Extra Contractual Liability PDF

chilot.wordpress.
com
Extra-Contractual Liability
Teaching Material
Prepared by:
Abdulmalik Abubeker
&
Desta G/Michael
Prepared under the Sponsorship of the Justice and Legal System

Research Institute
2009
chilot.wordpress.com
Table of Contents
PART I: GENERAL BACK GROUND-------------------------------------------------------------------------1
CHAPTER I: DEFINITION AND PRINCIPLES OF NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY

LAW--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1. Definition------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Principles -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
CHAPTER II: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS----------------------------------------------------------------4
2.1. Personal Security -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
2.2 Interest in property----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
2.3 Economic Interest------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
2.4 Reputation and privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
CHAPTER III: CONDUCT THAT GIVES RISE TO LIABILITY--------------------------------------7
3.1 Intention and Negligence----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

3.2 Reasonable and prudent person ----------------------------------------------------------------------10
3.3 Statutory Standard----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
CHAPTER IV: CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE---------------------------------14
4.1 Causation……………………………………………………………………………14
4.2 The ‘but for’ Test----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
4.3 Remoteness of Damage--------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
4.4 Exception to the Foreseeability Test--------------------------------------------------------------19

4.4.1 The egg -shell -skull rule -----------------------------------------------------------------19
4.4.2. Economic loss consequent on physical injury----------------------------------------20
i
4.4.3. Psychiatric Illness -----------------------------------------------------------------------------21
4.4.4 Intentional torts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
4.4.5. Statutory Torts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
CHAPTER V: Boundaries of Non– Contractual Liability Law------26
5.1 Non-contractual liability law v Contractual law----------------------------------------------26
5.2 Non- Contractual Liability Law v Criminal Law --------------------------------------------28
PART II: Ethiopian Non – Contractual Liability LAW--------------30
CHAPTER VI: SOURCES AND TYPES OF LIABILITIES----31
6.1 Liability for Fault-----------------------------------------------------------------------------31

6.1.1 General Rules--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------31
6.1.2 Professional Fault (2031) -------------------------------------------------------------32
6.1.3 Intent to Injure (2032) -----------------------------------------------------------------34
6.1.4 Diversion of power [2033] ----------------------------------------------------------35
6.1.5 Purpose of Rights (2034) -------------------------------------------------------------36
6.1.6 Infringement of Laws (2035) --------------------------------------------------------37
6.1.7 Chain of Command (2036) ----------------------------------------------------------38
6.1.8 Non – Performance of a contract (2037) ----------------------------------------41
6.2 Special Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42
6.2.1 Trespass To Person----------------------------------------------------------------42
6.2.2. Interference with the Liberty of another (2040)and Defenses--------49
ii
6.2.3 Defamation (2044) and Defenses-----------------------------------------------54
6.2.4 Publication (2049) ------------------------------------------------------------------61
6.2.5 Trespass to Goods-----------------------------------------------------------------------------62
CHAPTER VII: Interference against Economic Interest----------70

7.1 Pre contractual Negotiations [2055] -----------------------------------------------------------------70
7.2 Inducement to breach of contracts [2056] ---------------------------------------------------------71
7.3 Unfair competition [2057] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------73
7.4 Simulation (2058) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----73
7.5 False Information (2059) -----------------------------------------------------------------74
7.6 Exception 2060-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----75
7.6 .1 Witnesses [2061]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------76
7.6.2 Advice or recommendations (2062) ----------------------------------------------------------77
7.6.3 Seizer of another’s property or Distrait (2063) --------------------------------78
7.6.4 Execution of a court order (2064) --------------------------------------------------78
7.6.5 Prescription 2065-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------79
CHAPTER VII: Other Interests-----------------------------------------------81
8.1 Injury to the Right of Spouses (2050) -----------------------------------------------------81
8.2 Duty to Educate and Supervise (2052) ---------------------------------------------------84
CHAPTER IX: Liability Irrespective of Fault Strict

Liability(2066-2089)--------------------------------------------------------86
9.1 Necessity (2066) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------86
iii
9.2 Bodily Harm and Defenses (2067) ---------------------------------------------------87
9.3 Sport Activities [2068] ------------------------------------------------------------------89
9.4 Dangerous Activities [2069] -----------------------------------------------------------90
9.5 Types of Instruments---------------------------------------------------------------------93
9.6 Liability For Buildings (2077 – 2080) ----------------------------------------------100
9.7 Machines and motor vehicles-----------------------------------------------------------102
9.8 Liability for manufactured goods(2085) ------------------------------------------103
9.9 Defenses or justifications for strict liability-----------------------------------------106
CHAPTER X: VICARIOUS LIABILITY--------------------------------------------------------------------110
10.1 The Rationale why one is held liable for the wrong
committed by another…………………………………………………. ……110
10.2 Liability of parents and others----------------------------------------------------------113
10.3 Liability of the state 2126----------------------------------------------------------------116
10.4 Liability of bodies corporate and employers [2129-2133] ----------------------117
10.5 DEFAMATION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------120
PART III: REMEDIES TO EXTRA CONTRACTUAL WRONG--------122
Chapter XI: Introduction to the Basic Notions of Damage---122
11.1Conceptual Analysis of Damage-------------------------------------------------------122
11.2 Classifications of Damage--------------------------------------------------------------123
11.2.1 Material Damage------------------------------------------------------------------123
iv
11.2.2 Moral Damage -----------------------------------------------------------------------127
Chapter XII: Modes of Compensation-----------------------------------------129
12.1. Modes of Compensation for Material Damage---------------------------------129
12.1.1. The Rule of Pecuniary Compensation----------------------------------129
12.1.2. Non-Pecuniary Compensation-------------------------------------------130
12.2. Modes of Compensation for Moral Damage -------------------------------------131

12.2.1. The Rule of Non-Pecuniary Compensation--------------------------------131
12.2.2. Pecuniary Compensation as an Exception--------------------------------------------132
Chapter XIII: Quantum/ Extent of Compensation------------135
13.1Quantum of Compensation for Material Damage---------------------------------135
13.1.1. The Rule of Equivalence--------------------------------------------------------135

13.1.2. Departures from the Rule of Equivalence--------------------------------139
13.2 Quantum of Compensation for Moral Damage------------------------------------145

13.3 Compensation for personal Injuries--------------------------------------------------147
13.3.1. General Damages vs. Pecuniary Loss --------------------------------------147
13.3.2. Injury of an employee ---------------------------------------------------------- ---152
13.3.3. Injury of self-employed Persons ----------------------------------------------158
13.3.4. Injury of Non-Employed Persons ----------------------------------------159
13.3.5 Compensation for Fatal Accidents----------------------------------------------161
13.4 Finality of assessment and appeal…………………………………………….165
13.5 Modes of Payment--------------------------------------------------------------------------167
v
13.5.1 Lump sum Payment: the Rule------------------------------------------167
13.5.2 Periodical Allowance: Exception----------------------------------------168
Chapter XIV: Action for Compensation----------------------------171
14.1. Who May Claim Compensation? ------------------------------------------------------172
14.1.1. Independent Claimants-------------------------------------------------------172
14.1.2. Derivative Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------178
14.2. Who May Be Sued in Tort? -------------------------------------------------------------181
14.2.1. The Author of the Damage-----------------------------------------------------------181
14.2.2. The Vicarious Defendant-------------------------------------------------------------182
14.2.3. Heirs of the Person liable-------------------------------------------------------------183
14.3. Immunities------------------------------------------------------------------------------------184
14.4. Period of Limitation--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----185
PART IV---------------------------------------------------------------------187
Chapter XV Unjust Enrichment--------------------------------------------------187
15.1. Doctrinal Foundation ---------------------------------------------------------------------187
15.2. General Provisions Applicable to Unjust Enrichment---------------------------187
15.3. Grounds of Unjust Enrichment---------------------------------------------------------190
Reference Materials………………………………………………………………………………………196
vi
PART I
GENERAL BACK GROUND
CHAPTER I
DEFINITION AND PRINCIPLES OF NON-CONTRACTUAL
LIABILITY LAW
1.1. Definition
There are rights and interests, which are rendered protection by the FDRE
Constitution. Some of these interests and rights are the right to life (article 15), the
right to the security of person (article 16), the right to liberty (article 17), the right
to honor and reputation (article 24), the right to privacy (article 26), etc. Where
these rights or interests are infringed there are remedies made available by
different laws, one of which is criminal law. The remedy rendered by criminal law.
However, is different from that rendered by Non- Contractual Liability Law, for the
latter gives remedy by forcing the tortfeasor to make that damage good.
Therefore, Non-Contractual Liability Law is a law that gives remedy by awarding

compensation to the victim or ordering restitution or injunction. When those
interests, which are protected by the Constitution and other laws, are violated,
courts will award a sum of money, known as damages (compensation) for
infringement of protected interest 1. Alternatively, the court may issue injunction.2
Injunction is a court order given to the defendant to refrain from doing something”. 3
Restitution is the third form of remedy. The victim seeks a remedy by bringing her
1
John Cooke, Law of Tort; Pearson Longman 2007.p3.[Hereafter Cooke] see also the Civil Code of
Ethiopia, article 2090 proclamation No 165/1960 (hereafter CCE)
2
Ibid, article 2121.
3
Cooke p3
1
case to a court 4 or by settling it amicably with defendant directly or through a third

party.5
Exercise 1.1.
1. Is there a circumstance where a victim could avail herself of self-help? Please

cite proper provisions from the CCE.
2. So what is Non – Contractual Liability Law?
1.2 Principles
We have seen some of the rights, which are protected by the FDRE
Constitution, and other laws and some of the mechanisms utilized by courts to that
effect. Now in this part, we will try to discuss the principles of Non – Contractual
Liability Law. To make a person liable under this law, four requirements which are
called principles of Non-contractual Liability Law are essential. The first one is act
or omission. The second concerns damage. The existence of casual relationship
between the act or omission and the damage suffered by the victim 6 is the third
principle. Finally, this damage should be a kind of harm recognized as attracting
legal liability.
Illustrations
Let us assume Mohammed is running a merchandise business in X Street.

Zeberga Starts similar business adjacent to Mohammed. If Zeberga sells the
merchandize with lesser price than Mohammed and Mohammed is made out of
business, Mohammed is said to have suffered damage and the cause is Zeberga.
Since the damage is, however, not a kind of harm recognized as attracting legal
4
Article 37 of the FDRE Constitution, Federal Negarit Gazeta 1st Year, No1 Addis Ababa August, 1995.
Here after the FDRE Constitution.
5
CCE article 2148
6
Ibid article 2141
2
liability Zeberga may not be obliged to make that damage good. This is referred to
as damnum sine injura in Latin. On the other hand, there is a circumstance where
a person could be ordered to pay compensation without her act or omission causing
damage.
Illustration
Let us assume Tahir crosses a piece of land without having the permission of
Okan Okech, the landholder. Tahir will be obliged to pay compensation though
Okan Okech suffers no damage. This is referred to as injura sin damno in Latin.
The conduct is actionable without proof of damage. It is said to be actionable per se.
Exrcise 1.2.
1. Identify one article in the Non – Contractual Liability Law provisions to

illustrate damnum sine injura.
2. Identify one article in the Non – Contractual Liability Law provisions to
illustrate injura sin damno.
3
CHAPTER II
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
2.1. Personal Security
These are torts involving a tress pass to the person 7. As per article 16 of the
FDRE Constitution, everyone has the right to protection against bodily harm.
This right is protected in a number of ways. For instance, if one makes a contact
with another intentionally against the other person‟s will, the victim could bring
action as per article 2038(1) of the CCE under assault. Assault is a condition
where “one person puts another in fear of being hit. If (however) the blo w is
struck, then the person hit may have an action under bodily harm 8.
Moreover as per article 17 of the FDRE Constitution any, Ethiopian or foreign

national lawfully in Ethiopia has the right to liberty of movement. This freedom
could be restricted unlawfully. A person whose freedom is restricted could sue
that person who interfered with her liberty for interference with the liberty of
another as it is stated under article 2040 of the CCE or for false imprisonment.
This suffices for immediate purpose. Let us now raise one issue, and discuss
other rights protected by the law. Assume Chala, a pedestrian, is hit by Chaltu, who
is driving her car negligently. Chala dies immediately. Sifen, Chala‟s sister is
witness to this traumatic event and due to this, she sustains a serious mental
suffering or psychiatric damage. Under what Extra – Contractual Liability
provision
terer at can
w uuo8(w)174
Sifen sue Chaltu
n( 213(
for1t90(68w614(h)-13ordCn8,9o59t)tc537
the a) 06)]TJ1 >-.TD[(E )(3 )28
4
2.3 Economic Interest
As per article 41(1) of the FDRE Constitution, evey Ethiopian has the right to
engage freely in an economic activity and pursue a livelihood of his choice
anywhere within the national territory. Any conduct which jeopardizes the
exercise or enjoyment of this right is violation of the economic interests of a
person, which is guaranteed protection by the FDRE constitution. Therefore, the
Extra – Contractual Liability Law gives protection to this interest “… [w]here
the defendant has acted unlawfully and has caused economic loss to the
claimant”14
2.4 Reputation and privacy
The FDRE Constitution recognizes every one‟s reputation and privacy under
articles 24 and 26 respectively. Accordingly, under article 29(6) of the same,
limitation on the right of thought, opinion and expression are put where these
rights go against honors and reputation of individuals. Therefore, as it is
provided under article 29(7) of the FDRE Constitution, any citizen who violates
any legal limitations on the exercise of these rights may be held liable under the
law. One of these laws is Extra – Contractual Liability Law. Hence, “where a
person‟s reputation is damaged by untrue speech or writing then they may have
an action in the tort of defamation 15
14
Cooke p.6 see also article 2055 – 2059 of the C.C.
15
Cooke p.6 see also article 2044 ff and article 2109 ff. of the C.C.
6
CHAPTER III
CONDUCT THAT GIVES RISE TO LIABILITY
Conduct is a person‟s behavior in a particular place or in a particular

situation. In legal sense, conduct is classified into two: Act and omission. Act is
defined as an external manifestation of the actor‟s will 16.
Illustration 1
Mohammed drives his car carelessly with the result that it mounts the
pavement and hits Chala, a pedestrian, causing Chala personal injury. Here the
act is Mohammed‟s driving the vehicle. In legal terms this is known as
Misfeasance and it is a positive act 17. Omission on the other hand is failure to
act where the law requires you to act in a certain way. This is known in legal
terms as nonfeasance18 .
Illustration 2
As per article 219 of the Revised Family Code [RFC] 19the father and the
mother are, during their marriage, jointly guardians and tutors of their minor
children. As a guardian, they fix the place where the minor is to reside 20. And
watch over the health of the minor. 21 They also take the necessary disciplinary
measures for ensuring her upbringing.22 The guardians shall ensure that the
minor be given general education or professional training commensurate with
16
Harry Shalman and others; Law of Torts Cases And materials; Foundation Press, 2003 p.27
[hereafter Harry]
17
Cook, p. 24. see also Article 2029(2) of the CCE
18
Cook P.24 see also article 2029(2) of the Civil Code.
19
Negarit Gazette, Extra-Ordinary Issue No. 1/2000.[Hereafter RFC]
20
RFC Article 258
21
RFC. Article 260
22
RFC. Article 260
7
her age and abilities 23Generally the guardians are under obligation to discipline
their children and see that the minor children receive proper education. Failure
to do that is committing an offense as you can read from the following:
A person commits an offence where he fails to take in respect of

persons entrusted to his charge or supervision by law or in
conformity with the law the measure of education and
supervision which may reasonably be expected of him, having
regard to the circumstance and custom 24
We have already said that conduct is a person‟s behavior in a particular place or in

a particular situation. Conduct is classified into act and omission. 25 Now work out
the following cases.
Questions
1. Abebe is a blind person. He is seen by Kebede while walking a cliff and

failling. Would Kebede be liable for the damage sustained by Abebe? If yes,
why? If no why not?
2. Mulat enters Beti‟s Bar and becomes drunk and a nuisance. Beti ejects Mulat
from the bar. Beti knows that Mulat will be walking home. Nevertheless, on
the way home Mulat is run over by a car. Is Beti liable to Mulat for failing to
call a taxi or the police? If yes, why? If no, why not?
3. Assume that when Mulat is run by a car, Siraj, a doctor, locates him and
gives him First Aid. Will Siraj be liable if he gives his assistance negligently?
If yes, why? If no why not?
23
CCE. article 2051(1)
24
CCE article 2051 (1)
25
Harry p.27
Harry]
8
3.1 Intention and Negligence
These concepts are complex. Hence, I will try, as much as possible to simplify
them. Intention is related with behavior that is intended to be wrong. Intentional
wrongs are, therefore, those wrongs in which the person charged must have acted in
such a manner that she either wanted to harm someone or knew that what she did
would result in harm.
Hence, “Intention refers to the defendant‟s knowledge that the consequences

of her conduct are bound to occur, where the consequences are desired or, if not
desired, are foreseen as a certain result” 26
Hence, Intention exists where:
[
a) The defendant knows that the consequences of her conduct are bound to
occur; or
b) Where the defendant desires the consequences or
c) Where the defendant may not desire but foreseen the result of her action or
omission. For example:
If Gemachis intentionally shoots Belay. or, if Gemachis makes a lot of noise

around his house simply in order to annoy his neighbor Chaltu, we say Gemachis
Commits intentional fault.
On the other hand, if a person failed to act in a reasonable manner, we say

that person acted negligently. For instance, if a child walking across the street in
a designate cross was hit by an automobile because the driver was drunk or the
car‟s brakes were faulty, society says that the driver breached a duty to drive the
26
Michael A. Jones, Text book on Torts, Oxford University Press ,2002 P.9 (Hereafter, Michael)
see also article 2029(1)
9
car in a reasonable manner and will have to pay for damages suffered by the
child. Thus to say negligence exists, four conditions are supposed to exist:
1. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty;

2. The defendant must have breached that duty;
3. The breach of that duty must be the actual as well as the “legal” cause of the
plaintiff‟s injury.
4. That injury must be one that the law recognizes and for which money
damages may be recovered 27
There, it is worth discussing duty and reasonable person. We all have a duty to
protect other persons from harm. The question is what degree of duty exists and
under what specific circumstances. To determine the degree of duty, the reasonable
and prudent person has been introduced. So we all have a “reasonable duty to avoid
liability causing behavior”. Reasonable duty is a standard of ordinary skill and care,
based upon the specific facts of each individual case.28
Illustration
While Abebe is quietly fishing on the shore of Lake Tana, he sees Kebede one
hundred meters away fall out of his boat and begin to drown. The law does not place
any duty upon Abebe to help Kebede. But suppose Abebe owns a boat yard on the
lake and Kebede rents Abebe‟s boat and that boat springs a leak because it is
defective when Kebede rents, thereby causing Kebede to drawn. Then Abebe will
have breached his duty to rent safe boat, and he has a duty to help Kebede.
3.2 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON
Since the degree of duty is related with reasonable and prudent person we
now briefly discuses three requirements which help us to define what a reasonable
27
Michael p 191.
28
Simons Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesan’s, tort Law Clarendn Press – Oxford pp 223
– 239. Hereafter Simons.
10
and prudent person is. These are knowledge, investigation and judgment. Before
that, however, let us discuss the objective standard, which will help us to ensure
objectivity and uniformity. 29
As members of a community, a certain standard of care is expected from us

when we act. The standard of care expected from us is that of the reasonable man.
It is objective. To that effect, it does not take into account the particular way of
behaving, thinking, etc or weaknesses of the defendant.
Illustration 1
Let us assume Chala is a learner – driver. While on training, he crashes into

a wall and causes injury to his trainer who seats on the front seat. Chala is not to be
judged as a learner driver. He is to be judged by the same standard as that required
of any other driver, namely that of a reasonably competent and experienced
driver30. This reasonable man standard is embodied in our Non – Contractual
Liability Law as well. 31
This reasonable and prudent man standard is not without exception. One of
the exceptions is unforeseen harm. Hence, “If a particular danger could not
reasonably have been anticipated, the defendant has not acted in breach of her duty
of care, because a reasonable man would not take precaution against unforeseeable
consequences. 32
Illustration 2
This illustration is directly taken from a case decided in 1947. The case is
referred to as Roe v Minister of health . An operation was undertaken in which the
plaintiff was paralyzed by anesthetic, which had become contaminated by
disinfectant. The anesthetic had been kept in glass ampoules, which were stored in
29
Alan P. 62
30
Ibid.
31
Article 2030 of the CCE
32
Alan p.63
11
the disinfectant and became contaminated through invisible cracked in the glass. At
the time of the accident in 1947, this risk was not known. Had it been now it would
have been known and brought about liability. Hence, as the amount of knowledge
existing in the world increases, so does the amount of knowledge that reasonable
and prudent person is expected to possess. That seems the reason why our Civil
Code makes a professional liable, "[W] here, due regard is given to scientific facts or
the accepted rules of the practice of her profession, she is guilty of imprudence or of
negligence consisting definite ignorance of her duties". 33
To understand this reasonable and prudent man let us consider the other two areas,
which we mentioned earlier investigation and judgment. Before anybody drives a
car, the law presumes that she will have investigated or checked in good order the
car, among other things, the brakes are working properly, and the wheels are
Similarly, if you are a drug manufacturer, the law presumes that you will have
ascertained that your drug does not cause any harmful side effects. If it does, you
will have violated the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent person 34.
The other simple way of determining the reasonable and prudent man
standard is how we judge our activity. Hence, before we start any activity, the law
expects us to ask ourselves the following questions: What is the likelyhood that our
particular activity will harm someone else? If harm might occur, what is the likely
hood of the extent of the harm? What must I give up in order to avoid the risk to
others?
Illustration
Let us assume you live in a village and you get a new rifle, which you want to
try. While trying your shot it starts to attract crowds from the village. The more the
shot is the bigger the crowd. At what point would you decide to stop shooting in
order to avoid injury to an innocent villager? The decision to stop involves the
33
Article 2031 (2) of the CCE
34
See art icle 2085 of CCE
12
exercise of reason. The exercise of that faculty or reason is judgment to be made by

