the law for the owner of a building/work to be liable for compensation for the damage suffered by a third party due to the fall/partial detachment of the object. Specifically:

• There must be a building or structure connected to the ground = it could be a building, but also a relevant advertising sign attached to a balcony.
• The building/structure must have fallen from its normal position entirely or at least to a large extent.
• The fall of the building/structure must be a result of its defective construction/error in its placement.
• Damage must have been caused to a third party (e.g., a passerby passing under the construction).
• Under no circumstances is the mere lessee of the object liable for compensation (e.g., the tenant of a property with a defective balcony).

If the above conditions are met, it is presumed that the fall of the building/structure resulted from its defective construction, and the owner of the building/the one who simply rents it is obliged to compensate the one who suffered the damage. This liability is relieved if it is proven that the necessary measures were taken during construction = that the relevant provisions of the Building Code were followed, that the architectural study was proper and correct, that an engineer supervised the work throughout, etc.

9.What is moral damage? When is it compensated?

In some cases, the law allows the victim of an unlawful act, especially if it caused harm to their body/health/physical integrity, to receive, in addition to the ‘normal’ compensation, an additional compensation for the moral damage they may have suffered from the unlawful act. Characteristics of moral damage include:

• It can be awarded when the victim is subjected to an unlawful act or when their personality is attacked.
• It is purely personal claim = it is related to the person of the victim and is inherited only if it was recognized by contract as a claim or if a lawsuit was filed for it.
• It does not necessarily require the victim to suffer financial damage.
• The beneficiary of the claim can also be a legal person (e.g., a company claims satisfaction for moral damage due to defamation by a competitor).
• Greek courts generally accept that third parties besides the victim (e.g., the victim’s parents/siblings, etc.) are not entitled to compensation for the satisfaction of their own moral damage. However, there are also many decisions that accept exactly the opposite.

10.And emotional distress?

Especially in the case where a person is killed due to an injustice committed by another, the law provides that every member of the victim’s family can seek compensation for the satisfaction of the emotional distress they suffered from the loss of the victim. The term ‘family’ is a legal concept and should be interpreted broadly = it may include the partner in a free union in some cases, while members of the family who had minimal to no contact and emotional ties with the victim are excluded.

The criteria for the amount of compensation to be awarded due to emotional distress are quite relative and depend on various factors such as the severity of the damage suffered by the relatives of the victim from the loss, the way the incident occurred, the personal life of the victim and the way he/she lived, any penalty imposed by the criminal courts on the perpetrator, etc.

Finally, the claim for compensation for emotional distress is completely independent of the claim for compensation for moral damage = even if the victim was injured, received compensation for his/her moral damage, and later died from his/her injuries / poor health condition, the victim’s relatives will be entitled to claim compensation for their emotional distress from the loss of the victim.

 

The above do not constitute legal advice and no responsibility is assumed for them. For more information, please contact us.