a reasonable and prudent man.
3.3 Statutory Standard

The objective standard is not free from subjectivity for …"[t]here is a
subjective element in that it is left to the individual judge to decide what a
reasonable or what could have been foreseen" 35 Hence the law introduces statutory
standard.
Thus in some cases the law solves the problem of subjectivity by providing a
standard contained in a statute. For example, when it begins to get dark, all drivers
are required to turn on their headlights. If, while traveling, any driver without her
lights on, hits and injures a pedestrian, the law will conclude that she breaches a
standard of reasonableness, no matter what she gives as an excuse. The majority
rule is that breaching the statutory standard is negligence per se. Negligence per se
is inherent negligence, i.e. negligence without a need for further proof. 36
35
Michael P.192
36
Ibid P.460
13
CHAPTER IV
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
Now we will discuss the concepts of Causation and Remoteness of Damage,

which are separate but interconnected.
4.1 CAUSATION
It is not difficult to determine the cause for a damage where there is only one
cause and that is established. “A causation problem, therefore, usually occurs when
we look at the damage and see that it was actually caused by a number of different
factors, or to put it another way, that a number of factors combining together
brought about the damage.” 37
Illustrations
To illustrate this concept we consider a popular case, i.e. Barnett V Chelsea
and Kensington Hospital
There were three night watchmen at the Chelsea College of Science and
Technology. William Barnett was one. At 5:00 AM on the morning of 1966‟s new-
year day, all three shared same tea. After 20 minutes, they began vomiting. At 8:00
AM, they went to Karsignton Hospital and were seen by a nurse who telephoned the
doctor on duty who replied, “Well, I am vomiting myself and I have not been
drinking. Tell them to go home and go to bed and call their own doctor.” The three
men returned to the College but continued to feel ill, and by 2:00 P.M, the claimant
had died. It was shown that he had been poisoned with arsenic. His widow said the
hospital failed to treat her husband. The defendants have said the deceased must
have died in any event.
Therefore, the issue was whether the deceased‟s death was caused by that
negligence or whether the deceased must have died in any event.
37
Richard Kinder, Case Book on Torts, Oxford University Press, 2002.P 106[hereafter Richard]
14
To determine this, the court called in an expert witness who testified based
on a timetable as follows: the deceased attended at the causality department at 5 or
10 minutes past eight in the morning. If the doctor had got up, dressed and came to
see the three men and examined them and decided to a admit them, the deceased
could not have been in bed in a ward before 11 a.m.
After the admission they would have been treated which would have shown
arsenic poisoning. This poisoning is brought about by two considerations: on the one
hand dehydration and on the other disturbance of the enzyme process. The judge
learnt it was the second case from the expert and concluded that the only method of
treatment, which is likely to succeed, was the use of specific antidote which is
commonly called B.A.L. Concerning this, the expert witness testified as follows:
The only way to deal with this is to use the specific B.A.L. I see no
reasonable prospect of the deceased being given B.A.L before the time at which he
died. [Emphasis added] and a later point in his evidence – I feel that even if fluid
loss had been discovered death would have been caused by the enzyme
disturbances. Death might have occurred later. From this, the judge decided as
follows:
I regard that evidence as very moderate, and it might be a true assessment of the
situation to say that there was no chance of B.A.L. being administered before the
death of the deceased, [emphasis added]. So the only medication that would have
saved the deceased was to administer B.A.L. According to the medical procedure,
however, the B.A.L would not have been administered before the death time.
Therefore, death preceded the B.A.L
For those reasons, the judge decided that the plaintiff (the widow) has failed
to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant‟s {the doctor and the
Hospital} negligence caused the death of the deceased.
15
We may conclude the following from the above case: The hospital and the
doctor owed the deceased a duty of care, which they had breached by failing to
examine him. They were held not liable, however, as the evidence established that,
even if he had been examined he would have died before diagnosis and treatment
could have been carried out. Therefore, as the deceased would have died regardless
of the breach of duty the breach was not a cause for his death.
4.2 THE „BUT FOR‟ TEST
To determine the cause for the damage [death] the judge may, among the
many tests, uses “but for” tests. “According to this principle the plaintiff will have to
show that she would not have been injured in the way she was but for the
defendant‟s conduct” 38. In the case at hand the wife was supposed to show that her
husband would not have died but for the defendant‟s negligence.
In the case at hand the judge utilized technology as assistance to determine “but
for” test. Judges could face, however, a condition where technology has not reached
a level to resolve the issue, under such circumstances the judges resort to a balance
of probabilities test.
Illustration
This hypothetical case is taken from Nicholas on p.534 with change in names.
Suppose that Chala committed a tort in relation to Chaltu and Chaltu subsequently
developed cancer. Suppose further that it is claimed that Chala‟s tort caused Chaltu
to develop cancer. Suppose finally that it is hard to tell whether Chaltu would have
developed cancer in the way she did had Chala not committed his tort. In this sort
of case, the courts, have to determine whether the “but for” test is satisfied by using
a balance of probabilities test. They ask: Is it more likely than not that Chaltu
would not have developed cancer in the way she did had Chala not committed his
38
Nicholas p.530
16
tort? If the answer is yes then the courts will find that Chaltu would not have
developed her cancer but for Chala‟s tort and Chala will usually be held to
compensate Chaltu for the fact that she has developed cancer. If the answer is “no”
then the courts will find that Chaltu would have developed her cancer in the way
she did even if Chala had not committed his tort, with the result that Chala will
usually not be held liable to compensate Chaltu for her cancer.
Question
Is it proper to use a „but for‟ test for the following Case?
Suppose Gari and Mohammed are two professional footballers and that
when they are playing football together Mohammed negligently injures Gari with
the result that Gari becomes permanently disable. Suppose that, at the time of the
accident, a big club is interested in signing Gari. The transfer will earn Gari USD
11,000,000. Of course, after Gari‟s accident the big club in question loses interest in
signing him.
In this case, can we say Gari would have earned USD 11,000.000 but for
Mohammad‟s negligence? Discuss.
4.3 Remoteness of Damage
In the previous unit, we have seen that causation is a link between the
defendant‟s conduct and the plaintiff‟s damage. To that end we have seen the law
uses the “but for” test to determine whether that connection is established or not.
Now we will discuss remoteness of damage, which is “used to set the limit of legal
accountability of the defendant” 39
39
Alan P.72
17
As a matter of principle once the conduct of the tortfeasor causes the
damage, the tortfeasor will be obliged to make that damage good. There are,
however, conditions where “even if the defendant‟s act caused the damage liability
can still be excluded.” 40 That is, if the kind of damage was an unforeseeable
consequence of the act, the damage is said to be too remote.
Illustration
The defendant drove negligently on the motorway and his car severed and
left the road. The car landed on a railway line. A mainline railway train was
derailed by the car. The train struck a dam, which burst, flooding a small town.
Here the defendant had set in motion a chain of events. The court has to
terminate the defendant‟s liability at a particular point. The point could be after the
damage to the train. Any damage beyond that point is too remote. 41 Let us take
another illustration to make clear foresees by a reasonable man.
A ship is loaded with benzene. It is not only loaded with benzene but the
benzene is leaking
18
damage is not too remote. Therefore, we may use this direct consequence of the act
test to say that the damage is not too remote or we may use this direct consequence
of the act test to determine the remoteness of damage.
We may conclude the following from the two cases given above. It is
beyond reasonable man‟s limitation to foresee that a train derailed by a car hits a
dam and consequently floods a village. It is not, however, beyond a reasonable
man‟s limit to foresee for a spark to start fire in a ship hold full of benzene vapor.
4.4 Exception to the Foreseeability Test
Previously we have seen how we use foresee ability test to determine the
remoteness of damage, and we said that the judge put a reasonable man standard
and determine whether the damage is foreseeable by a reasonable man or not. In
addition, if the consequence of an act is foreseeable by a reasonable man, that
damage may not be referred too remote a damage and the defendant shall make the
damage good. There are, however, exceptions to the foresee ability test. The
following are the exceptions:
4.4.1 The egg -shell -skull rule
This rule applies “Where the plaintiff is suffering from a latent physical or
psychological predisposition to a particular form of illness, which the harm inflicted
by the defendant triggers off, that his negligence has produced.” 42 Here the issue is
whether a certain act causes a physical injury, which is different and much worse
than the ordinary injury that would have been caused in the course of events.
Illustration
42
Alan p.83
19
Abebe is struck on his lip by a piece of molten metal that comes from a certain
metal factory. The burn turnes the tissues in Abebe‟s lip into cancerous and Abebe
died eventually from cancer. The factory owners are liable for the death of Abebe.
“For the test is not whether those [defendants] could reasonably have foreseen that
a burn would cause cancer and that [Abebe] would die. The question is whether
these [defendants] could reasonably foresee the type of injury he suffered, namely
the burn”43. This rule also applies for an eggshell personality. This is a condition
“where the injury to the plaintiff merely aggravated a pre – existing nervous
condition”44
4.4.2. Economic loss consequent on physical injury
This is a condition where one single conduct causes two injuries, and the
one is not foreseeable by the tortfeasor.
Illustration
Mohammed by his act causes physical injury to Chalto. Due to this
physical injury Chalto suffers economic loss. Chalto can recover compensation for
the physical injury that she suffers and she will be able to sue Mohammed for
compensation in respect of the economic losses that she suffers as a result of
sustaining that injury without having to prove that it is reasonably foreseeable at
the time Mohammed commits the act that she will suffer those economic losses as a
result.
Nicholas illustrates this by using a simple example as follows: In the cases

of claims in tort, damages are constantly given for consequences of which the
defendant had no notice. You negligently run down a shabby looking man in the
street, and the shabby looking man turns out to be a millionaire who engages in a
43
Ibid
44
Ibid
20
very profitable business which the accident disables him from carrying on. You will
be held liable for the economic loss so caused.” 45
As per the Ethiopian Non – Contractual Liability Law a victim who

suffers both physical and economic loss should sue the defendant for both at the
same time. Otherwise as per article 2151 of the Civil Code of Ethiopia the victim
may not bring a fresh action for compensation for other damage she has suffered
unless such damage was caused independently of that for which she has already
claimed compensation. Therefore, as per Ethiopian law simply bringing an action
for physical injury does not mean that it follows with compensation for economic
loss. The claimant has to bring action for both simultaneously.
Exercise 1
Identify any article in the Non – Contractual Liability Law provisions that regulate
the above idea.
4.4.3. Psychiatric Illness
In the case we discussed under number 2 herein above, we have seen that due to
physical injury a victim could incur economic loss. Under such circumstance, we
also said that the defendant would be liable even if that loss is unforeseeable.
Similarly, if a physical injury brings about the victims psychiatric illness, even
though the defendant will not foresee that, she will be liable for the psychiatric
illness.
Illustration
Ukan Okech negligently causes a traffic accident in which Sara is involved. Sara
is injured in the accident and developed a psychiatric illness as well. Therefore,
45
Nicholas P.561
21
Okan Okech is liable for the psychiatric illness Sara suffers. Does our law have
an article, which regulates psychiatric illness due to physical injury?
Let us assume that a girl is raped. This girl does not simply suffer from
physical injury. She also for sure will suffer from psychiatric illness which will
stay with her for a long time or forever. In spite of this, rape victims are only
awarded „fair‟ compensation by way of compensation as per article 2114(1) of the
CCE.
The offender who commits rape, therefore, should not only be sentenced or
pay nominal compensation. The offender has to cover the medical cost that is
required to heal the psychiatric illness.
4.4.4 Intentional torts

“The foresee ability test to determine whether the loss suffered by the victim of a
tort was a remote consequence of that tort does not seem to apply to cases where
someone commits an intentional tort” 46
Nicholas classifies intentional tort into two: The first one is the one which
is committed by an actor who knows what she is doing. Examples of this are
battery, false imprisonment, defamation and private nuisance. These are
referred to as non-intentional torts 47. They are referred to as non – intentional
torts because they can be committed unintentionally or inadvertently.
Others are those which are committed intentionally. Examples for this are
malicious falsehood . If someone makes maliciously false statement about
someone to a third party, which results in that someone suffering loss, we say
that act is an international act. “Other examples of intentional torts are the
46
Nicholas P.564
47
Ibid
22
intentional infliction of harm using unlawful means, deceit and malicious

prosecution” 48 So the tortfeasor may be held liable to compensate the victim for
the loss she suffers even if the damage is not reasonably foreseeable at the time
the tortfeasor commits the act intentionally.
Exercise 2
1. Can you state the reason why the law treats defendants who commit non-
intentional torts more favorably than those defendants who commit
international tort? In other words, where the act is international, even if the
result is reasonably unforeseen the offender will be liable for the remote damage.
If, however, the act is non – intentional but resulted in reasonably unforeseen
consequences, the offender will not be answerable for the remote damage.
2. Is there a possibility of classifying faults in our law as non-intentional and
intentional torts? If yes, please identify the articles.
4.4.5. Statutory Torts
There are certain human relations which are delicate and given special attention in
statutes or laws. Among them are discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. To
that effect, USA has issued the Race Relations Act, 1976. In accordance with this
Act, if someone racially abuses another and as a result the latter develops
psychiatric illness, the foresee ability test will be applicable. Hence, the tortfeasor
will be liable under the Act.
Individual and group rights are recognized in the FDRE Constitution.

Rights of Women, Rights of Children and Rights of Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples are some of the group rights.49 Accordingly, as per articles 25 of the FDRE
Constitution discrimination based on grounds of sex, nation and nationality is
forbidden. Hence as per article 35(8) of the FDRE Constitution, women shall have a
48
Ibid p.562; see also articles 2045(1) and 2048(2) of C.C.
49
FDRE Constitution Articles 35,36 and 39
23
right to equality in employment, promotion, pay and the transfer of pension
entitlement. Similarly, as per article (3)(1) of the Federal Civil Servants
Proclamation50 no discrimination among job seekers or civil servants shall be made
in filling vacancies because of their ethnic origin, sex, religion, political outlook or
any other ground [emphasis added]
In a similar manner, article 14(1)(f)of Labor Proclamation51 declares

making discrimination between workers on the basis of nationality, sex, religion,
political or any other conditions is forbidden. Now the issue is what will be the
liability where one violates those provisions? The Labor proclamation gives remedy
under its article 184, which reads:
An employer who violates the provisions of article 14(1) shall

be liable to fine not exceeding Br, 1200 if the Criminal Code
does not provide more severe penalties.
This liability is criminal liability. What about civil liability? Assume

Chaltu is an accountant in ABC Share Company. A notice is displayed on a board
for a vacancy in the senior accountant position. Chaltu, who applies, satisfies every
24
injury? If so, is he going to sue Mohammed under Contract Law? Please read article
2068. What if someone is injured by a cricket ball while they are watching?
The other difference between the two laws is the fact that in case of Contract
Law there are certain people who are exempted from performing their part of
obligations, for instance, a minor. No exception is, however, made in Non –
Contractual Liability Law. 57
Furthermore, breach in contract is established by simply showing that the

performance promised has not been materialized without showing the promisor‟s
fault. Exception is article 1795. In Non – Contractual Liability Law, however,
Liability is established by demonstrating the defendant‟s fault within the meaning
described to that term by articles 2021, 2030 or the specific case provisions. We
have to make clear that labiality without fault, however, under Non – Contractual
Liability is an exception applying only where the law specifically so provides. 58
The relevance of discussing this is to determine the amount of compensation,

which is the other difference. In case of contract where it is established that the
breach is intentional or due to “grave” fault, 59 the compensation shall be increased
to cover the damage, which is greater than the normal damage. However, in the
absence of intentional fault non – contractual compensation for wrongful harm may
sometimes be decreased. 60
Let us now discuss very briefly two specific differences and wind up this part.
Where a person borrows money the damage for delay in payment is the amount of
57
Ibid articles 2030(3) and article 317. But Consult article 2099 (1)
58
Ibid article 2027(2) cum section 2.
59
Ibid article 1801(2)
60
Ibid article 2101, see also article 2091.
27
interest. 61 In case of Non - Contractual Liability the amount of compensation is

assessed at the time of judgment. 62
Finally, yet importantly, difference is related with the period of limitation

and court jurisdiction. If someone has to bring action, she has to bring it within a
certain period. Otherwise, it is going to be barred by limitation of action. Limitation
of action in contract is 10 years while in case of Non – Contractual Liability it is 2
years.63 Finallym, a court that has jurisdiction in a case of contract is a court at the
place where the contract is made or to be performed 64 while in the case of Non –
Contractual Liability the court at a place where the wrong was done has
jurisdiction65
5.2 Non- Contractual Liability Law v Criminal Law
From the discussion we had so far, civil wrongs are classified into contractual
and non - contractual wrongs. We can also classify wrongs into civil and criminal
wrongs and compare criminal wrongs with non – contractual wrongs. To start with,
liability from both wrongs emanates from the law, unlike that of contractual
wrongs, which emanates from agreement. Moreover criminal wrong gives rise to
Non – Contractual Liability 66 On the contrary in deciding whether a [civil] offence
has been committed, the court shall not be bound by an acquittals or discharge by a
criminal court. 67
61
Ibid article 1803
62
Ibid article 2091 and 2150
63
Ibid article 1845, 1846 and 2143
64
Civil Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1965.Negarit Gazit, Extraordinary Issue
No.31965.A.A art.24 (1).Here after CPC.
65
Ibid Art.27(1)
66
See articles 407,543,559,580,585,602 etc of the Criminal Code of the FDRE with their
corresponding Non – Contractual Liability articles.
67
CCE article 2149.
28
The consequence, however, varies. The criminal wrong doer may end up in
jail or be punished with fine or both. In case of non – contractual wrong, the wrong
doer may not go to jail. Rather she will be obliged to pay compensation to the victim
or be ordered to restitute the thing she has taken away from the victim or be
ordered to refrain from perpetuating the wrong. This is because the primary
function of the criminal law is to protect the interests of the public [while] the
primary function of the law tort is to provide of redress for individuals who have
suffered a loss.” 68
The parties are different. In the criminal case, the parties are the offender
and the state, the latter, representing the public through the public prosecutor. In
Non – Contractual Liability case, the parties are the victim and the offender who
are civilians.
Finally, the purposes of the two laws vary. The object of a criminal
prosecution is to punish a person who has been duly tried and convicted of a
criminal offence. While „The purpose of an action in the civil courts is to obtain
compensation for the loss sustained by the plaintiff.” 69
68
Alan P.4
69
Ibid.
29
PART II
Ethiopian Non – Contractual Liability LAW
In the common Law system, this law is referred to as Tort Law. In our case it
is either referred to Non- Contractual or Extra – Contractual Liability Law. Here I
am not going to discuss the naming. I have been utilizing Non – Contractual
Liability as opposed to contractual and civil liability against criminal liability. The
same naming will be followed while discussing each provision in the following units.
30
CHAPTER VI
SOURCES AND TYPES OF LIABILITIES
The sources of Non – Contractual Liability Law are three:

1. Fault (offence)
2. Activities one engages in or things possessed by a person
3. Where a third party for whom a person is responsible incurs liability.
The first one is regulated by those provisions from article 2028 – 2065 and
the liability is referred to as fault liability. In addition, it is further classified into
paragraph 1-General rules and paragraph 2-Special cases. General rules contains
articles 2028 – 2037 and Special cases is from article 2038 – 2065. The second
source of liability is referred to as Liability in the absence of an offence or strict
liability. It is regulated from article 2066 – 2089.It consists of Dangerous activities
(article 2069 and 2070), liability for animals (2071 – 2076), liability related with
building (2077 – 2079), machines and motor vehicles (2081 – 2084) and one article
for manufactured goods (2085).
The third source is the act of a third party and the liability is vicarious
liability. We may classify it into liability of families and others for a minor child
(2124 – 2125), liability of State (2126 – 2128), liability of Bodies Corporate and
Employers for their Employees (2129 – 2132).
6.1 Liability for Fault

6.1.1 General Rules
This type of liability is an ordinary one while the other two, i.e. Strict and
Vicarious Liabilities are exceptions, for they arise when the law says so. Article
2030 (1) may help us to understand a circumstance when to say an act or omission
is a fault. Hence when an act or forbearance of an individual is in a manner or in a
31
condition. which offends morality or the usual standard of good conduct, we say that
person is at fault. As per article 2029 the types are:
1. Intentional positive act

2. Intentional forbearance
3. Negligent positive act and
4. Negligent forbearance.
To say these acts or forbearances are faults they have to fulfill what is given
under article 2030. What is more, sub article (2) of 2030 brings in what is referred
to as the objective standard under the guise of a reasonable man. That seems the
reason why the subjective standard is expressly rejected under sub article (3) of the
same article in assessing fault stating expressly” fault shall be assessed without
regard to the age or mental condition of the person concerned” The law here seems
more concerned about the victim.
Thus in assessing the fault the law is very strict. However, when assessing the
damages or the consequence the law takes into consideration the mental and the
age of the defendant. Hence though in principle it is stated under article 2091 that
the amount of compensation is equal to the damage suffered by the victim, the court
shall take into consideration those elements mentioned under article 2099(3).
Furthermore, article 2099 is applied when the wrong doer is not aware of the
consequence of her act for … a person who was not in a state to appreciate the
wrongful nature of her conduct committed the fault. After this brief introduction on
fault, we will discuss each fault article at a time.
6.1.2 Professional Fault (2031)
To know what a professional fault is, it is vital to know what a

profession is. A profession is an activity for the proper exercise of which a special
training, skill and knowledge is required. A professional is, therefore, some one who
32
practices profession. Examples are lawyers, physicians, accountants etc. Therefore,

to practice any of these professions, that person has to have certain training, skill
and knowledge. Thus, you may not need, special training, skill and knowledge to
load and unload merchandize on or from a truck using bare hand. You may,
however, need training; skill and knowledge to load- unload the merchandize
operating a forklift. Hence, a person practicing a profession shall observe the rules
governing that practice.70 Therefore, if she fails to observe the rules of the said
profession fault is committed.
Illustration
Doctor Ali is a gynecologist. One morning Fatima comes to his hospital.

He carries out a gynecological operation on Fatima who is pregnant. Doctor Ali has
not verified that Fatima is pregnant. After a while, Fatima gives birth to Khadija
with abnormalities including deformed limbs and inability to conceive and is greatly
embarrassed by her appearance, which she considers will impair her relationships
with men and her earning capacity. Khadija can sue Doctor Ali under article 2031
for professional fault for he fails to observe the rules and norms of his profession,
i.e. he fails to identify whether Fatima is pregnant or not and whether the
gynecological operation will have negative effect on the embryo or not before he
carries out that operation. Let us raise one question. Would it make any difference,
had the victim been the mother, Fatima? Why or why not?
The rules for the profession could be written or it may not be written but is
simply recognized by the professionals. For instance, in driving there are written
rules and every driver should observe them. Therefore, to find out whether a driver
has committed a professional fault we look into those written rules. 71 If the
professional rules are not written, we should call in an expert witness.
70
Article 2031 (1) CCE
71
Transport Proclamation No.468/2005. Article 19.
33
The last point, which deserves mentioning, is the reasonable man issue. The
reasonable man that is stated under article 2030 should be, for article 2031, the
reasonable professional person in the eyes of article 2031.
6.1.3 Intent to Injure (2032)
This is an area where the right of an individual is restricted or controlled.

Individual rights are protected as long as they are used primarily for the advantage
of the individual herself. When they are used mainly not for personal gains, but
primarily “with intent to injure another” a fault is committed.
Illustration
Sarah is in a business of selling mousetraps. Dawit invents and markets
better mousetraps. And with the result, Sarah goes out of business. Dawit will not
have intentionally caused Sarah to suffer harm. However, some competition in the
market place may take the form of one trader intentionally causing another trader
to suffer harm. This is where Sarah and Dawit are in the same business of
mousetraps and Dawit, deliberately cuts the price to uneconomic level to drive
Sarah out of business. And we say Dawit will have intentionally caused harm
where, after driving Sarah out of business, he raises the price to the economic level.
Under sub article (1) of 2032, the objective of the offender is not to secure personal
gain. Rather it is intent to injure. As it is stated under sub article (2) of the same
article, however, the purpose of the act is personal gain. Therefore, where the
defendant by using his right makes a personal gain, but such gain is
disproportionate [disproportionately small] in relation to the heavy damage she
consciously causes to the plaintiff], then we say the defendant will have committed
fault, for a given “disproportion” really denotes a primarily mischievous intention. 72
72
See article 2063
34
So we may conclude as follows: Where a person either injures another

intentionally without personal gain or intentionally causes damage in seeking
personal gain, which is less proportional to that of the damage, we say she abuses
her rights and she is at fault. On the other hand, a person does not abuse her rights
where she injures another incidentally to a lawfully gainful activity as in e.g., fair
business competition. Thus, she does abuse them where her main purpose is not
gain to herself but harm to another.
Questions
Assume the possessor of each property mentioned in the following articles causes‟
damage. As per which article would she be liable? Article 2032 or 2035? Why?
1. An owner who makes excavations or works below the surface of the land she
possesses shakes neighbor‟s land, exposing the land to damage or endanger
the sociality of the works there on.
2. A helicopter suffers damage while it flows over a certain land for it crushes to
a wire that is extended above the surface of the land by the land possessor.
(Article 1211).
3. A possessor or holder of land refuses, against full payment in advance of
compensation, the installation on the land of water, gas or electrical lines or
similar work to the benefit of other lands [1220(1)].
4. A holder of a certain land denies a holder of another land, which is enclosed,

access to public ways even though the latter will have paid compensation
(1221)
6.1.4 Diversion of power [2033]
There are two types of power. The first is the one, given in the interest of a
private individual, and the second is that given to an individual in the interest of
35
the public. 73In any case, if such person who is conferred with such power uses the
power in his interest or to the benefit of a third party we say there is a diversion of
power. That power could emanate from a law or the decision of a court. Power that
is entrusted to the guardian of a minor is one that emanates from the law. 74 The
power of a liquidator assigned by a court to liquidate an asset of a business that
goes bankrupt is power that emanates from decision of a court.
Therefore, if the guardian or the liquidator uses the power entrusted to her in
her own interest then we say there is diversion or abuse of power and it is a fault.
The former one is abused by the individual upon whom the power is conferred to
benefit herself while in the latter case the public power is abused to benefit the
individual upon whom the power is conferred or some third party. One of the
differences between the private power diversion and the public one is the purpose
for which the powers are diverted. Therefore, we say there is private diversion
(abuses) of power where the powers are directed from their basic purposes by being
exercised with a view to personal gain. In case of the public one the diversion is
done not only to benefit the individual who diverted the power but also a third part.
6.1.5 Purpose of Rights (2034)
If one exercises her rights under article 2032 and 2033, though they are
within the economic or social purpose of the thing, one could be at fault. We referred
to those two articles for the phrase “Subject to the foregoing provisions” under
article 2034 seems is referring to those two articles.
73
Article 2033
74
Article 219 of RFC see articles 222 and 227 of RFC.
36
ILLUSTRATION
Let us assume there is a shortage of house to be leased. A lesser locked her

house and made it idle. Even though this act is against the economic and social
purpose of the house, no one can question the owner of the house on the way she
handled her house. However, if we can prove that she was doing that with the
intention to harm, then she is at fault as per article 2034.
6.1.6 Infringement of Laws (2035)
Concerning this article there are points which need some elaborations. The
first one is the use of the word law, decree or administrative regulations. In
contemporary Ethiopia, we have laws issued as Proclamation by the House of
Peoples Representatives, Regulations enacted by the Council of Ministers and
Directives to be issued by respective Ministries. 75 These are Federal laws. We also
have state legislations enacted by State Councils. 76 So article 2035 should be read in
this context. The laws we mentioned should be specific. The means they should not
be general and subject to interpretation.
Illustrations
Articles 1758 and 2323 of the CCE both regulate “Risks” as one can see from
their title. Under article 1758 the risk is related with debtor and this debtor could
be a seller or a buyer. Alternatively, for that matter the debtor could be a lessee or
lesser. Nevertheless, under article 2323 the risk is related with the buyer
specifically. Therefore, when we compare the two articles in the context of article
75
FDRE Constitution. Articles 55(2) &77(13). See also article 4(1) of Proclamation No. 470/2005.
Federal Negarit Gazeta 11th.Year No.60. Addis Ababa
76
The FDRE Constitution article 52(2)(b).
37
2035, article 2323 is specific and article 1758 is general. Hence, article 1758 is
subject to interpretation.
Related with this, the law should not be implicit. It should be explicit. We do
not have to use analogy or other methods to understand the meaning of the
legislation. The other question we have to address is a situation under which we
utilize or not this article. We do not use this article where the fault is regulated by
any of the Non – Contractual Liability law provisions. For instance, abuse of power
is infringement of law as per article 407 of the Criminal Code of the FDRE. Since
this infringement is governed under article 2033, we do not utilize article 2035.
Finally, yet importantly, a violation of contractual agreement is infringement

of a law as well. We, however, do not apply article 2035. As per article 2037, we
should apply the appropriate contract provisions. Therefore, the application of
article 2035 is very narrow. For one thing, the infringed law should not be exposed
to various interpretations. It should be explicit. The fault should not be regulated by
other Non – Contractual Liability Law or Contractual provisions.
6.1.7 Chain of Command (2036)
There are three approaches concerning the relationship in hierarchical order.

The first approach is always obeying the law. This is what the rule of law says and
it is true where it is assumed everybody knows the law. This approach is that of
Britain. The approach, however, is not free from criticism, for it invites discussion,
which makes the administration to face problems. This is especially true in the
military.
The second approach is obeying the order and forgetting the law. It is a blind
obedience approach. According to this approach, it is up to the superior to give
order as per the law. The presumption is that the superior knows the law. This
approach is good especially in military operation. It has never been, however, free
38
from criticisms and it was rejected after the Second World War. The theory caused
so many sufferings to human beings and damage to materials, and those who
carried on those atrocities invoked superior order as a defense.
The third approach is obeying both the law and the order. Article 2036 seems
to have adapted this approach. It is, therefore, the intermediate approach. After
this brief introduction let us now discus the article. To apply article 2036 there has
to be superior subordinate relationship and in that relationship the superior should
give an order to the subordinate and the act of the latter should give rise to harm.
To that effect, a chain of command relation should exist between persons of whom
one has the right to command and the other the duty to obey.
Second, superiority should be in authority not in rank. For instance, a foreign

Minister is superior in rank to a police officer but not in authority. Third, the
authority should emanate from the public law. In addition, the subordinate should
have the obligation to accept the order, which emanates from that public law.
Hence, if the subordinate acts on an order given by a superior in rank but not by
superior in authority she is at fault. Moreover, even if a superior in authority gives
the order but the executants exceed the order or causes additional harm by
improper execution, e.g., where a soldier is wrongfully ordered to confiscate one
head of cattle, intentionally or negligently slaughters the whole heads of cattle, the
subordinate commits fault.
Moreover, where the subordinate is aware of the criminal nature of the order
and carries out the order she is at fault. To illustrate this we may use article 74(1)
of the Criminal Code of FDRE, which reads as follows:
The subordinate shall be liable to punishment if he

was aware of the illegal nature of the order, in
particular, if he knew that the order was given without
39
authority or knew the criminal nature of the act

ordered, such as in case of homicide, arson, or any
other grave crime against persons, or national security
or property, essential public interests or international
Law.
Thus, the subordinate is liable:
1. If she is aware of the illegal nature of the order;
2. If she knew the order was given without authority
3. If she knew the criminal nature of the act ordered.
Is there a possibility for the subordinate not to be at fault under the
circumstances we have discussed so far? The author of the act, i.e. the subordinate
may know the illicit and criminal nature of the act. But as it is stated under article
2036(3) if in the circumstances of the case and particularly under disciplinary
compulsion it was practically impossible for the subordinate to discuss the order or
disobey, i.e. act otherwise than she did, she is not at fault.
To that effect, circumstances of the case must indicate that the subordinate
was in such fear of imminent harm as to make it “practically” impossible for her to
disobey to execute arson at the gunpoint. The following, depending on the
circumstances, could be drastic impossibility forms to disobey:
a. Ffear of arrest
b. Ddismissal from a civil office
So it dependence on the circumstances and the order to be obeyed. For

instance for a government employee who wins bread for a large family, fear of
imminent dismissal or no promotion or transfer or disciplinary fine could be a
potent imminent harm.
40
So the conclusion is that where the subordinate was in such fear of imminent
harm as to make it “practically” impossible for her to disobey she would not be a
fault as per article 2036(3) of CCE. This, however, does not mean she is not liable,
for she will be liable under article 2066. However, it makes no sense to say that a
person is not at fault while at the same time making that person liable. The law is
taking this course, possibly, to compensate the victim. Therefore, the solution
seems to make the superior answerable as per article 2035 of the CCE cum specific
provision she has infringed.
6.1.8 Non – Performance of a contract (2037)
Both Contractual and Non – Contractual Liabilities arise, as a rule, from the
breach of duty. The mere fact that a person does not perform an obligation (duty) in
a contract, however, does not amount to non – contractual fault as it is given under
article 2037(1). Under such circumstance, the plaintiff should apply the appropriate
contracted provisions.
There are cases, however, where it is difficult to determine which provisions

are pertinent. For instance, article 2533 deals with the secret that is to be kept even
after the employee abandoned the job. What if the employee discloses the
information? What is the remedy? This provision does not give any solution. The
obligation not to disclose the information after the contract is terminated seems to
persist. On the other hand, article 2035 may not be invoked for article 2037
prohibits us from doing that.
The following two possibilities could be solutions. Even though the contract
has been already terminated, the law imposes an obligation not to disclose the
secret. So if the employee discloses this we may take that as an infringement of a
specific law and invoke article 2035.On the other hand, it is to say that though the
41
contract is terminated generally the obligation not to disclose, however, persists

under an obligation “not to do”. So the proper articles of contract could be invoked.
6.2 Special Cases
Up to now, we have been discussing fault in general and its classifications.

The relevance of a reasonable man was also discussed. Abuse of power,
infringement of a law and chain of command were some among others, which we
have discussed. In this part, we are going to discuss special cases. To that effect, we
may not adhere to the sequence of the articles as they are laid down in the code.
Rather we will classify them under different headings. Thus, we will discuss
physical assault, interference with the liberty of another and defamation under
trespass to person. The other category will be fault against property. Under this, we
will have trespass to both immovable and movable properties. The third category
will be fault against economic interests. Article 2055 – 2063 falls in this category.
Finally, we will discuss injury to the right of spouses and duty to educate and
supervise.
6.2.1 Trespass To Person
Trespass to person consists of

1. Physical Assault [Battery]
2. Interference with the liberty of another [false imprisonment]
3. Defamation
6.2.1.1. Physical Assault (2038)

In the common law context, this is referred to as battery. Battery is doing
something which induces in another reasonable fear and apprehension of
42
immediate violence. Therefore, if B wants to sue A for committing the tort of

battery in relation to B,B will have to show that A directly applied force to her
person, that A did so intentionally or carelessly; and that A had no lawful
justification or excuse for acting that way.
Some of the elements in this article need illustration are also in article 2038.
Thus to say a person has committed a physical assault, first, there has to be
contact to the person of the victim. This contact could be made by having direct
personal contact or by utilizing other objects, which could be a living thing or a
non – living thing.
Illustrations
(1) Touch
Abebe commits physical assault if he touches Fatima‟s body intentionally.
For instance, he touches her hair. This is personal contact.
1.1 Living or Non – Living thing

Oken Okech pours water on Chaltu‟s face intentionally. Or Oken Okech
wipes shoe polish on a towel and then rubes the towel in Chaltu‟s face.
1.2 Gari‟s dog leaks Abebech‟s leg as it is trained and ordered.
Questions
1. Abebech is about to sit on a chair when Abebe pulls it out from under her,
causing her to fall to the ground. Would Abebe be at fault under Physical
Assault? Why or why not?
2. Mohammed wipes shoe polish on towel and leaves the towel in Khedija‟s
bathroom. Khedija uses it thus getting shoe polish all over her face. Would
Mohammed be at fault under physical Assault? Why or Why not?
43
3. Chaltu is trying to enter a classroom. Chala stands in the doorway to the

room blocking Chaltu‟s way. Would Chala be at fault under physical assault?
Why or Why not?
The contact should, however, be done intentionally. [See the above

definition]. In other words if the contact is made negligently or it is careless contact
there is no physical assault.
Illustrations.
1. Assume Sarah is a passenger in Anbassa City Bus in
Addis Ababa. She is standing when the Bus is traveling.
Suddenly the bus comes to a halt with the result that
Sarah falls over and Crushes into Ali, a fellow passenger.
We cannot say Sarah has intentional contact with Ali
because she does not do that voluntarily. So Physical
Assault is not applicable here.
2. Assume Kedir is out shooting birds in the woods. Assume
also Lemma is hidden in the same wood to catch birds.
Kedir shoots Lemma accidentally. There is no Physical
Assault for Kedir‟s shot that causes damage to Lemma as
it is not intentional.
Let us discuss one issue and proceed to the justification. One difference we can
observe from the reading of sub articles (1) and (2) of article 2038 is while a mere
contact suffices to bring action under sub article (1), bodily harm is envisaged
under sub article (2). So we may say physical assault is invoked whether the
contact has caused bodily harm or not. So in case of sub article 1 causing damage
is not a prerequisite to be liable. This is what has been referred to as injure sine
damno in Latin.
44
Finally, sub article (3) deserves some explanation. The mere threat of
physical assault on someone shall not constitute an offence as a matter of rule.
If, however, the law says so, it shall constitute an offence. 77Nevertheless, a
person who has been allegedly regarded as having committed an offence with the
meaning of article 2038 can find a complete defense when certain conditions
exist. These are:
6.2.1.2 Defenses
1) Unforeseen objection (2039)(1)
This is where the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen the
plaintiff‟s objection beforehand to the physical assault.
Illustrations.
Let us assume that Gamachis taps Mohammed‟s shoulder to attract his
attention. Mohammed brings action under physical assault against Gamachis. The
latter can invoke 2039 (1) as a defense for “It has been said that there is no liability
in assault for the jostler, the back – slipper and the hand shaker.” 78 And the
defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the plaintiff would object to her
act, i.e. the patting, the shaking.
(2) Self defense (2039) (2)

Self defense exists where the act was done in “a reasonable manner in
legitimate defense of one‟s person or of another in the safeguard of property of
which the defendant is the lawful owner or possessor” as per article 2039.To start
with, the purpose of the self – defense is to protect one‟s person or of another or it
could be in the safeguard of property of which the defendant is the lawful owner or
possessor. Here the law does not discriminate between defending oneself and
77
Read article 580 of the Criminal Code of the FDRE.
78
Alan P.192
45
someone else. For instance if a young boy is using force against a girl, a passerby
could interfere and use force against the boy to save the girl.
The law, however, does not allow the use of force to protect someone else‟s
property. 79 Hence the use of force is allowed only to safe – guard of property of
which the defendant is the lawful owner or possessor. A good example is article
1148 of CCE though that article does not discriminate between legal possessor and
simply possessor. In addition, that article does not expressly include owner. Let us
raise one issue. When do we say the defense is legitimate defense? A case narrated
by Nicholas on page 250 – 251 would help to illustrate this concept. Hence, the case
is copied as follows with slight adaptation made in names.
Chala is a farmer who allows the local hunt to ride over his land while
hunting foxes. Gari is a hunt saboteur. While the local hunt is riding over Chala‟s
land, Gari walks onto Chala‟s land in an attempt to disrupt the hunt. Chala
attempts to remove Gari from his land with the result that Gari attacks Chal,
jabbing him in the chest and throat with stick and eventually hitting Chala twice on
the arm with the stick. Chala manages to grab the stick from Gari and hit Gari.
Gari sustains a fracture of the skull because of the blow and sues Chala who claims
that he acts reasonably in self – defense in hitting Gari and has therefore done no
wrong in hitting Gari.
The first instance judge who considered scientific evidence as to how heavy
Chala‟s blow has been, found the blow has been a “heavy” one and held that Chala
has used excessive force in striking Gari. Chala appealed and the court of appeal
judge found that Chala has acted reasonably in self – defense. The Court of appeal
judge thought that the correct test to apply for the purpose of determining whether
Chala acted reasonably in self defense was to ask”[is Chala] in a moment of
79
Read article 78 of the criminal code of FDRE
46
unexpected anguish and only [does] what he honestly and instinctively thinks is
necessary?”
As Chala has only hit Gari in order to bring the attack on him to an end, the
answer is “yes”. All the court of appeal judges emphasized that the first instance
judge is wrong to find that Chala has used excessive force in hitting Gari because
his blow is estimated to be 10 percent harder than a blow delivered with average
force. The Judge of the court of appeal remarks, “the judge [in reaching such a
finding] fell into error [of] using jeweler‟s scales to measure reasonable force”. The
judge remarks that the victim of violence cannot be expected, when acting in self
defense” to measure [the force used by him in self – defense] with mathematical
precision” (emphasis added).
3. Corporeal Punishment [2039(3)]
This act consists in a reasonable corporeal punishment inflicted by the

defendant on his child, wards, pupil or servant. This is what is called lawful
chastisement which is an act used to punish someone for misbehaving. So, as per
article 2039(3) if a child misbehaves, parents or a guardian may use reasonable
force to discipline their child .School teacher acting in lue of parents was allowed to
use reasonable force to punish the children in her care if they misbehaved80. The
same is true for a ward and servant.
The Constitutionality of this sub article is questionable for the FDRE

Constitution states under article 36 (1) (e) that children are free of corporal
punishment or cruel and inhuman treatment in school and other institutions
responsible for the care of children. Even the Revised Family Code does not allow
corporal punishment expressly. What parents can do, when their children
misbehave, is to take disciplinary measures. Some argue these disciplinary
80
Nicholas P 253
47
measures include corporal punishment. The ground they invoke for their argument
is that the FDRE Constitution does not expressly include parents among those who
are forbidden from administering corporal punishment. Nevertheless, article 576 of
the Criminal Code prohibits beating a child by making this act a crime. Moreover, it
uses the word whoever not to make any kind of discrimination on the actors.
Concerning the servant and others, it is as well unconstitutional to

administer corporal punishment in its whatever form, for the FDRE Constitution
declares that everyone has the right to protection against cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.81 Therefore, this sub article should be revised
and redrafted alongside the FDRE Constitution and other laws.
4. A dangerous Lunatic (2039[4])

The second to the last justification is where the plaintiff is a dangerous
lunatic whom it was necessary to prevent from doing harm and the act was done in
reasonable manner. If a notoriously insane person is categorized as dangerous
lunatic those people with whom he lives or his family would restrict his liberty of
moving. This is usually done, especially in rural areas, by tying that person‟s arms
and legs with rope so that, that person may not injure people or himself or cause
damage to property. Applying reasonable force to tie that person could be necessary
and it is justifiable.
5. Any other justification (2039[5])

This is where the act of the defendant is justified in the eyes of a reasonable
person.
81
Article 18 FDRE Constitution
48
Illustrations
1. Ali is in danger of being hit by some moving object. G/Tsadik drags Ali out of
way to save him from being hit by that moving object.
2. Kebede brushed past Sarah in the Street. The Contact is justifiable.” The reason
is that in walking the street Sarah will have voluntarily taken the risk that she
will be touched by people brushing past her” 82This is a good example for direct
justification, i.e. consent.
6.2.2. Interference with the Liberty of another (2040)and

Defenses
This is referred to as false imprisonment in the common law legal system. It

is a detention of one person by another against the will of the former and without
just cause. Article 2040 consists of elements, which may need elaboration Hence: -
1. The first one is the “… without due legal authority….” It is where one who
restricts the free moving of another has done that without due legal
authority, i.e. lawful justification or excuse. For instance , as per article 49 of
the Criminal Procedure Code of The Empire of Ethiopia of 1961 83a person is
arrested if arrest warrant is issued by a competent court. Therefore, if a
police officer arrests a person without arrest warrant, the arrest is said to be
without due legal authority.84 It is not only the police that may interfere
with the liberty of another. A citizen may interfere with the liberty of
another citizen as well.
Illustration
82
Nicholas P. 249
83
Negarit Gazeta, Extra ordinary Issue No. 1 of 1961, Addis Ababa (Hereafter CPC]
84
But read articles 50 and 51 of CPC
49
Abebe is a passenger in Addis Ababa City Bus. The Bus has specific
places or stops to let passengers get down or/ and others get in. If Abebe
demands the driver to stop the bus at a place different from those specific
stops and the driver refuses to do so, Abebe may not claim false
imprisonment. If the driver, however, refuses to stop at the Bus Stop we can
say Abebe‟s freedom of moving is constrained without due legal authority.
2. The other point is that the detention should not necessarily be for a long
period to say there is interference The detention should be as well absolute.
In other words, the deprivation must be complete, for “It is not false
imprisonment if the plaintiff had any reasonable means of leaving, e.g. if his
path was barred in one direction, but not in another.” 85
Moreover, the prevention from moving need not necessarily require the physical
restrain. For instance a person could be physically free to leave, but had been
deprived of his clothes, or the only means of escape was dangerous or in
convenient, e.g. by having to jump from a height or into water. 86Thus, it shall be
sufficient for the plaintiff to have been compelled to behave in a certain manner
by the threat of a danger of which he could not be unaware as per article
2040(3).
3. There is a phrase … as he is entitled to… This entitlement emanates from

the Constitution. 87
4. Finally, one point deserves brief discussion. That is material injury is not a
pre – request to say there is fault under this article for an offence shall be
deemed to have been committed not withstanding that no injury is done to
85
Alan P. 193
86
Ibid. Read also article 2040 (3) of CCE
87
the FDRE Constitution article 32
50
the plaintiff‟s person. This is injuria sin damno and it is actionable without
proof of damage and so it is actionable per se
DEFENSES
6.2.2.1. Lawful authority (2041) .
A. The first justification to restrain another person and prevent him

from moving is where the constraint has been imposed on a
person in the legal custody of the defendant and for enforcing the
authority conferred up on the latter by law. Three elements
deserve discussion. These are:-
1) The constraint should be exercised in a reasonable manner.

2) The one who interferes with the liberty of another should have a legal
custody of the plaintiff.
3) The law should confer that authority upon the defendant.
Illustration
1) People suffering from mental disorders may in certain circumstance be

arrested or confined in a hospital for the hospital has a legal custody that is
conferred upon it by a law. 88 Some of the inmates may move freely in the
hospital compound while some could be confined in a room. So the
reasonableness dependence upon the seriousness of the mental illness and
the means used for confinement.
2) The other example is where “a prisoner whether sentenced to imprisonment
or committed to prison on remand or pending trial or otherwise, maybe
88
51
lawfully confined in prison” 89 The prison administration has a legal custody

which is conferred up on it by law. 90
3.) Further as per article 219 of the RFC the father and the mother are, during
their marriage, jointly guardians and tutors of their minor child. Hence, as long
as they are together in marriage both the father and the mother have the
custody of their minor child. Therefore, as guardian they shall fix the place
where the minor is to reside. 91
6.2.2.2 Criminal offence (2042)

This is done in prevention of a crime. As per article 2042 (1) the person who
interfered with the liberty of another has to show that she has a good reason
to believe that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence.
Illustration
Beletu always suspects her husband Kebede of visiting a woman. One
day he left home saying he is going to express his condolence to his friend whose
mother had died recently. Belatu being suspicious pursued him without being
noticed by her husband. Kebede rather than going to his friend, went to that woman
and closed the door behind. Belatu knocked at the door and requested Kebede
to open the door. Kebede did not respond in any way. At this time, Beleatu locked
the door behind using a locker, headed to the police station to report, and call the
police.
89
Michael PP 533 – 537
90
Article 2(4) of proclamation N. 39/2004, proclamation issued to establish Harari Regional State
Prison Administration
91
RFC article 256. Read also article 113 of the RFC.
52
We cannot say Belatu has done an offence though she has interfered with the
liberty of Kebede when she locked the door behind, for she had a good reason to
believe that her husband had been committing adultery which is a criminal offence
as per article 652 of the Criminal Code of the FDRE. We say she had good reason to
believe that her husband had committed a crime because it suffices to show
circumstantial evidence i.e. locking the door behind with a woman who is not his
wife to say adultery had been committed.. It will be up to Kebede to prove that he
has not actually had sexual intercourse by different means, such as by showing that
he is impotent.
The offence has to be a criminal offence. In other words, for civil offences we
cannot restrain the liberty of another. Moreover, once we have constrained the
liberty of another, we have to immediately hand over the person in our custody to
the police. Otherwise, we are going to be liable as per article 2042 (2)
Question
1. As per article 19(1) of the FDRE Constitution, persons arrested have the
right to be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of the reasons
for their arrest and of any charge against them. Assume a police officer while
arresting a person fails to act in accordance with the above article. Would the
arrest be lawful? Why or why not?
2. As per article 19(3) of the FDRE Constitution persons arrested have the right
to be brought before a court within 48 hours of their arrest. Assume a police
officer fails to do this. Is the police officer liable under article 2040 if she
keeps the arrested person in custody after 48 hours? Why or why not?
6.2.2.3 Bail (2043)
53
There are two points to be discussed here. One is the fact that the
defendant was standing surety for a person who is to abscond. The other
point is the defendant has given her assurance to the officials as to the
whereabouts of the residence of the person whose liberty is obscured.
If the person who stood surety for a person has a good reason to believe that
person is about to abscond and prohibits that person from leaving his residence, the
one who interfered with the liberty may not be said has committed an offence. Some
of the indications to believe a person is to leave her place is if she starts packing
her staff or booking to travel in a plane.
6.2.3 Defamation (2044)and Defenses

Article 2044 defines defamation and the means used to that end. Therefore,
the means utilized for the purposes of defamation could be words, writings or any
other means. If for instance Chala states in public or to someone that Chaltu
commits adultery and that is not true he defamed Chaltu by using words. Or Chala
writes this in a news paper or he uses “….Carvings, paintings or gestures” 92 which
are referred to “as other means” by article 2044. Then Chala commits fault as per
that article.
The consequences of defamation are to make a living person detestable,

contemptible or ridiculous and jeopardize his credit, his reputation or his future. So
defamation is related to living person. not to a deceased one.93 Some examples of
defamation are stated under article 2109. So as per that article there is defamation
or insult where;
54
Rowda is running a restaurant. She has a boy friend called Ali. When they
break, Ali makes a comment on the food saying the food at Rowda‟s Restaurant is
terrible. If Ali exposes the food and service at Rowda‟s Restaurant to get revenge on
Rowda for breaking up with him, he cannot invoke honesty as a defense for he acted
in bad faith and maliciously. 99
6.2.3.2 Truth of the Alleged Fact (2047)

In principle if what someone states is true, there is no defamation provided
this is not done with intent to injure. Alan says this defense is a dangerous
defense for if it fails heavier damages will probably be awarded. 100The burden
of proof is that of the defendant. When the defendant proves she is not
expected, however, to prove every word of what she said is correct. It suffices
if she proves substantial amount of it.
Illustration
Let us assume that Belay beats his wife three times every week. Chaltu
says that Belay beats his wife four times every week. If Belay sues Chaltu for
defamation, Chaltu can invoke the truth as a defense. Her saying is
substantially true even though she gets it wrong as to how many times Belay
beats his wife a week.
6.2.3.3 Immunity (2048)
As per article 2048(1) no liability shall be incurred in respect of

utterance made in parliamentary debates or in the course of legal
proceedings. From this reading, we can see this immunity or privilege is
given to certain persons. These are Members of Parliament [MP] and those
who engage in the judicial proceedings. This immunity seems is extended to
99
Alan P. 244
100
Ibid P.221
58
members of the constitutionally established executive as per article 611 of the

Criminal Code of the FDRE. The question is whether the immunity stated in
the Criminal Code is immunity either from civil and criminal liability or only
from criminal liability. In addition, remember that the outcome of the
criminal proceedings may not affect the civil one.
MPs have constitutional guarantee for article 54(5) of the FDRE

Constitution states that no member of the House may be prosecuted because
of any…opinion he expresses in the House, nor shall any administrative
action be taken against any member on such grounds. The rationale could be
if “… Members of Parliament being [are] allowed to say what they say in
parliament without fear of being sued that assures MPs that what they say
in parliament will always be privileged”. 101
Other people who are immune are those who are involved in the course
of judicial proceeding. The question is which proceeding is referred to as
judicial proceedings. As per article 79(1) of the FDRE Constitution judicial
powers, both at Federal and state levels are vested in the courts. As per
article 80 of the same at both Federal and State level, the courts are
Supreme, High and First Instance Courts and it is to tell the obvious that
those who involve in those courts proceedings are immune.
QUESTIONS
1. Regulation No.3/2006, The House of Peoples‟ Representatives of The Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Rules of Procedures and Members‟ Code of Conduct
Regulation states under article 29(2)(c) the [MP] shall make a speech based on good
faith or truth. Further, his speech shall respect the prestige and dignity of the
House, its members, other persons and institutions. Discuss this in light of the
immunity that is granted to the MPs in the FDRE Constitution and the CCE.
101
Nicholas P.289
59
2. The FDRE Constitution recognizes religious and customary courts to adjudicate

personal and family matters. Moreover, as per the Revised Family code courts could
instruct family matters to be adjudicated by family arbitrators. There are also
proceedings held by administrative tribunals. The question is: are those involved in
those proceedings entitled to immunity? What about statements made to Ethical
and Anti Corruption Commission? 102 What about statements made by a witness to
his testimony for courts? What about statements made in the course of being
questioned by someone investigating a crime?
Not only MPs and those who involve in judicial proceedings are immune.
Those who reproduce the debate or the proceedings in the parliament or judicial
proceedings respectively are also immune provided they reproduce it without intent
to injure.103 Is the immunity rendered under article 2048 absolute? Why or why
not?
Questions
Which of the following is defamation? Why or why not?
1. A husband told his wife Ato Kebede is a thief.

2. Ali dictated his secretary mentioning Abebe as an immoral individual.
3. Gari sends to Chaltu a post card which contains defamatory statement about
Chaltu herself but which Chaltu does not understand.
4. In the FDRE Constitution Freedom of press is guaranteed as per article

29(3). If limitation is made it is only to protect the well – being of the youth, and the
honor and reputation of individuals. This is where defamation is committed by
102
Read Anti Corruption Special procedure and rules of Evidence proclamation No. 23/2001 Federal
Negarit Gazeta, 7th year No.24.
103
CCE article 2048(2)
60
press against individuals. Press proclamation No 341 1992. 104 expands defamation
to include defamation against nation nationality, people and organization.105Is this
different from group or class defamation? If not who will sue the defendant? May be
the public prosecutor?
6.2.4 PUBLICATION (2049)
Defamation could be committed by way of publication. In whatever form the

defamation is carried out, the responsibility of press arising from criminal offences
and civil damages shall be laid down in the Criminal Code and the Civil
Code.106Nonetheless, as per article 2049 of the CCE the defendant may not be liable
provided that:
i. She has acted without intent to injure and without negligence.
ii. At the request of the plaintiff, she publishes immediately a
withdrawal and an apology.
If she, however, acts with intent to do harm or with gross negligence she is
liable. Moreover, when she is requested to withdraw and make an apology, she fails
to do so immediately (forth with) she will be liable.
Concerning compensation as per article 2109 of the CCE fair compensation
may be awarded to the plaintiff. While as per article 14(2) of the press law the
award, in case of a non – profit making press, is reasonable compensation and
incase of a profit – making press, compensation could be up to double the capital of
the press registered under the commercial code. So which one prevails? Read
articles 2090 ff and the notes ahead.
Sub article (2) and (3) are the methods how the withdrawal and apology is
made. Hence, where the defamation is committed by way of a periodical, which
104
Press Law Negarit Gazeta 52nd year No.8
105
Ibid article 10(2) (b)
106
Ibid article 14(1)
61
The expression should be given not by wrongful owner or possessor. Now the
issue is who is the lawful owner or possessor of the land or the house. As per article
40 of the FDRE Constitution since land cannot be owned privately, what we have on
both rural and urban land is possessory or holding right. Thus, those who secured
possessory right as per the relevant law shall have the possessory right over the
land.114 Therefore, they are lawful possessors of the land.
A house can be owned privately and that can be proved by producing a title
deed. 115 A person could have also the possessory right over the house as lessee, as
usufructory or a keeper, etc. Therefore, these are lawful possessors of a house.
Questions
A. Chaltu leaves for a seven day vacation. In her absence, she assigned Chala to
look after her house. If Chala enters the house for stealing and not looking
after, will he be a trespasser? Why or why not?
B. Garbage, which was collected and hoard at a certain place by Abebe is carried
by wind to Ali‟s compound. Is Abebe a trespasser? Why or why not?
C. Kedija and Isa are neighbors. Kedija plants a tree. Its branches pass a party
wall of Kedija to Issa's compound. Is Kedija a trespasser? Why or why not?
What if smoke from Kedeja's chimneys crosses to Issa's house? Is she a
trespasser? Why? Or why not?
4. Kebede steals Gari's cycle and keeps it in his compound. Gari enters
Kebed's compound and takes the cycle. Is Gari a trespasser? Why or why
not?
114
119
115
CCE article 1195
65
5. Chala enters Chaltu's compound to repair his house from the side of Chaltu's.
Is Chala a trespasser? Why or why not?
5. You are a hotel room. After lunch, you have a habit of taking a nap for a few
minutes. To do so you put on your hotel room door ''Do not disturb.'' In spite
of that, the room cleaner knocked at your door. Is she a trespasser? Why or
why not?
6.2.5.2 Assault on property [2054]
This is a trespass to movable property. Therefore, as per article 2054 a person

commits an offence where, without due legal authority, she takes possession of
property against the clearly expressed will of the lawful owner or possessor of the
property. The elements of this article are:
1. Without due legal authority...
It could mean without having lawful justification.
Illustrations
A. According to article 2076 of CCE in order to secure compensation, which may

be due to her, the owner or possessor of a farmland, may seize and charge
animals belonging to another person provided they have caused damage to
property. Therefore, a person who seized the animals, which caused damage,
has a due legal authority to take possession of the animals. If she, however,
continues seizing the animals after the owner pays compensation her
possession is without due legal authority.
66
B. Criminal Procedure Law grants the police with powers of entry, search and
seizure as per 32. 116 If the police officer acts in accordance with the search
warrant, she is with legal authority. If the police officer, however, acts not in
accordance with article 32 or exceeds the limits set in the search warrant her
act is without due legal authority and it is a trespass.
For instance, Abebech is a police officer who secures a search warrant to search
Hanna‟s house to seize a stolen TV-set. If she dismantles a vacuum cleaner in
search of the stolen TV, her act constitutes a trespass for it exceeds the limits. If
she, however, dismantles the vacuum cleaner to look for drugs her act may not
constitute a trespass for drug could be concealed in the vacuum cleaner.
3. ...she takes possession of property...
This conduct includes actual damage of goods, use of goods or moving of goods from
one place to another. 117
Questions
Are the following acts trespasses to goods? Why or why not?
A. To show private documents to unauthorized person

B. A trained dog steals and brings a ball to a maste r
C. A dog is beaten
D. Erasing a CD or a cassette
3. ... against clearly expressed will of....
116
CCP
117
Alan P.201
67
Using force to repel any act of usurpation as indicated under article 1148(1)
is clear expression of will. So if a person takes away the thing while the possessor
or owner is using force to repel the usurpation we say he is a trespasser to goods for
she takes possession of goods against clearly expressed will of the lawful possessor
or owner.
In our previous example, we said that a possessor of land might seize and
take charge of animals belonging to another person, which have caused damage to
her property as per article 2076(1) of the CCE. Where the owner of the animals
makes good the damage by paying compensation but the possessor of the land
continues to keep the animals we say she is a trespasser for she possess the animals
against clearly expressed will of the owner of the animal.
4. ...the lawful owner or possessor of property.
Possession, as per article 1140 of CCE, consists of the actual control, which a
person exercises over a thing. This possession, however, could be lawful or
unlawful. Possessor in good faith is a lawful possessor. If she steals a thing, she is
not a lawful possessor. Hence, the one who takes possession of a thing by stealing
cannot invoke article 2054, for she is not a lawful possessor
Similarly, if she is not a lawful owner she cannot invoke article 2054.
Proving of ownership of movables is different from proving ownership of immovable.
As per article 1193, whosoever is in possession of a corporeal chattel shall be
deemed to possess it on her own behalf and be the owner thereof. Therefore, the
law presumes that one who possesses a movable property owns that property.
Therefore, if someone interferes with the possession of this person he is a
trespasser.
Illustration
68
A boy found a jewel, which he gave to a goldsmith to be valued. The goldsmith

refused to return the jewel and the boy sued him. It was held that the boy, as
possessor of title to the goods, could maintain the action 118
118
Alan P.203
69
CHAPTER VII
Interference Against Economic Interest
Some of the items we are going to discuss in this part are pre-contractual
negotiations, inducement to breach of contract, unfair competitions, simulation and
others. They are governed from article 2055 to 2064, each of which are discussed
below.
7.1 Pre contractual Negotiations [2055]
Before they conclude a contract, parties make negotiations. This is done by

expressing their intentions to enter into a contract. When one declares her
intention, she may induce others to incur expenses and then decline from entering
into the contract. This is an offence as per article 2055
Illustration
ABC Share Company in Dire Dawa puts a notice in a newspaper inviting
others to take part in a bid for purchase of stationer. People from Addis came to
Dire Dawa to take part in that bid. To that end, they incurred expenses. If the
ABC Share Company arbitrarily abandons its intention then those people who
incurred expenses with the intention to conclude contract with the ABE Share
Company should have action against the company.
Question
Haramaya University announces its intention to purchase „teff‟ to feed its

students for the year 2001 by posting a bid notice in Addis Zemen. At the end of the
bid announcement the following remark is made;
Haramaya University retains the right to cancel the bid partly or wholly.
70
Would Haramaya University be liable under article 2055 if it wholly cancels

the bid? Why or why not?
7.2 Inducement to breach of contracts [2056]
As per article 2056, whosoever is aware of the existence of a contract between

two other persons commits offence where she enters into a contract with one of
those persons thereby rendering impossible the performance of the first contract.
The elements are:-
1/ Being aware of the existence of contracts between other persons.

2/ Entering into a contract with one of those persons
3/ Rendering impossible the performance of the first contract.
1/ .....Being aware of the existence of a contract between other persons...
Here it is necessary to establish that a defendant acted with knowledge of a

contract existence between other persons.
Illustration
Chaltu is a singer. She has a contract with Gari to sing at Gari's nightclub
every night from 9:00 Pm up to 2:00 Am. Abebe who is an owner of another
nightclub induces Chaltu to sing in his nightclub from 9:00 Pm up to2:00 Am even
though he knows she sings at a similar time at Gari's nightclub.
2/ ...entering with one of them...
71
This act has to be done with intent to induce one of the parties to breach the
contract she has with the other party.
Illustration
For Chala to be found to have committed fault of inducing a breach in the

casf 1 i /Artifact </Attac6-21.03 ifact5(u)-13 TD[( )]TJ36.02 0 .-210.23*BT
72
contract the one that made the latter contract would not be liable. 120 What measure
would be taken by Gari to ensure that Chaltu performed only in his club?
7.3 Unfair competition [2057]
Competition in trade is necessary to bring growth in that sector. The

competition, however, should be fair. Hence, the effort of two or more parties to
secure profit out of their identical business by offering the most favorable terms to
their customers is what we mean by fair competition. Examples are reducing the
prices of commodities and services up to economic level, producing quality goods
and providing efficient services.
On the contrary, publishing inaccurate information about other

competitors 121or any false statement in the course of business with a view to
discredit a competitor; misleading customers by using the same trademark, same
commercial name, or same container is unfair competition, which is generally a
dishonest practice used by the defendant 122 Hence a person commits an offence
where, through unfair competition, he compromises the reputation of a product or
the credit of a commercial establishment 123
7.4 Simulation (2058)
Simulation is a deliberate making of certain conditions that could exist in

reality. Article 2058 deals with simulation. which is the equivalent of „Kutch
yebelu‟ in Amharic.
Illustration
120
125. Art icle 2056(2). p lease read this article with article 2155(3)
121
. 126 Co mmercial Code of Ethiopia, article...
122
. 127Art icle 2127 o f CCE
123
. 128 Ibid article 2057. Please read art icle 2127.
73
Abebe is a street boy in Addis Ababa. He sometimes does light work and
other times he deceives people, „specially those who come from the rural area‟.
Abebe and his friends agreed to cheat people who would come to Addis Ababa to
purchase food items at governmental enterprise with less price. To elevate problems
related with price raising in food items the government authorized Merchandise
Whole Sale and Import Trade Enterprise (MWSETI) to distribute the items with
less prices to those people with low income. Following that every morning long
queues are made in front of MWSETI gate. One morning Abebe and his friends
joined the queues. Before Abebe went into the MWSETI he started to collect money
from his friends who were just behind him. The poor farmer asked the reason why
they were giving their money to Abebe. Abebe's friends told the farmer that Abebe
is a friend of the manager so that he would immediately purchase whatever they
need without corrupting the manager. Otherwise, they said, half of the money had
to be paid to the manager to corrupt him and only half of the money would be used
to purchase the food items. Believing that, the farmer handed over the whole money
to Abebe. Abebe proceeded through the gate of WSTDA but never returned with
either the money or the food items. This is what we call Kutch yibelu‟ or simulation
7.5 False Information (2059)
In the common law, this is referred to as the tort of deceit 124. Hence as per
article 2059 a person who intentionally or by negligence, supplies false information
to another commits an offence where:
a) He knows that the person to whom the information is supplied or another given
person will act upon the information and thereby suffers damage. Similarly Cooke
says there is ''the tort of deceit... when the defendant makes a false statement to the
124
Cooke p. 452
74
claimant, knowing it is false, or reckless as to its truth, with intention that the
claimant acts on it, the claimant does act and suffers damage as a result 125
Illustration
Chala is an auditor. Assume he audited ABC Share Company. Chala finds

out that the company is not doing well. He nevertheless, reports the company is
doing well. Thus he commits an offence though no one has acted based on the
information and suffered damage.
However, where the information supplier is not bound by the rules of her
profession to give correct information, she will be at fault if she knows that the
persons to whom the information is supplied or another given person will act upon
the information and thereby suffers damage.
Illustration
An individual shouted ''Fire! Fire! “in a cinema hall. The author of this word
should have known that the audience would react upon this information and suffer
damage.
7.6 Exception 2060
A person may provide false information and someone may act upon that and
suffers damage. The provider of that information may not be liable where the false
information is supplied orally with the intention of helping others. Thus the person
supplying incorrect information shall not be liable where, the statement made by
him relates to the qualification, conduct, solvency, competence, or under taking of
125
Ibid
75
another person and was made with the object of securing credit, money, or goods to
that person i.e. with the intent of helping.
Illustration
Abebech is from one of the villages out of Addis Ababa. Since Abebech is without
mother and father, she came to Addis to look for a job. Her aunt helped her in
search of the job. At the end Abebech is employed as a cookhouse by Ato Abebe who
was told by Abebech's aunt that Abebech is an excellent cook while she is not.
Here Abebech's aunt supplied Abebe with incorrect information not with the
intent to injure Abebe. Rather to help Abebech. Therefore, though the aunt had
committed fault she shall not be liable. 126 If she puts this information in writing and
signed it, however, she shall be liable 127, for it will be injurious falsehood. 128
7.6 .1 Witnesses [2061]
Witnesses could testify the occurrence or the non-occurrence of certain events

or they may testify the existence or the non-existence of certain facts. For instance,
they may be present at a marriage ceremony (event) and later testify the occurrence
of that event.129 The existence of a marriage is a fact. So the existence of marriage is
either established by a marriage record or in default of the certificate by other
reliable evidence or witnesses. 130
126
CCE. art icle 2060(1)
127
Ibid article 2060(2)
128
Alan P.133
129
RFC art icle 95
130
76
Thus witnesses who testify to the occurrence or the non-occurrence of a given

event or to the existence or the non-existence of a given fact shall guarantee the
accuracy (exact or without error) of their statements. 131 If they could not do that
they would be liable to those who acted on the faith of such statements.
Criminally, as well, a witness who knowingly gives the authorities inaccurate

information in relation to criminal proceedings or investigations is punishable with
simple imprisonment. 132It is acceptable to make people guarantee the accuracy of
their statements. At the same time witnesses should be protected by witness
immunity. “Witness immunity is the right of not being sued and not being liable for
what one has said as a witness in judicial proceedings”.133 As to my knowledge there
is no express article, which governs witness immunity though we have immunity
for members of government, MPs and judges134. Moreover, we have the protection of
those who provide information or evidence to justice authorities or testifying in
criminal cases against assaults, suppresses or harms 135. Nevertheless, they may
not have witness immunity. Finally there is a possibility for witnesses to be misled
by others. In such cases the witness has the right to bring recourse against
whosoever led them into error provided that they acted in good faith. 136
7.6.2 Advice or recommendations (2062)
Where a person comes to seek advice and one renders only that advice or
makes recommendations the one who gives the advice or makes the
recommendation may not be liable. For instance if Fatima is sick and approaches
Ali to seek advice and accordingly Ali advises her to go to a witch doctor Ali may not
131
CCE article 2061(1)
132
Criminal code of FDRE article 446
133
Nicholas P.498
134
CCE article 2138
135
Criminal Code of FDRE article 444.
136
CCE article 2061(3)
77
be liable if Fatima suffers damage. This is so where Ali only confines himself to
giving advice. If, however, Ali leads Fatima to the witch doctor‟s place and Fatima,
as a result, suffers damage Ali will be liable, for Ali‟s conduct goes beyond giving
advice or making recommendations.
7.6.3 Seizer of another‟s property or Distrait (2063)
Here we have a creditor-debtor relationship. The creditor, in order to force

the debtor, to pay her debt, holds the property of the debtor. If the property that is
held by the creditor is disproportionate to the value of the debt this act is a fault.
The question that we may raise is whether the debt is owed extra contractually or
contractually. If it is extra contractual, the amount first has to be determined by a
court. Otherwise, the victim cannot determine the amount by herself. If it is
contractual, the creditor has recourse to judicial proceedings. Thus, she does not
have to take the law into her hand. Then what kind of situation is envisaged by this
article? The situations are those governed by article 2076 though that article deals
solely with animals.
7.6.4 Execution of a court order (2064)
A court gives order for sale of judgment-debtor‟s property to execute its

judgment by giving a valid execution order.137 An execution officer or a bailiff
carries out the execution order. To be a valid order it should bear:
1. The day on which it is issued;
2. The signature of a judge

3. The seal of the court and
137
CPC art icle 394 ff
78
Illustration
Chala and Chaltu have just concluded their marriage irrespective of

opposition from Chaltu‟s family who invoked Chala‟s poor income. To make Chaltu
leave Chala, Chaltu‟s family offered Chaltu visa to the USA. As a result, Chaltu
left Chala and went to the USA. In this case, Chaltu‟s family had committed an
offence for they induced Chaltu to leave Chala against Chala‟s opposition.
3…against one of the spouses‟ opposition.
In other words, even if you induce one of the spouses to leave the other where there
is no opposition from the spouse there is no commission of offence for spouses can
agree to live separatly.142Under article 2050(1) and (2) the one who induces one of
the spouses is playing the active role and she is pro-active. The spouse is reacting
to the situation. Under sub article 3 however, the third party is a recipient.
Moreover, the one who she receives, harbors or detains is a married woman. It is
not a married man. Thus, this is done against the will of the husband. The act of
receiving, harboring or detaining in full knowledge of the husband‟s opposition shall
be a fault.
It is worth making two points clear here. The recipient should have the
knowledge of the un willingness and opposition of the husband. If this knowledge
does not exist there is no fault. Thus if there is an agreement to live separately and
one receives the wife, there is no offence, for the husband is willing to accept that
act by conduct. Moreover, the recipient can receive the wife if the husband is guilty
of cruelty. Under such circumstances, the recipient is not at fault. Now the
142
RFC art icle 55(1)
82
question is who is to determine the guilt of the husband.143 Moreover, if the

recipient (defendant) had good reason to think so, she is not at fault.
Illustration
Abebe and Abebech are husband and wife. One night Abebech knocks at Sara‟s
door. When Sara openes the door she find Abebech with blood on her swollen face.
Sarah less in Abebech in and asked her who did that to her. Abebech tells Sarah
that her husband Abebe did that? Sara is not at fault for receiving Abebech because
she has good reason (swollen face with blood) to believe that Abebe is cruel and Sara
could not let Abebech stay outside. Hence, Sara received Abebech out of
humanness.
Question
1. Chala and Chaltu are husband and wife. Chala left their
home and started to stay at his friends‟ home. If Chaltu is
against that, will Chala‟s friend be at fault for receiving
Chala against Chaltu‟s opposition? Why or why not?
2. Sarah left her home and started living with her father and
mother, accusing her husband for failure to supply
maintenance. The husband is against this and he made
complain his in-laws, who replied that they could not force
her to leave, for she is their daughter. Have they committed
fault? Why? or Why not?
143
Read the FDRE Constitution article 20 (3) and the Criminal Procedure Code article 148.
83
8.2 Duty to Educate and Supervise (2052)
When we discussed fault or offence, we said that it could be by commission or

omission. Article 2052 is a good example to a fault by omission. Thus, where a
person has responsibility to educate and supervise an individual who is under her
control or entrusted to her fails to carry on this responsibility in “I –do- not- care
style” it is said she has committed fault.
As per article 2052 a person could be entrusted to the charge or supervision of

another by law or in conformity with the law. Thus, parents‟ custody of their
children emanates from the law. 144. This obliges them to educate and supervise
their children. If the parents or legal guardians fail to educate and supervise their
children, they are at fault. Similarly, schools have the custody of children for the
time the children are at school. During this time, the schools have responsibility to
educate and supervise the children at school.
In determining whether the custodian has carried out her responsibility, the
custom as well as the financial position of that person should be taken in to account.
Thus, if the one who is entrusted fails to take the necessary measures as her
financial capacity or custom allows, she will be at fault because of her failure. To
make her liable, however, the damage should be suffered either by the person in her
charge or by a third party as per article 2052(2) and (3).
Illustration
1. It is the duty of the parents and schools to educate their children how to cross
roads used by vehicles. Not to do it is a fault. If the children are hit by a vehicle
144
RFC art icles 256 ff.
84
while crossing roads wrongly and suffer damage, the parents and schools are liable
in addition to the owner of the vehicle. 145
2. If a child throws a stone and breaks a window glass the parents are liable.
What about if the child damages a vehicle that is parked in a school
compound? Who is liable? Why?
3. Under question no 2 above, how would you advise the owner of the vehicle in
bringing action against the parents? Under article 2052 or 2124? Why?
4. Under question number 1, if the parents were liable, how would they be
liable?
145
CCE articles 2081 and 2086
85
CHAPTER IX
Liability Irrespective of Fault
Strict Liability (2066-2089)
For the purpose of simplicity, we classify this chapter into three headings.
1. Liability for the types of activities which the defendant peruses (2066-2089)
2. Liability for bodily harm or injury (2067)
3. Liability for the types of instruments that cause damages (2071_2085). These
are further classified into:
A. Liability for animals(2071-2076)

B. Liability for buildings (277-2080)
C. Liability for motor vehicles or machines (2081-2084)
D. Liability for manufactured goods (2085)
9.1 Necessity (2066)
When there is imminent danger against property, oneself or another person,

one may cause harm to another person to avoid that danger. However, where a
person acts of necessity as per article 75 of the Criminal Code of FDRE she may
not be criminally liable she is, however, civilly liable as per article 2066 of the
CCE. The reason to make a person who acts of necessity civilly liable and
criminally free could be to strike a balance between the interest of the victim
and the doer of the action.
To that effect the interest that one saved should be greater than that which
was damaged, for “The courts seem to take the view that where personal injury
86
is threatened then any necessary damage to property will be justified. [For
instance] ff a ship is threatened with sinking in a storm, the decision to throw
goods over board to try and save the ship‟s crew could be defended by
necessity”. 146 The doer of the action may incur liability where she saved not only
herself or property but also a third party from the imminent danger. This may
beg the question why the acts should be answerable for the action in which
someone benefited? The reason could be the fact that the victim only knows the
actor whom she can go against. Nonetheless, the savior can go against the other
whose interest is saved by virtue of article 2162 of the CCE. Lastly, the damage
is assessed not in accordance with article 2091 .It is rather estimated equitably
as per article 2103.
9.2 Bodily Harm and Defenses (2067)
87
Abebech enters Shoa supermarket and runs out of the supermarket with
some goods for which she has not paid . Gari-one of the supermarket‟s
security guards- will commit no fault if he Chases Abebech and wrestles her
to the ground in an attempt to apprehend her and Abebech sufferers bodily
harm.149
9.3 Sport Activities [2068]

In sporting activities, one may injure another who is taking part in the same
activity or a spectator. Where the one who causes the damage observes the
rules of the game she may not be liable. The rationale behind this is what is
called voluntary assumption of the risk. 150 If there is, however, a deceit or
gross infringement of the rules of the sport the person who causes the injury
shall be liable.
Illustration
If Chala plays football with G/Hiwot, Chala will commit no fault if he

injures G/Hiwot in tackling him so long as the tackle is within the rules of the
game. “The reason for this is that, in agreeing to play football with Chala,
G/Hiwot will have voluntarily taken the risk that Chala would subject him to
tackles which are within the rules of the game.” 151 What about if Chala‟s
tackle was a fault tackle? “In such a case, the courts draw a distinction
between the case where Chala‟s tackle amounted to a mere „error of
judgment‟ or „Lapse‟ and cases where Chala‟s tackle showed a „wanton‟ or
„reckless‟ disregard of G/Hiwot‟s safety” 152
149
FDRE Criminal Code art icles 665 and CCE art icle 2035
150
Nicholas P.249
151
I bid
152
I bid
89
Question
While playing cricket Sara hits Hanna, one of the spectators, with a ball. Is
Sara liable? Why or why not? What if the ball passes the cricket compound
and hits Ali who is a passerby?
9.4 Dangerous Activities [2069]

Creation of abnormal risks
The activities are enumerated as follows under article 2069.

1. Storing or using explosives or poisonous substances.
2. Establishing high-tension electric transmission lines.
3. Modifying the natural lie of the land.
4. Engaging in exceptionally dangerous industrial activities.
Question
Is the enumeration exhaustive or indicative? Why?

In other words, is the extension of these items by analogy possible?
These activities are economic activities and they have

advantages to the community. Thus we cannot prohibit them. At
the same time we have to protect the public and individuals from
hazardous activities that cause damage. Thus the owners are liable
without the victim establishing fault for it would be”…
90
[U]nreasonable to expect the victim to establish fault,153 which is

very difficult.
The law rather requires those who engage in those activities to

establish fault from the side of the victim thereby shifting the
burden of proof to those who engage in those kinds of activities.
They do that by proving the victim is at fault fully or partly. 154 The
reason why the law takes this position seems that the giant
corporations engaged in those activities are powerful in every
aspect when compared with the victim. Moreover, they are the
beneficiaries of the activities. Finally, yet importantly, they are in
a position to distribute the loss among the community by adding
the compensation they paid to the victim by adding it on the value
of the products they produce.
The law also devices a mechanism to protect those who engaged
in those activities by stating that engaging in those activities by
itself does not make those who engage in those activities liable.
They …(S) hall be liable where the danger they have created
materializes thereby causing damage to another,” 155
I. A person could store or use explosives or poisonous substance s.

For instance, a farmer could use pesticide, which could be washed
in to a river where people and animals use that river for drink. If
people drink from that water and consequently became sick the
farmer shall be liable. What about for the animals
153
Richard P.312
154
155
I bid article 2069 (1)
91
II.Ethiopian Electric and Power Corporation (EEPC) erects high

tensioned electric transmission lines to supply powers to different
parts of the country. EEPC does not allow people to build houses
beneath or around those high tensioned lines for either in the end
people could develop skin cancer or if those lines fall the danger
they create is disastrous. Thus if that materializes EEPC shall be
liable.
III. Constructing canals, dams, highways, etc. are important. At

the same time, these activities could expose people to damages.
For instance, if dams burst and flooded a village killing people
those who run the dams are liable.
Question
ABC Share Company builds a dam and canals to irrigate the vast
land to plant sugar cane. The dam and the canals turned into a
suitable area for mosquito to spread malaria. If people, in a small
town near the dam and the canals are infected by the malaria,
would the ABC Share Company be liable? Why or why not?
IV. Some of the industrial activities listed as dangerous by

Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs are Chemical Industries,
Cement and Asbestosis, Coal mining, etc. 156 So where these
dangerous industrial activities cause damage to people the owners
shall be liable. Two points deserve brief mentioning. Sub article (1)
of article 2069 regulates a condition where these activities cause
damage to persons, i.e. human beings. The damage could be injury
156
Occupational Health and Safety Training package, M inistry of Lab or and Social affairs, Addis Ababa, May 1997
92
or death. Whatever is the consequence liability follows provided the

activities are causes for the damage.
When the damage is related to property, however, as a matter of

principle the property has to be completely destroyed to make the
owner of the industries liable. The reduction in value may not be
reason to make the one who engage in those activities liable
provided she or a person whom she is responsible for has not
committed fault as sub article 2 of article 2069.
Illustration
Chaltu belongs to the Diaspora and has invested in Ethiopia. She

owns a large house, gardens and marshland, which are adjacent to
the Atomic Energy Establishment owned by the government. One
night storm caused ponds on the land to overflow and Chaltu‟s
marshland became contaminated with plutonium above the
regulatory limits. This reduced the sales price of the marshland.
If Chaltu brings action against the government, she may not win,
for as per article 2070… (N) o liability shall be incurred by the
government where the value of neighboring property was
decreased unless the marshland was completely destroyed or the
reduction in price is brought about due to the fault committed by
government employees.
9.5 Types of Instruments
In this part, we will discuss liability for animals, buildings, motor

vehicles or machines and manufactured goods.
93
9.5.1 Liability for Animals (2071_2076)
Under the common law legal system, animals are classified into
ferae naturae [fierce by nature] and mansuetae naturae [tame by
nature]. 157The purpose of this classification is to determine the
circumstances under which the keeper of the animal would be
liable. Thus, the keeper of the ferae naturae is strictly liable for the
damage caused by the animal, for knowledge of its dangerous
propensity is being presumed. This is not true for mansuetae
naturae. for the keeper is liable for the damage caused by the
animal if science or knowledge of its dangerous propensity could be
proved ,e.g. proving it had previously manifested behavior of the
type complained obut or has displayed a general vicious propensity.
Thus, in the first case, the law presumes and the owner has to
disprove that. In the second case, the victim is supposed to prove.
Basically, our law does not classify animals for purposes of

determining whether the liability is strict or not. per article
2071,the owner of an animal shall be liable for any damage caused
by the animal not withstanding that it has eluded his control
accidentally or the damage caused was unforeseeable .[emphasis
added].Three elements need discussion. The first one is … any
damage caused by the animal.‟ This could mean damage to
property or person. A dog could give a physical bite to a boy or a
horse. It makes no difference.
The second one is… „it has eluded his (its!!) control accidentally‟…
We said under common law legal systems animals are classified
157
Alan P.160
94
into ferae nafural and mansuetae naturae. Examples of the

former are lions, tigers and gorillas while dogs, cats and camels are
mansuetae naturae. The first type of animals could cause harm by
eluding their control accidentally for the keeper may not let free
these types of animals. For instance, if a person wakes up in the
middle of the night and finds an escaping tiger on top of his bed,
and suffered a heart attack the keeper cannot defend himself by
stating the tiger eluded its control accidentally for the law says not
withstanding …
The third point is … „the damage caused was unforeseeable‟.

This point could be related with the second type of animals. For
instant, most of the time dogs are trained to bark and simply scare
intruders and frighten them away. If, however, such kind of dogs
bite people we may say the damage was unforeseeable.
Nonetheless, it cannot be a defense for the keeper of the dog.
1. Custodian (holder)(2072)
The holder is a person who uses the animal for her personal
benefits. She is liable for any damage caused by that animal while
it is under her holding. A farmer could borrow a donkey from
another farmer to transport „teff‟ to a market. At market place the
donkey may kick a boy and cause damage to the boy. The farmer is
liable for that damage.
This holds true where a person hired the animal as well, for
instance, where a farmer hired an animal to plough a field. A
person could be in charge of the animal for any other reason. For
95
instance, a dog could be trained by a trainer. If that dog harms
someone while it is with the trainer the trainer could be liable as
per article 2072(2).The case of an employee is different. The
employee attending the animal is not liable unless the damage is
caused due to fault committed by her. The same is true for a person
making use of the animal for the owner‟s account or for the account
of another person 158
2. Transfer of Liability (2075)
A person who suffers damage by an animal may bring action

against the owner though the damage was caused while it has been
in charge of someone else. The reason could be the fact that the
victim may only know the owner or the victim may think that the
owner has the capacity to pay damage. Similarly, the courts may
order the owner to make the damage good. The owner who paid
the victim may recover the amount from the person in whose
charge the animal was when it caused the harm.
Question
Chaltu is an owner of a donkey. The donkey entered Abebe‟s

farmland and destroyed crops. The value of the crops destroyed by
the donkey was estimated at Br. 400. While the donkey was in
custody of Abebe it kicked Sultan, a boy of 7, and injured him.
158
96
nature. Domestic animals are those animals, which it is customary

to keep for purposes of pleasure or gain 159.
The purpose of the classification is to determine whether the

owner and the person in whose charge the animal is could relieve
themselves of their liability by simply transferring the ownership
of the animal in case of the owner and paying the value of the
animal in case of the person who was in charge of the animal when
it caused damage 160. Thus in case of the owner, she can relieve
herself of her liability by surrendering the ownership of the animal
to the person who suffered the damage provided that the damage is
not the consequence of an offence (fault) committed by the owner or
by a person for whom he is liable (child or employee) or where the
animal is domestic animal 161In case of a person in whose charge
the animal is he can relieve himself by paying the value of the
animal at the time when the damage was caused provided the
animal is a domestic animal.
Before we discuss how the person will relieve himself where the
animal is non-domestic we will discuss briefly classification of
damage. Thus according to Michael A. Jones the types of damages
are:
1. Nominal and Contemptuous damages

2. General and special damages
3. Aggravated and exemplary damages. 162
159
Ibid article 2074 (3)
160
161
Ibid articles 2074 and 2075 (2)
162
Michael P.659-560
98
The nominal damages are those which are paid when the claimant proves the
defendant has committed a tort but the claimant has suffered no loss. E.g.,
trespass to land. 163 The contemptuous damages are those which are paid
where the court considers that the claimant‟s action, although technically
successful, was without merit and should not have been brought. E.g.
damages paid for libel action 164.
Losses that are capable of being calculated with reasonable accuracy

are pleaded as special damage while inexact or unliquidated losses… are
compensation by an award of general damages 165. Examples for the former
are medical expenses for personal injury and compensation for pain is an
example for the latter ones.
“Exemplary damages [sometimes called indicative or punitive damages]
represent an addition to what is awarded as real damages, to compensate the
plaintiff for what the court considers deplorable or outrageous conduct of the
defendant and (in effect) by way of punishment for it” [Bracket added]. 166
As per article 2074(2) the owner may not relieve himself of liability by simply
transferring the ownership of the animal where the damage is the
consequence of an offence committed either by herself or by a person for
whom she is liable. Similarly, where the damage is the consequence of an
offence committed by a person who is in charge of the animal , that person‟s
liability may not be limited only to the value of the animal. Hence, on top of
transferring the ownership or paying the value of the animal, those persons
would be forced to pay additional compensation to the victim. It seems,
therefore, that when the law does not limit the liability to the level stated
above, the law is utilizing exemplary damages against the owner and the
163
I bid P.659
164
I bid
165
I bid P.660
166
Alan P.254
99
person who was in charge of the animal where the cause for the damage is
the fault they committed.
4 Victim‟s guarantee (2076)
Animals may cause damage to crops or grasses. The owner or holder of these
interests may seize the animals as a guarantee until compensation for the
damage is paid for her. Such kind of situation is envisaged by sub article (1)
of 2076. Sub article (2) governs a situation where the animals brought
damage disproportionate to their value. Such animals could be dogs or cats,
which the holder of the interest could kill and notify the owner.
9.6 Liability For Buildings (2077 – 2080)
Buildings could create risk if they collapsed. A building could collapse

and the reason could be man made or natural. Where a building collapses
due to lack of maintenance we say the cause is man made. whereas if it
collapses due to earth quack or other natural reason, we say the reason is
natural. For whatever reason the building is collapses or is demolished and
brought damages, the owner is liable as per article 2077(1).
Where the reason for the damage is the fault committed by the person
who built the building or occupier, the owner, after paying the compensation
to the victim, may claim compensation from those persons as per article 2077
(2).Similar to the owner of an animal, the owner of a building may relieve
himself of liability by surrendering the ownership of the building to the
person who has suffered the damage as per article 2078 (1). The question is
what about if the building is totally demolished or destroyed and nothing is
left to transfer?
100
On the other hand, the owner may not relieve himself simply by
transferring ownership of the building where the damage is due to the fault
committed by the owner or a person for whom he is liable. The compensation
is therefore greater than the value of the building where the damage comes
because of fault as per article 2078 (2).
Illustration
According to article 2079, a person endangered by another‟s building

may require the owner thereof to take the necessary measures to avert the
danger. Maintaining the building could be one of the necessary measures to
avert that danger. Nevertheless, let us assume the owner failed to maintain
the building and as a result, the building collapsed and caused damage. The
owner cannot simply relieve himself from liability by transferring ownership
of the building for she committed fault by violating article 2079.
Under article 2077, the occupier is one among those who are liable for
the damage due to the building. Her liability, however, is for any damage
caused by the objects failing from the building as per article 2080. The
question is what are these objects? Are those objects things, which are part of
the building or household utilities?
Question
1. Abebe entered Kebede‟s house to steal money. While he is in the

house the house collapsed and injured him. Will Kebede be liable?
Why or why not?
101
2. Would it make any difference if Abebe entered the house to take

shelter from a heavy rain? Why? Or why not?
9.7 Machines and motor vehicles

What are machines and motor vehicles? Most of the time machines are
used in industrial complex. They are fixed in certain places. Persons who
operate them are referred to as operators. Nevertheless, there are certain
machines which are not fixed, such are water pumps, bulldozers,
caterpillars etc.
Motor vehicles are not fixed. They are mobile. Those who move them are
referred to as drivers. So usually, the machines cause harm to employees
who are connected with the machines through a contract. Hence, if the
victim is connected with the dangerous industrial activity…which has
caused the damage the consequence of the damage shall be settled in
accordance with the rules governing the agreement reached. 167
Thus, the owner of machines and motor vehicles are liable for the
employees in accordance with the labor proclamation 377/2000 while for
others the owners of a machine or vehicle shall be liable for any damage
caused by the machine or vehicle in accordance with extra contractual
liability. They are liable even if the damage was caused by a person who
was not authorized to operate, or handle the machine or drive the
vehicle.168 In other words, the fact that the machine is operated or the
vehicles driven by a person who is not authorized cannot be a defense. The
only defense to relieve the owner from being liable is where the damage is
due solely or partly to the fault of the victim.169 Moreover, the owner shall
not be liable where she proves that, at the time when the damage was
carried, the machine or vehicle had been stolen from her 170.
167
CCE article 2088
168
Ibid article 2081
169
Ibid article 2086[2]
170
102
Machines could be operated by someone else other than the owner or

someone else could drive the vehicle. Thus, a person who has taken
possession of the machine or vehicles for purposes of personal gain shall
be liable for any damage caused by the machine or vehicles while the
machine or the vehicle is in her possession. An agent who has charge of
the machine or vehicle for the owners account or for the account of
another person shall be liable if the machines or vehicles caused damage
due to her fault. 171
The victim may not know the keeper or the agent who caused the damage.
Thus, they may go against the owner. In addition, the court may order the
owner to make the damage good in accordance with article 2081(2).
Nonetheless, the owner who paid compensation to the victim may recover
fully from the person in whose keeping the machine or vehicle was,
provided she has not committed an offence or a person for whom she is
liable has not committed a fault. 172
Finally, two motors could collide in a road accident. When it is not proved
the accident was due, entirely or chiefly, to the fault of one of the drivers,
it shall be deemed each driver has contribute equally to the accident.
Consequently, the owner of each vehicle, or person responsible for it, shall
bear half the total amount of the damage resulting from the accident. 173
9.8 Liability for manufactured goods(2085 )
A person who manufactures goods and sells to the public for profit shall
be liable for any damage to another person resulting from the normal use of goods.
There are elements worth discussing. These are:
1. A person …This person could be either physical or natural person.
171
Ibid article 2082
172
Ibid article 2083
173
Ibid article 2081
103
2…who manufactures goods…

When do we say goods are manufactured goods?
Under common legal system manufacture goods are referred to as “Manufactured
products” 174
Examples for “manufactured products are, cars, radios and computers.” 175 From
these examples we can understand that manufactured products do not simply refer
to food and drinks as some think. “It has been held to cover motor vehicles, lifts,
clothes, cleaning fluids and building”176Under our law, however a building may not
be classified as manufactured products. 177
3. …Sells to the public for profit… To start with if someone gives a
manufactured product for donation and the donee is injured this article may
not be applicable. Furthermore, if two individuals exchange different
manufactured products, since barter is not sales under Ethiopian law, and if
one of the individuals is injured due to the manufactured goods this article is
not applicable. The sale should be to the public and for profit. An enterprise
could, for instance, distribute food items free for the public. And if someone is
injured due to that food, the victim may not be successful under this article.
4. …shall be liable for any damage…
Here any damage could mean damage to person or damage to property. For
instance, you may eat food and you could be ill. This damage is to person and
the manufacturer shall be liable as per article 2085(1). It is similar if you buy
a certain spare part and assemble it in your car and your car is damaged due
to that spare part.
5. …resulting from the normal use of the goods. Each good has normal use. The
normal use of a chair is to sit on it. The normal use of edible oil is to cook food
items not to drink like water. The chair or the all could be defective.
Nonetheless, if someone suffers is while using the defective chair like a
174
Nicholas P.764
175
Ibid P.762
176
Cooke P.251
177
CCE articles 2077 ff
104
ladder the manufacturer shall not be liable. Neither the oil manufacturer is
liable for the damage suffered by a victim who drank the oil. Nor is the
manufacturer liable where the the defect caused the damage could have been
discovered by a customary examination of the goods.178 Cooke illustrates this
as follows:
Where it is reasonable to expect someone to inspect the goods before
they are used, the manufacturer may not be regarded as the cause of the
damage. If the goods were examined and the defect was negligently not
identified, this makes the examiner a cause of the damage. It is not sufficient
that someone had an opportunity to examine the goods; it must be shown
that the manufacturer could reasonably expect that person to make an
examination. For example, it would not be reasonable for a manufacturer to
expect that a person would wash an underwear before using it. 179
QUESTIONS
1.Who is a manufacturer.
In conventional sense the word manufacturers applies to retailers,
whole salers,
repairers of products (Such as garages)180Do you agree? Why or why
not?
2.Who is consumer?
A consumer is a any one whom the manufacturer should foresee would be
affected by the product. This will include purchasers, donnees, and
borrowers, employees of purchasers and bystanders who happen to be
injured.181
Do you agree? Why or why not?
178
179
Cooke P.253
180
Ibid P.251
181
Ibid
105
9.9 Defenses or justifications for strict liability
Before discussing article 2086, it is better to summarize other defenses stated under
articles. Thus, regarding articles 2066 and 2067 the defenses are given under each
sub article (2) as victims fault. They are uniform defenses. Moreover, sub article (2)
of 2067 presents order by the law and legitimate self-defenses as justifications. As
regards article 2081, if the vehicle or the machine is stolen and that can be proven
by the owner, that can serve as a defense. Article 2088 states that if the harm is
occurred to a person who connected with instruments due to the contractual
relations there will not be liability based on tort. The consequences of the damage
shall in this case be settled in accordance with the rules governing the agreement
reached. 182 Even in the absence of contractual relations without the owner deriving
any profit from this operation, the owner is not liable, if the damage is sustained,
unless the owner has committed a fault 183
Now we can discuss article 2088, which is applicable under all situations as a
defense. To start with, there seems to be a difference between the English and
Amharic versions of sub article (1)of 2088. While the English version reads… “May
relieve themselves…” The Amharic version reads…The Amharic version seems
correct for two reasons. The simple reason is where there is inconsistency between
the English version and the Amharic version the latter one prevails, for the
Amharic language is a working language of the FDRE government 184. Second, in
light of sub article (2) of the article 2086 the Amharic version gives more sense than
the English version. For as per article 2086(2) those persons declared legally liable
shall be relieved of their liability, entirely or in part, only where the damage is due
solely or partly to the fault of the victim
182
CCE article 2088(2)
183
Ibid article 2089
184
FDRE Constitution article 5(2)
106
\Thus, the only justification to relieve those persons declared legally liable is the
claimants fault which is referred to “as the claimants lack of care .” 185Here the idea
is the claimant‟s negligence contributes to her injury. Thus, the standard applied to
the claimant in contributory negligence is the same as that of the reasonable person
in fault liability. Here the test, however, is not whether the damage or the accident
was foreseeable but whether the claimant acted reasonably, that is to say, with the
amount of self-care that a normal person would have exercised in the
circumstances 186.
Illustration
1. Wearing a seat- belt is a sensible practice for all journeys no matter how
short the journeys are or whatever the conditions are.
2. If someone, while visiting a construction site, is told to wear a crash helmet
but fails to do so and sustains injury.
Thus, those grounds enumerated under sub article (l) of article 2086 may not
be invoked by those persons who are legally declared liable to relieve
themselves from liability. The grounds are the following:
1. Those persons cannot say we have not committed fault, for as we have
already said strict liability is a liability without fault. And the persons,i.e.
owners, custodians of animals; owners, those who build the buildings and
occupy, them; users or those who store explosives or poisonous substances;
owners or keepers of motor vehicles and finally manufacturers of goods are
liable not because they committed fault. Rather, among others, they are
either owners or the beneficiaries.
2. They cannot relieve themselves by stating that it was impossible to
establish the cause of the damage. For instance in a car accident, in which a
pedestrian is injured, the cause could be the negligence of the owner while
driving the car (high speed)or the cause could be defect in a break though the
185
Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Tort Law, Oxford Press, 2007, P.897(Here after Simon )
186
Ibid
107
driver was prudent driver. The victim is not obliged to establish this nor the
owner can excuse herself by saying the cause is not known.
3. They cannot exempt themselves from liability by establishing that it was
not within their power to prevent the damage. This is what is known as force
majeure or acts of God. Thus, acts of God may not be a ground to relieve
those persons from liability. For instance, if a building collapses due to earth
quake and injures a passerby, the owner may not invoke force majeure to
relieve herself from liability.
4. Finally, the fact that the damage was due to the fault of a third party as
well cannot be a justification to relieve oneself from liability. These third
parties, however, do not include an employee attending to an animal
(2072(3)), thieves and agents (2081(2)) and 2082(2) respectively for if the
damage was caused due to the fault of those third parties, the actors
themselves will be liable and the fault could be invoked by the owner.
It is only under such circumstances fault they a committed by third parties
can be invoked as a ground to relieve oneself from liability; otherwise it
cannot be a ground.
Questions
Would you please write down those third parties envisaged by article 2086(1)
One final point. The amount of liability depends on how much is contributed
by the victim for the damage to occur. Thus, if the damage is due solely to the
fault of the victim the defendant will be relieved from liability entirely. If,
however, the contribution of the victim is partly, the defendant will be relived
in part. The issue is a question of apportionment, i.e. dividing the liability
between the victim and the defendant. Thus, “In principle, the damage to
which apportionment applies is only that part of the claimant‟s over all loss
which is jointly attributable both to his own fault and that of the defendant.
108
If the claimant suffers the loss entirely through his own fault, apportionment
should be irrelevant 187
What about if the damage is caused by the objects other than those stated in
the preceding articles? For instance, a tree falls and crushes a vehicle. As per
article 2087, the owner of the tree shall be liable where the cause for the
damage is her fault or an offence committed by a person for whom she is
liable. Thus, she is not liable for the mere fact that she is the owner of the
tree for article 2087 states “…the owner or the keeper of an object shall be
liable for any damage caused by the object only where she has committed an
offence. Thus, the victim is obliged to establish fault from the side of the
owner or the keeper to claim damage. Otherwise, the owner or keeper may
not be liable.
Questions
1. A boy, while crossing a highway without using a zebra line, is hit by a
vehicle. Can the owner of the vehicle invoke the act of the boy as fault to
relive herself from liability? Why or why not?
2. A girl is walking on the right side of the road, which does not have a side
road for pedestrian. The girl is hit by a car which is driven in the same
direction .Can the driver relieve herself from liability by invoking the act of
the girl as fault? Why or why not?
3. Write down examples for objects in article 2087.
187
Ibid P.902
109
CHAPTER X
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is “…liability imposed on one person for the wrong doing of
another.”188 Similar definition is given by John Cooke, which reads “Vicarious
liability is where one person is made liable for the tort of another person. 189 Thus,
under the Ethiopian tort law parents and others listed under article 2125 are liable
for the wrongs done by a minor child. The state is liable for its civil servants and
employees acts. 190 Similarly, bodies corporate are liable for their representatives,
agents or paid workers act. 191 The employers are held liable for the acts of their
employees. 192 Finally, the managing editor of the newspaper, the printer of the
pamphlet or publisher of a book is liable for defamation committed by the author of
the printed text. 193 The issue, which we will try to discuss, is why someone is held
liable for the wrong committed by another?
10.1 The Rationale why one is held liable for the wrong committed by another
.
Some authors refer to vicarious liability as another instance of strict liability 194in
the sense that one person is made liable for another without herself committing any
fault. Therefore, it is worth asking why one is liable for the wrong done by another.
The possible rationales are:
188
Simon p. 677
189
Cooke p . 461
190
CCE article 2126
191
Ibid article 2129
192
Ibid article 2130
193
Ibid article 2135
194
Simon p. 664. Cooke p. 461
110
10.1.1The control test: This theory attributes to those who are made liable the
ability to control the behavior and precise manner of the wrong doers. For
instance, the employer has the ability to control the behavior and precise
manner of his employees. 195 This is expressed under article 4(1) of Labor
Proclamation No 377\2003 which reads “A contract of employment shall be
deemed formed where a person agrees directly or indirectly to perform work for
and under the authority of the employer. Furthermore, one of the obligations of
the workers is to follow instructions given by the employer as per article 13(1) of
the same proclamation. Thus, the fact that the employee is working under the
authority of the employer and follows instructions given by the same tells us the
employer has the ability to control the behavior and precise manner of his
employees.
The same is true for parents, for they have the ability to control the behavior
and precise manner of their minor children by doing the following:
1. Direct the upbringing of the minor.
2. Take the necessary disciplinary measures for ensuring her upbringing.
3. Direct and supervise the social contacts of the minor.
4. Ensure the minor is given general education or professional training
commensurate with her age and abilities. 196
Thus, when the law makes the employers or the parents liable for their
employees or children‟s wrong doing respectively it is implying you have
committed wrong for you failed to control the behavior and precise manner of
your employees or children. This test is not free from criticism, especially
concerning employees “…as many employees perform skilled tasks, which the
employer is incapable of understanding. For instance , to say that a health
195
Ibid p. 665
196
RFC art icles 258, 259 and 260
111
authority chief executive controls the work of a constant is stretching the
meaning of the word.” 197
10.1.2. Analogy with causation
The state, the employers or the bodies corporate are those who…set the whole
thing in motion and that, therefore, they should bear the consequences of a third
party who suffers through their employees wrongful conduct. 198Setting in motion
by the employer is expressed in the Labor Proclamation under article 12 as
follows:
ticle w221(iD[(t)14)12(lo7S6ls)
12 is
112
acts.” 201 Nicolas refers to this as elementary fairness. It …dictates that if you
seek to make money from engaging in some activity and other people suffer
losses as a result of your engaging in that activity, you should compensate them
for that loss.” 202In simple language, if you want to obtain the gains resulting
from engaging in that activity, then you should bear the losses as well.
10.1.5Loss spreading
This is another economic variant, which enables the employer to spread the loss
through insurance or the price of the products. The employer does this “Either
by charging his customers slightly higher prices or by making a claim on his
liability insurance.203After this brief background, let us now discuss Ethiopian
vicarious liability provisions.
10.2 Liability of parents and others
As per article 2124, the father shall be liable under the law where his minor
child incurs liability. Thus according to this article the father is a primary
person to be liable for his minor child is wrong doing. The mother is only liable
where she exercises the paternal authority over the child as per article 2125(a).
This needs some further explanation.
As per article 635 of the Civil Code of Ethiopia, the husband is the head of the
family. Hence, the spouses shall co-operate under the guidance of the husband,
to bring up the children and to prepare for their establishment. Thus, the father
who is the head of the family in upbringing the children, has to take the blame
for the wrongdoing of the children.
This is no truer in contemporary Ethiopian. To start with, as per article 34(1) of
the FDRE Constitution men and women have equal rights while entering into,
during marriage and at the time of divorce. Consequently, the spouses shall
have equal rights and obligations in the management of the family. Concerning
201
Simon P.665
202
Nicolas p. 639
203
Ibid p. 640
113
their children, they shall cooperate to bring up and ensure the good behavior and
education of their children in order to make themresponsible citizens. 204 Thus,
both spouses should take responsibility for the wrongdoing of their children.
Moreover, as per article 204 of the CCE or article 219 of the RFC, the father and
the mother are, during their marriage, jointly guardians and tutors of their
minor children. It is in case of death, disability, unworthiness or removal of one
of the parents, the one who remains shall alone exercise such functions. 205 Thus,
the one who exercises that function shall be answerable for the wrongful act of
the children. Furthermore, where the marriage is dissolved by divorce and
children are in the custody of one of the parents, the one who has the custody
shall be liable for the wrong done by the children. In other words, if it is the
father alone who exercises that function, he bears the consequences for the
wrong done by his minor child. On the other hand, if it is the mother who
exercises the same, she shall be liable for the minor child. Article 2125(a) is,
therefore, applicable where the father of the child is unknown.
To summarize, the father and the mother, as parents, are jointly liable for the
wrong done by their minor child. One of them is liable where she\he exercises
the guardian authority alone for this or that reason. Finally, the mother shall be
liable where she exercises that authority alone where the father is unknown, for
the child shall have a judicial bond only with her mother. 206 The words in lieu of
article 2125, therefore, do not apply for the mother. Parents are either jointly
liable where both exercise parental authority or separately liable in case one
alone exercises the authority.
204
RFC art icle 50
205
CCE article 205 or RFC article 220
206
RFC art icle 107(2)
114
This is true where the child lives inside the family home. Where the child
lives outside the family home, however, the person in whose charge the child is
placed shall be liable. 207
The child could be said is living outside the family home when she lives, for
instance, in governmental or private orphanages.208 Thus where that child
commits wrong while she is in governmental or private orphanages these
institutions shall be liable. Apart from family home, governmental, or private
orphanages, children are in school when they learn at school. If children commit
wrong while they are at school the head master of the school shall be liable. 209
As per article 89(2) of Labor Proclamation, it is prohibited to employ
persons less than 14 years of age. In other words a person can be employed
where she is 14 and above.
Moreover as per article 263(1) of the RFC a minor can be employed as of 14 and
receive income from her employment. On the other hand, a minor before actually
engaging in working she may be provided with a particular training for a
particular job. This undertaking is called an apprenticeship and the one who
engages in the same is referred to as apprentice. An apprentice is a young person
who works for an employer for a fixed period in order to learn the particular
skills. During the apprentices, the minor may commit wrong and injure
someone. For that wrongdoing, the employer shall be liable as it is stated under
article 2125(c).
After the completion of apprenticeship, if the child proves
competent, she may be employed under contract of employment as any other
employee. Thus, the employer shall be liable for an act committed by a child as
per articles 2130 and 2131, which we will discuss in detail when we discuss the
employers liability.
207
CCE article 2125(b )
208
RFC art icle 192
209
CCE article 2125(c)
115
10.3 Liability of the state 2126
The FDRE Constitution established a Federal Democratic State. Accordingly,

the Ethiopian state shall be known as the Federal Democratic Republic of of
Ethiopia.210
It consists Federal Government and State Members. 211 Thus, state refers both to
government at Federal and Regional levels. Accordingly, civil servant means a
person employed permanently by either Federal or Regional Governmental
offices.
The state, as any other person, employs civil servants to provide services
to the public. While giving these services the civil servant or government
employee may commit fault. This fault could be personal or professional fault.
Where the fault is personal, the state shall not be liable. 212 Where the fault is
professional, however, the victim may claim compensation from the state.
Nevertheless, the state may subsequently claim it from the servant or the
employee at fault. 213 The difference between personal and profession fault is
given under article 2127. Nonetheless, that article does not set objective criteria
to differentiate the two types of faults. Thus, if the civil servant or employee
believes in good faith that she acted within the scope of her duties and in the
interest of the state, then the fault shall be deemed professional fault. In
addition, the good faith is presumed. Thus, one who challenges that has to prove
the contrary. The law utilizes elimination mechanism to tell what personal fault
is by stating a fault is personal fault in other cases, i.e. where it is not
professional fault. 214
210
FDRE constitution article 1
211
Ibid article 50 (1)
212
213
Ibid 2126 (2)
214
Ibid article 2127
116
10.4 Liability of bodies corporate and employers [2129-2133]
Before discussing the liabilities it is worth knowing what bodies corporate are
and who employers are. As per article 31 of the FDRE Constitution, every person
has the right to freedom of association for any cause or purpose. The cause or the
purpose of such association, nonetheless, cannot be to illegally subvert the
constitutional order or to promote such activities.
Association, therefore, could be established to secure or share profits as it is

stated under article 404 of CCE. These types of associations are subject to the
provisions of the Commercial Code of Ethiopia relating to partnership. 215 The
same shall apply to cooperative and other grouping, which tend to satisfy the
financial interests of their members by placing them in a position to save
money.216 The Civil Code does not govern these types of associations. Rather
their specific laws govern them. 217They are as well bodies corporate. Trade
unions and groupings of a religious character are bodies corporate. The former
one is governed by Labor Proclamation 377\2003 while the later shall be
subject to the special laws concerning them. 218The state and the church are also
bodies corporate as per article------?
Thus bodies corporate are those associations established in accordance with

Memorandum of Associations and Statutes with a view to obtaining a result
other than the securing or sharing of profits. These associations shall have
directors appointed by the general meetings as per article 437 of CCE. They also
shall have servants as we can read from article 457(1) of the CCE. Other bodies
corporate we mentioned are established as per the proper special laws governing
them. Thus bodies corporate shall be liable for the acts and omissions of its
215
Co mmercial code , Negarit Gazette No. 3 ext ra ord inary issue 1960, Addis Ababa article 210 ff
216
CCE article 405
217
218
CCE article 407
117
118
answer this question we resort to Labor Proclamation No.377/2003. As per

that proclamation employer means a person or an undertaking who employs
one or more persons who agree directly or indirectly to perform work for and
under the authority of an employer for definite or indefinite period or a piece
of work in return for wage. A worker or employee is a person who has an
employment relationship with an employer in accordance with an
employment contract. 228
In the introductory part of vicarious liability, we have discussed in
detail why employers are liable for the wrongful act of their employees.
Among those rationales, one was the fact that the employee is under the
control and authority of the employer. In other words, if a person is an
independent worker or contractor, though she is working for the employer,
the latter is not liable for the faults or offences by an independent worker or
contractor, 229 for an independent worker or contractor undertakes to produce
a given result, under her own responsibility. 230
10.5 DEFAMATION
Under article 2049 a person is liable for defamatory matter because of

positive act, i.e. where she communicates words, pictures, or written
materials to at least one person other than the person defamed [Cooke p.
407]. Here the author has a primary responsibility. Nevertheless
“(E)xceptionally one may also be liable for not taking positive steps to prevent
the publication by someone else”.231 or, “because she approved it” 232 Thus
the managing editors of the newspaper, the printer of the pamphlet or
228
Labor proclamat ion article 2(1)&(3) and art icle 4(1)
229
CCE article 2134
230
CCE article 2610
231
Simon P.772
232
Cooke p . 407
120
publisher of the book shall be liable for defamation committed by the author
of a printed text.
Hence, the authors are liable for positive acts under article 2049 for they
have primary responsibility for the defamatory matter. And the managing
editor, the printer and the publisher may be liable for either approving the
defamatory matter or as accomplices.
Our law, however, does not seem to make any discrimination in making
liable both the author of a defamatory matter and the publisher, the
managing editor or the printer. for under article 2136(2) it is stated that the
person who caused the damage and the person whom the law declared to be
liable for such damage shall be jointly liable to repair the damage.
Even if we take, the managing editor, the printer or the author as

accomplices that may inot save them from being liable for no distinction is
made between instigator, principal and accomplice 233. It seems there is,
however, one outlet for the printer, i.e. a person whose name is defamed may
bring action against the managing editor, or printer or the publisher for it is
easier to identify and locate them rather than the author. Under such
circumstances the managing editor, printer or the publisher may demand
that the author of the damage be made a party to the proceedings brought by
the victim for compensation. 234The reason seems that the person who caused
damage (the author) shall repair it notwithstanding that another person
(printer, managing editor or publisher) is declared by law to be liable for such
damage.235
233
Article 2155(2)
234
Article 2136
235
Ibid. Bracket added
121
PART III: REMEDIES TO EXTRA CONTRACTUAL WRONG
Chapter XI Introduction to the Basic Notions of Damage
11.1Conceptual Analysis of Damage
As was discussed in the earlier part of this material, proving the existence and the
extent of liability are cumulative mandatory requirements in an action for
compensation in extra-contractual liability law. This means, if an action for
compensation is based on the provisions of extra contractual liability law, the
plaintiff has the responsibility to prove that he has incurred damage because of acts
or circumstances for which the defendant is liable under the law. As a rule, without
proving the existence of damage caused to his interest by the activities of the
defendant or by certain things controlled by the defendant, the plaintiff is not
entitled to compensation. So, important issues in this part of the discussion are the
determination of the type and extent of the liability. Thus, a discussion of the
notional classification of damage and the standards of its assessment would be of
great help.
The word “damage” is derived from a Latin word “ damnum” meaning loss or species
of loss. It is a harm or injury caused to a person‟s legitimate interest. The interest
harmed may be related to the person‟s material (pecuniary) interest or to moral
(non pecuniary) interest. Therefore, based on the nature of the interest harmed,
damage can be classified into two: material damage and moral damage. Material
damage is a damage which affects the person‟s pocket, whereas harm to his moral
interests affects his feelings or emotions. However, the classification of damage into
material and moral is not similar in all jurisdictions. For instance, the Italian law
distinguishes damages as Patrimonial to denote material damage and non-
patrimonial to denote moral damage. Categorizing damage as material and moral is
122
not known in the common law legal system. They sometimes divide material
damage into intangible material interest and tangible material interest. But the
usual classification of damage in common law systems is pecuniary and non-
pecuniary, which is equivalent to material and moral damage respectively.
Be it material or emotional, proving the existence of damage and its extent is a

prerequisite for compensation. Many countries provide damage as a primary
criterion to order awards for damage. For insistence, the German tort law states
different requirements by which a plaintiff can claim compensation. Among these
the primary point which courts underline is that, whether there is violation of
enumerated rights or interests, i.e. life, body, health, property and other rights that
the law covers. The French law also states three requirements for compensation to
victim, causation, fault (in case of fault based liability) and damage. Damage is
among the mandatory requirements. In Ethiopia, too, proving damage is a
prerequisite for compensation. The cross reading of Articles 2092 and 2102(2) of the
civil code clearly shows that proof of the existence of damage is a mandatory
requirement for the plaintiff to claim compensation.
11.2 Classifications of Damage

11.2.1 Material Damage
As stated above, damage or injury caused to a person‟s protected interest can be
broadly classified into material and moral damage. Material damage, as discussed
above is an injury caused to a person‟s economic or financial interest. This damage
affects the victim‟s credit worthiness or economic status in one or another way. The
common example of material damage is loss of earnings with all other expenses
attributable to the tort such as medical care, expense of traveling, cost of
equipment, loss of pension rights and other losses, which have pecuniary nature. It
also includes harm, which makes a thing deteriorate or destroys it and injury to
property that has pecuniary nature. Material damage affects a person‟s credit
123
worthiness. Material damage may have two important components. These are
present (actual) material damage and future material damage.
Present Material Damage
Present material damage refers to the material or pecuniary loss sustained by the
victim of the tort that covers the loss occurred from the date of the commencement
of the injury up to the date of final assessment by the court. It can be measured by
the difference between the plaintiff‟s present estate and what would be now his
estate had the harmful fact for which redress is sought not occurred. Present
material damage can be further classified into two: a damnum emergens, a Latin
term, which denotes the occurrence of a loss (diminution of estate), or a lucrum
cessans, the Latin term, which denotes the prevention of a gain (non-increase of
estate). [Krzeczunowicz: p.13]. Damnum emergens includes two different aspects.
Firstly, it refers to the type of damage caused to a person‟s tangible or intangible
asset due to the depreciation, destruction or loss caused to such asset. In this case
the value of the plaintiff‟s assets is diminished due to the injury-causing agent that
makes the defendant liable. The other aspect of damnum emergens refers to the
increment or creation of a liability to the plaintiff. This does not refer to the direct
injury caused to the person‟s material interest. Rather it refers to the circumstances
where a person becomes civilly liable to a third party because of the wrongful
damage caused by the defendant.
Illustration: Assume that while Mr. A is driving Mr. B‟s car without authorization
from the latter, he was involved in a severe collision with another car which belong
to Mr. C. Assume also that both the cars involved in the collision are damaged and
the cause for the collision is proved to be the fault committed by Mr. A who drove
the car contrary to traffic regulations. In this hypothetical case, it is possible to
discern the damnum emergens caused to Mr. B‟s property right. Firstly, the value of
the car is reduced due to the damage caused during the collision. This diminishes
124
the value of Mr. B‟s asset. In order to repair the car, Mr. B has to pay some amount
of money. Secondly, by virtue of Article 2081 of the civil code, Mr. B is liable to
compensate Mr. C for the damage caused to the latter‟s car. This fact also decreased
Mr. B‟s estate, i.e. his credit balance is affected. So, both the damage caused to Mr.
B‟s car that reduced the value of his asset and the liability Mr. B owed to Mr. C due
to Mr. A are components of the damnum emergens.
Lucrum cessans in the context of present material damage refers to the damage
incurred by the plaintiff due to the prevention of gainful opportunities or loss of
earnings resulting from the tortuous act of the defendant. In the hypothetical case
provided above, the owner of the car, Mr. B, in addition to the money he paid out of
his pocket to repair his damaged car and the money he has paid in the form of
compensation to Mr. C, he lost the daily income he would have normally derived by
hiring his car for some period of time until the car is repaired and made ready for
its normal function. So, lucrum cessans refers to the damage incurred by the
plaintiff where the injurious event blocks the victim from increasing his estate or
wealth. In other words it refers to the prevention of gain that could have been
materialized had the injurious event not occurred.
Future Material Damage
Future material damage is the other main component of material damage. It is a

damage that is going to occur in the future. The dividing line between present
damage and future damage is drawn in terms of time. The dividing date is that of
the judgment assessing the damage. Where the judgment as to the amount of
compensation is appealed and varied, it is the date of the new assessment on appeal
that separates present from future harm.
In short, future damage includes the damage that will occur certainly or with a
higher probability after the date of judgment. Although future damage was not
125
present at the time of a judgment, it is compensable without waiting for it to

materialize provided that it is certain to occur.
As compared to present damage, assessment of future damage is very problematic.

As was mentioned earlier, the overall present damage resulting from a past fact
may be measured by the difference between the plaintiff‟s present estate and what
would now be his estate had the fact not occurred. This test cannot apply by analogy
to future damage. For present damage, the “difference” test operates between a
given and “hypothetical” present estate. But for future damage, both items of
comparison would have to be hypothetical, the date for comparison arbitrary, and
the number of conjectural factors unmanageable Id: 18. Assessment of future
damage becomes very difficult because it is not related to the actual occurrence of
loss at the time of assessment but only to the non-occurrence of expected future
earnings or gainful opportunities. It is sometimes more than difficulty. It may be
temporarily impossible, for instance, the medical prognosis for a bodily injury may
still be reserved at judgment time. The ultimate result may be death, or full
recovery, or disability of an unknown degree. Now in view of the short limitation
period (article 2142) and the immediate need of the victim for funds to cover his
present expenses, the victim often cannot postpone his action until the final medical
prognosis, but has to bring it earlier. And under the res judicata prohibition of
article 2151, he may be unable to bring a fresh action after the final prognosis for
the plaintiff is technically prohibited to split his claim for present damage and
future damage.
The terms “present” and “future” denote no difference in the nature of the harm. In
particular, damnum emergens and lucrum cessans may affect both the past and the
future, although lucrum cessans is more frequent and pervading in the “future”
harm category. Consider the following examples to understand future material
damage well.
126
Where a person‟s motorcar or body is tortuously injured, he normally sustain s, first

a damnum emergens, his car is normally worthless. But instead of demanding a
sum for his loss of value, or a reparation in kind at the defendant‟s expense (article
2119), he himself undertook the repatriation, then the judgment date may divide
his total repair expenses into present (incurred) and future (impeding) damnum
emergens. As to his body, it has no market value and it is not a thing that can be
replaced or repaired by application of Article 2119, the damnum emergens consists
primarily in his expenses for repairing it (for hospitalization, medical care drugs…).
These expenses may be protracted until after judgment date and, thus, constitute
“future” damnum emergens. As mentioned before, lucrum cessan results from
impediments to gainful use of a person‟s working capacity or property. These
impediments may extend beyond judgment date. In the above example, the
motorcar will not be rented until repairs are completed. As to his working capacity,
it will not be used to produce earnings while he is in the hospital and it will remain
impaired wholly or in part, if his total or partial disability is permanent. Thus, in
bodily harm cases, lucrum cessans may extend indefinitely into the future. [Id]
11.2.2 Moral Damage
The term moral damage refers to the harm or injury inflicted to a person‟s feeling or
non-pecuniary interest. It is an injury caused to a person‟s honor, reputation or
personal feelings of the victim. In many bodily injury cases, both moral damage and
material damage are inflicted to the victim. While the loss of earnings which
resulted from the temporary or permanent total or partial incapacity affects the
victim‟s pocket, that is, material interest, the pain, mental anguish and frustration
which resulted from pain and disability or disfigurement of his body parts affects
the victim‟s feeling, hence referred to as moral damage. There are situations where
127
the same tortuous act can inflict both material damage and moral damage to a
person. This is usually what happens in many bodily injury cases.
Review Questions
1. Discuss the following terminologies:
 Damage v Damages
 Material damage
 Moral damage
 Present damage
 Future damage
 Damnum emergens v Lucrum Cessans
2. Discuss the point of demarcation between present material damage and
future material damage.
128
Chapter XII Modes of Compensation
12.1. Modes of Compensation for Material Damage

12.1.1. The Rule of Pecuniary Compensation
The material damage sustained by a person due to the tortuous act of another
person can be compensated or made good in different ways. Broadly speaking, the
modes of compensation for material harm, as stipulated in Article 2090 of the civil
code, can be categorized into pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. This section
is exclusively devoted to pecuniary compensation and the other mode of
compensation will be thoroughly appreciated under the subsequent section.
To begin with the definition of the term “pecuniary” compensation, it means

compensation by means of money. That means that the damage inflicted to the
pecuniary interest of the victim has to be quantified and valued in terms of
monetary equivalence so that the harm will be made good by the award of
compensation expressed in terms of money. Article 2090 of the civil code that deals
with “Modes of Compensation” for material damage laid under sub-article one is as
follows: “As a rule, the damage is made good by compensating the victim by means
of an equivalent sum of money”. This provision set the governing rule that the
normal and usual mode of compensation for material damage is monetary. So, in
the absence of any strong reason to deviate from the rule, the material damage
suffered by the victim has to be compensated by monetary equivalence. The
exceptions to the rule of monetary or pecuniary compensation will be discussed
subsequently. Suffice it to say, pecuniary (monetary) compensation is the rule,
whereas non-pecuniary compensation is the exceptional mode of compensation for
material damage.
129
12.1.2. Non-Pecuniary Compensation
Although our law sets pecuniary compensation as an ordinary or usual mode of

compensation, there are also other non-monetary or non-pecuniary forms of
compensation or remedy that may be awarded by the court in exceptional
circumstances. The exception to the rule of pecuniary compensation is laid do wn
under Sub-Article two of Article 2090 of the civil code, which reads: “The court may,
subject to the liberty of persons and to the right of third parties, order in lieu or in
addition to money damages other appropriate measures to make good or limit the
damage”. The provisions of the civil code Article 2118 through Article 2123 provides
a partial enumeration of the “other modes of compensation” other than payment of
monetary compensation to the victim. Restitution, reparation in kind, retraction of
defamatory publications, enjoining cases of unfair competition and injunction are
prominent among such non-pecuniary modes of compensation that can be granted
in addition to or as alternative to monetary compensation in appropriate cases
envisioned in Article 2090(2) of the civil code. It is important to note that this
enumeration is not exhaustive but illustrative. Because Article 2090 (2) can be
broadly interpreted to include any other modes of non-pecuniary compensation
within the limits provided therein other than those remedies enumerated in Article
2118 through Article 2123. These limits are “liberty of persons” and “rights of third
parties”.
The phrase “subject to the liberty of persons” incorporated under sub-Article two of
Article 2090 articulates that deviation from the rule of pecuniary compensation is
possible where non-pecuniary civil compensation does not contradict with the
liberties of the defendant recognized under the various laws including the
constitution. For example, where an order of reparation in kind or injunction as a
remedy threats the liberty of the defendant, it shall not be granted, as the liberty of
the defendant prevails over the material interest of the plaintiff. For instance, the
defendant shall not be forced to work for the plaintiff as it contradicts the latter‟s
130
right not to be subjected to a forced labour. In other words, insofar as the awards of
monetary compensation can reasonably rectify the mischief caused to the victim,
the other modes of non-pecuniary compensation shall not be granted where the
persona liberty of the defendant is at stake.
The other phrase subject to the “rights of third parties” incorporated in Article
2090(2) also illustrates the in personam aspect of the remedies of the law of
obligation. The remedies enumerated in Articles 2118 through Article 2123 of the
civil code apply against only the party in breach of the tortuous obligation and not
against third party right-bearers. For instance, the remedy stated in Article 2118
(1) of the civil code, restitution can not be granted as a remedy in disregard of the
property law Articles 1161 and 1164, which enable the person who possesses a thing
in good faith as qualified therein to resist restitution. Therefore, the other modes of
compensation should take into consideration the rights of third parties as stated in
the provisions of the law. That is, where the rights of a third party are at issue,
restitution of the thing may not be granted as a remedy to the mischief caused to
the plaintiff. Thus, the liberty of the person (defendant) and the rights of third
parties are the restrictions that qualify the appropriateness of the grant of non-
pecuniary compensation for material damage. These phrases set limitations on the
broad discretionary power of the court to deviate from the rule of monetary
compensation for material damage.
12.2. Modes of Compensation for Moral Damage
12.2.1. The Rule of Non-Pecuniary Compensation
We have already explained that moral damage is a harm inflicted to a person‟s

feeling or emotion. It is an injury caused to the honor, reputation or personal
feelings of the victim. Therefore, moral damage refers to the injury caused to a
person‟s feeling that cannot be assessed in monetary terms. It is difficult to set
131
monetary equivalence for an injury caused to a person‟s feeling. Thus, as a rule, the
mode of compensation for moral damage is non-pecuniary. This is because injury to
a person‟s feeling cannot be measured in terms of money. In addition to the
difficulty to measure an injury caused to a person‟s feeling in terms of money, the
other strong reason may be that moral damage may be better made good by non-
pecuniary forms of compensation than by monetary awards. For example, an injury
caused to a person‟s reputation through defamatory publications can be made good
through an order of retraction of the defamatory publication.
In Article 2105 of the civil code, the principle related to the mode of compensation
for moral damage is clearly stated. Sub-Article one of this provision stated that the
author of a wrong shall make good the moral harm resulting from the wrong
wherever adequate procedure exists for such redress. Sub-Article two further
stipulated that pecuniary compensation for moral harm may be awarded only in
cases expressly provided by law. The phrase “only in cases expressly provided by
law” indicates the exceptional nature of awarding pecuniary compensation for moral
damage. And the word “may” incorporated under Sub-Article two of Article 2105
gives the court a broad discretion, that is, even in such cases expressly provided by
law, awarding monetary compensation for moral harm is no mandatory. The court
is required to order other appropriate non-pecuniary redresses where the law
provides adequate procedure for redressing moral damage. Hence, non-pecuniary
compensation is the ordinary rule for redressing moral harm under the Ethiopian
Extra- Contractual liability law.
12.2.2. Pecuniary Compensation as an Exception
Regarding the issue whether or not compensation for moral damage shall be as of
rule pecuniary or non-pecuniary, there is no unanimity between countries. Some
countries like France accept that moral damage can be compensated in terms of
132
monetary equivalence in the same manner as material damage, while others such
as Bulgaria accept equitable pecuniary compensation for moral damage in principle
as contrasted to the fictitious concept of monetary equivalence adopted in French.
There are also some countries that completely deny awarding pecuniary
compensation for moral damage. The former Soviet Union may be cited as a typical
example. Monetary indemnification for non-pecuniary (moral) harm was viewed as
an expression of the bourgeois philosophy that everything has its price. The high
regard, which Soviet society has for human personality, is said to forbid this type of
indemnification. Indeed, the Soviet Union allowed no monetary indemnification for
non-pecuniary harm. [Id: pp. 270-271].
Coming back to the position under the Ethiopian civil code, as discussed above, the
rule set under Article 2105(1) states that the “author of a wrong shall make good
the moral harm resulting from the wrong wherever adequate procedure exists for
such redress.” That means where there is a procedure set under the law that is
adequate and appropriate to redress the speci fic moral harm inflicted a person, the
court is obliged to order the wrong doer to make the damage good. As to the
meaning of the phrase “adequate procedure” and the type of redress that may be
ordered by the court the law lacks clarity. But, when Sub-Article one is read in
conjunction with Sub-Article two which states that pecuniary compensation can be
awarded to redress moral damage only in cases expressly provided by law, one can
safely conclude that the type of redress envisioned under sub-one must be non-
monetary (non-pecuniary) in its nature. Sub-Article two of Article 2105 is applicable
only to such nominated cases of moral injury enumerated in Article 2106 through
2115 of the civil code. It may also apply to other moral harms expressly stated to
such effect in other pertinent provisions. In a nutshell, the Ethiopian extra
contractual liability law allows monetary compensation as a redress only for
exceptionally nominated types of moral harms.
133
In assessment of moral damage, based on equity, the law does not provide general
guideline to be followed by the court. So, in the assessment of moral damage,
Ethiopian courts have discretionary power in two respects: in awarding the
compensation and in fixing the amount of compensation. That is, even in those
nominated cases of moral harms enumerated as pecuniary compensable as provided
in Article 2105 through Article 2115 of the civil code, it is not obligatory for the
court to award monetary compensation to the victim. Only when it deems
appropriate having regards to the circumstances of the case, the court can exercise
its discretion in awarding equitable compensation to the victim of a moral harm.
The question of what equitable compensation for moral injury is also left to the
discretion of the court. Of course, the court is required to consider the type and the
nature of the harm caused to the victim‟s moral interest.
Review Questions
1. Discuss the various modes of compensation and the circumstances that make
them relevant
2. What makes pecuniary compensation appropriate for material damage but
not for moral damage?
3. What makes non-pecuniary compensation appropriate for moral damage?
4. Discuss the circumstances where pecuniary compensation can be awarded for
moral damage.
134
Chapter XIII Quantum/ Extent of Compensation
13.1Quantum of Compensation for Material Damage

13.1.1. The Rule of Equivalence
The principle of equivalence between material damage and compensation is

incidentally mentioned in Article 2090 and explicitly laid down in Article 2091 of
the civil code. While dealing with modes of compensation for material damage,
Article 2090 incidentally states that: “as a rule, the damage is made good by
compensating the victim by means of an equivalent sum of money.”(Emphasis
added.) Article 2091 of the code, which deals with the extent of compensation, also
explicitly states that: “The compensation due by the person legally liable is equal to
the damage caused to the victim by the fact giving rise to the liability.” The
principle of equivalence between compensation and damage goes in line with the
overriding purpose of extra contractual liability law. As discussed previously in this
course material, the primary goal of extra contractual liability law is compensating
the victims of civil wrongs. Although some foreign jurisdictions observed using the
award of damages for punitive purposes by imposing exemplary or punitive
damages upon the tortfeasor in special aggravating circumstances, compensation in
Ethiopia can in no circumstance exceed the damage sustained by the victim of the
tort. So, our law under no circumstance allows an award of compensation that
exceeds the damage incurred by the victim due to the tortuous act for which the
defendant is called to account. However, there are situations where compensation
that is less than the damage incurred by the victim may be awarded. This is
possible where any of the mitigating circumstances specified under the la w (as will
be discussed later ) come into operation.
In order to match the amount of compensation to the extent of the damage, or

reduce it equitably from that extent, the latter must be measured reasonably to the
135
possible degree. Determining the extent of the harm or damage sustained by the
victim is a prerequisite for determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded
to him. As clearly stated under Article 2141 of the civil code, the burden is on the
victim to establish the amount of the harm sustained and to prove the
circumstances which render the defendant liable to make it good.
Despite this fact, there are no rules and standards set under the law to regulate the
methodology of assessment of damage. The judge seems to have been left with broad
discretion to choose the rational assessment methods having regard to the nature of
the case in hand. Since the circumstances of each case may vary infinitely, a harm-
evaluation device used in one case may be unsuitable in another. Consequently,
neither statutes (in continental systems) nor precedents (in common law systems)
normally impose specific harm-assessment methods; nor, it seems, will they always
be successful if they attempted to do so. It could be out of similar reasons that the
Ethiopian law too, simply put the general principle of equivalency between
compensation and material damage as a requirement and left the detail regarding
the assessment of the extent of damage to the discretion of the judge. But while the
judge assesses the damage, he is expected to critically consider all constituting
elements or components of the damage; both the material and the moral aspect of
the harm need to be considered, the internal classifications of material damage
between damnum emergens and lucrum cessans as well as between present damage
and future damage has to be properly addressed and weighed.
While assessing the damage sustained by the victim, both the material and the
moral aspect of the damage must be quantified and valued in terms of money
provided that such moral harm(s) is made compensable under the law. At the time
of assessment, the judge is required not only to calculate the actual material
damage suffered by the victim up to the date of judgment but also future damage
that certainly or mass probable will occur after the date of judgment. The important
components of the material damage, namely damnun emergens and lucrum cessans
136
should be critically evaluated within the context of both actual/ present damage and
future damage.
Thus, while calculating the material damage caused to a person‟s pecuniary interest
due to the injurious act of another person, the court is required to calculate not only
the out of pocket payments made by the victim to repair the property damaged or
the medical and other related expenses he incurred to heal the physical injury
caused to his body but also the lucrum cessans (gainful opportunity prevented,
frustration or interruption) because of the injury causing event for which the
defendant is liable. Even where the property is completely destroyed, the person
liable should pay the plaintiff not only the monetary value of the property destroyed
at the time of but also the gain prevented due to the destruction of the property up
to the date of assessment. The principle of equivalence bet ween damage and
compensation should be construed in that so far as money can make the injury
caused to a person good, the victim of tort should be put in a position he would have
now had not the injury causing event been occurred. The purpose is not to restore
the victim to his pre-injury creditworthiness, it is rather to put him in a position he
would have been now had not been for the injury.
But there are arguments against the above line of interpretation. In an appeal
lodged to the Federal Supreme Court (Civil Appeal file no. 4265/92 E.C.), the
appellant stated that his minibus was rendered completely useless because of a
collision caused by another person‟s insured car and requested the court in his
memorandum of appeal to award him Birr 70,000 (seventy thousand) as the
estimated monetary value of the destroyed minibus at the time of injury and Birr
84,150 (eighty four thousand one hundred and fifty) for the gainful opportunity he
alleged to suffer due to the prevention of the 250 birr daily income of the minibus
from the date of collision up to the date of filing the appeal. The defendant in this
case opposed the plaintiff‟s claim for compensation of the prevented gain (income)
stating that there is no legal basis to claim compensation under the guise of
137
prevented income in addition to claiming the full value of the minibus at the time of
collision. Since the minibus was destroyed completely, according to the defendant, it
could not have the capacity to generate income. The Supreme Court accepted the
appellant‟s claim 250 for Birr 70,000 (seventy thousand) compensation as a value of
the minibus destroyed but rejected the other claim based on the so called prevented
gain. Mehari Redae, The coup‟s reasoning was cited in a paper titled „Assessment of
Compensation for Injury under the Ethiopian Civil Law‟ by mehari Redae,presented
in a workshop organized by Action Professional Association for the People (APAP)
in2006:
… prevailing at the time of collision, which is Birr 70,000 to be paid by the
respondents, he has no any legal or factual ground to claim compensation for the
income he alleged to be prevented from the date of collision up to the filing of the
action….
…in so far as the plaintiff claimed the value of the property destroyed, there is no
compensation to be claimed for the so called prevented income. The court, however,
stated that if the payment of the value of the car was delayed and the plaintiff
proves that, because of the delay of payment he had lost some economic gain or
interest he would derive by using the money in commercial activities or by
depositing same in saving banks respectively, he may claim compensation for such
losses. (Translation mine)
In support of the court‟s reasoning in this case, Mehari stated that if it is proved
that a person‟s property is completely destroyed, that person‟s claim for
compensation should be limited to the full market value of the property prevailing
some seconds before the destruction of same. But this argument may be valid where
the court made the assessment of the damage immediately after the occurrence of
the injury and award the victim an equivalent compensation forthwith. In actual
practice, however, the litigation process of the court is too elaborate and time
taking. The court may take some months or a year or more to pass its final decision
on the subject of a dispute. As per Article 2150(1) of the civil code, the assessment
138
of the damage has to be made on the day on which the court renders its final
judgment. The date of assessment, the court is required to determine what the
estate of the plaintiff would be but for the destruction of the property. Thus, on the
date of assessment the court should not consider only the market value of the
property that was prevailing some seconds before the event of destruction occurred
but also the net economic gain that would have been derived by the plaintiff from
the use of the property until the date of judgment.
13.1.2. Departures from the Rule of Equivalence
For various policy reasons, the rule of equivalence between damage and
compensation discussed above may be qualified by several exceptions. This topic
shall discuss the most radical departures that may be made by the court from the
principle of equivalence stated in Article 2091. These exceptions will be discussed
under separate headings in the following sequence:
 Compulsory Mitigation
 Discretionary Mitigation
 Optional Mitigation
 Nominal Damages
A. Compulsory Mitigation
As exceptions to the rule of equivalence between damage and compensation, there

are situations where the quantum of damages (compensation) may be reduced or
should be reduced to a certain amount, which is less than the material damage
sustained by the victim. The term departures in this context is used to denote the
circumstances that justify the mitigation of the liability of the defendant to a
reasonable amount which is less than the damage caused to the plaintiff. Such
mitigating circumstances may take one of three forms: compulsory, discretionary or
139
optional. In this section, cases of compulsory mitigation are presented and the rest
will be discussed in the subsequent sections in turn.
Cases of compulsory mitigations, which are prescribed in the civil code, are binding
on the court. They are stipulated to the benefit of the defendant, that is, the
defendant as of right can invoke them. The concept of compulsory mitigation is
incorporated in Article 2098 of the civil code. According to this provision, where the
damage is caused to the victim due to his own partial (contributory) fault, then he is
entitled to partial compensation. In this case, the liability of the defendant could be
fault-based liability, strict liability or vicarious liability. Regardless of the nature of
the type of liability of the defendant, if the victim by his own intentional or
negligent fault contributed to the occurrence or aggravation of the damage to his
interest, then his claim for compensation shall be reduced in proportion to his
relative contribution. For instance, if the victim by his fault contributed 40% to the
occurrence of the damage or aggravated the damage by 40%, the liability of the
defendant shall be reduced to 60% of the overall damage. Where the damage is
caused solely due to the victim‟s fault, there shall be a complete denial of
compensation as compensation may no be claimed contrary to good faith against an
innocent person (Article 2097 civil code) In this case, the victim shall bear fully the
consequences of his fault. Hence, mandatory mitigation of compensation is relevant
in situations where the victim‟s own fault is partly contributed to the damage
sustained by him. The governing provision, Article 2098 that deals with the fault of
the victim reads:
“(1) Where the damage is due partly to the fault of the victim, the latter shall
receive partial compensation only.
(2) In fixing the extent to which the damage shall be made good, all the
circumstances of the case are taken into account, in particular the extent to
which the respective faults have contributed to causing the damage and
gravity of each fault.”
140
Sub-Article 2 of Article 2098 provides a clue to the judge in fixing the damage to
consider all the circumstances of the case, particularly the respective gravity of
the fault of the defendant and the plaintiff. But weighing the relative
contributory fault of the parties seems relevant where the liability of the
defendant is fault based. In circumstances where the liability of the defendant
does not depend on fault, that is, in strict liability cases, the judge should
consider only the contribution of the victim‟s faulty behavior in materializing or
aggravating the damage. Otherwise the defendant may escape liability for each
and every contributory fault of the victim, which would be contrary to the
purpose of the goals of the law of torts.
B. Discretionary Mitigation
In the previous sub-section we have discussed the provision that prescribe awards
of compensation less than the overall damage sued for on a compulsory basis. In
this sub topic we will consider provisions that permit such awards without
prescribing them, i.e., on discretionary basis. These provisions depend for their
application on the court‟s largely free (discretionary) decision. The defendant can
invoke them where relevant, but he is not as of right entitled to the mitigation. This
can be inferred from the wordings of Articles 2099-2103 and 2157, which use
“powers of equity” as a parameter for exercising such discretion and the word “may”
in Articles 2099-2101 that indicates the discretionary nature of mitigation. These
provisions shall be discussed in turn.
Article 2099 talks about a case where the court may reduce the amount of
compensation regardless of the principle of equivalence provided in Article 2091,
where the fault giving rise to the liability is committed by a person who was not in a
state to appreciate the wrongful nature of his conduct. In reducing the award based
on this article, the court must first ascertain whether or not the defendant is liable
for fault, that means strict liability and vicarious liabilities cannot be mitigated
141
under Article 2099. And the defendant must establish that he was not conscious of
his fault and was not in a state to appreciate the wrongful nature of his act. This
may be due to age, mental condition or other circumstances.
Article 2100 states another instance where the court may reduce the amount of
compensation for damage caused under the “chain of command”. To reduce the
award based on this article the court must first ascertain whether the defendant
committed the fault envisaged in Article 2036 (2). And the defendant, to get the
reduction, must establish that he was moved to commit the fault by his sense of
duty deriving from discipline or obedience. This may be inferred from his past
conduct and apparent absence of improper motives. The extent of mitigation shall
be roughly apportioned to the degree of the imperativeness of the duty. Indecently,
where this degree is so high as to lead to practical impossibility to disobey, the court
shall fully exculpate the defendant pursuant to Article 2036 (3). However, this does
not mean the victim shall be left helpless. There could be claim for compensation
against the superior order giver where the order is unlawful or against the state as
the case may be.
Unforeseeability of the damage as stated in Article 2101 is another ground for

reduction of the amount of damage. This article allows the possibility of reducing
the liability of the defendant to a reasonable amount where in consequence of
unforeseeable circumstances the damage expanded beyond what could reasonably
be expected. Consider the following illustration:
Where B, slightly injured by C‟s act, dies in a hospital where his injury is treated,
due to the aggravation of his injury by an abnormally incompetent medical
treatment, C is liable, but may invoke Article 2101 in mitigation as the damage is
aggravated by circumstances unforeseeable to him. The damage in this case is too
remote that cannot be normally foreseen. So the judge has discretionary power to
mitigate C‟s liability where it is in the interest of justice, having considered all the
circumstances of the case.
142
Another mitigating circumstance is provided under Article 2103 of the civil code.
That is, when a person causes injury to the property of another because of acts of
“necessity” in the sense stated in Article 2066, he is liable to compensate the victim.
But he can invoke Article 2066 to mitigate the extent of his liability. But whether or
not mitigation in this case is compulsory or discretionary, the wording of the
provision is not clear. The other most important thing that we need to bear in mind
is that article 2103 speaks only of damage to the property, not to the body of
another. For example, B damages C‟s boat to save swimmer D (or himself) from
drowning; in this case article 2103 can be applicable, but if B hurts swimmer C to
prevent D‟s (or his own) boat from crashing against a rock, mitigation based on
Article 2103 is not possible.
C. Optional Mitigation
The mitigation of liability for compensation in optional cases differs from the
mitigations discussed in the above three limitations in that its application does not
depend on the discretion of the court but on the discretion of the defendant himself.
In optional mitigation cases there are alternatives other than paying money,
therefore, the defendant can opt for an alternative to that of paying the damages
otherwise due by him. Cases of optionally mitigating circumstances are covered in
Articles 2074, 2075 & 2078. As stated in these Articles, the defendant may
surrender the animal or building that caused the damage to another or pays an
equivalent sum of money due. The defendant may choose to surrender the animal or
building instead of paying an equivalent some of money where the value of the
animal or building is less than the monetary value of the overall damage sustained
by the defendant. But it has to be noted that in order to exercise such option the
person shall be the owner of the animal or the building that caused the damage to
the victim‟s legitimate interest. The defendant cannot exercise this options where
the damage was caused by his fault or that of a person for whom he is answerable.
(Article 2074(2) cum Article 2078(2))
143
D. Nominal Damages
The other instance where departure from the rule of equivalence between
compensation and damage comes into operation is related to the award of nominal
damages. As a rule, a claimant in extra contractual liability law has the burden to
prove the nature and the extent of the harm he sustained and the circumstances
that render the defendant liable to make it good. But this is not the case in an
action for nominal damages. Without the need to proving any real or actual damage,
a very small fraction of money can be awarded to the victim simply as a recognition
or declaration of his rights violated or infracted by the defendant. The term
“nominal” connotes the symbolic (unreal) and insignificant nature of the award that
does not correspond to any real damage sustained by the claimant. Its purpose is to
bolster the court‟s declaration that a certain right of the plaintiff is infringed or that
the defendant is liable for the infringement of such right. Nominal damages are
awarded when the claimant has established his case, particularly in relation to
torts actionable per se, such as trespass, but has not shown there is any actual loss.
The award marks his success.
Article 2104 of the civil code that deals with Nominal Compensation states that:
“Damages of a purely nominal amount may be awarded where the action has been
brought solely with a view to establishing that a right of the plaintiff has been
infringed, or that a liability has been incurred by the defendant." Regarding this
point of discussion Professor Krzeczunowicz made the following point:
The Ethiopian Civil Code‟s “nominal compensation” concept is borrowed from the
common law of England, where certain rights grew from tort remedies: the
reactions imply the existence of the rights in question. Violation of the latter (i.e. of
the tort rules protecting the interest involved) was actionable per se and was, in the
absence of harm (injuria sine damno ), sanctioned by, at least, “nominal damages”.
This latter device seems unnecessary in Ethiopia, where rights are based on
144
legislations and statutory remedies for their … infringements abound. This devise
seems unnecessary in Ethiopian case. In the Ethiopian system, the spectrum of non-
nominal redress available in tort cases is so wide as to make nominal damages, as a
rule, pointless. For instance, absence of pecuniary harm does not prevent a plaintiff
from claiming compensation for moral damage, or in all cases where compensation
claimed is other than pecuniary (e.g. under Articles 2119-2123). Even in the absence
of both material and moral damages, the plaintiff may be granted an injunction
against the continuation of a tortuous infringement of his rights. In all these cases,
the relief granted necessarily establishes a violation of the plaintiff‟s rights
(legitimate interest), thus making the “nominal compensation” remedy superfluous.
[Id. Pp.132-133]
13.2 Quantum of Compensation for Moral Damage
The principle of equivalence between damage and compensation envisaged in

Article 2090(1) cum 2091 is practically impossible in the case of moral damage.
Admitting the difficulty or impossibility of the rule of equivalence, our civil code
uses the word “equitable” rather than equivalent as a standard for fixing the
quantum of compensation for moral damage. This is evidenced by the wordings of
Article 2106 through Article 2126 of the civil code that deals with instances of
moral damage that may be subject to monetary compensation in appropriate cases.
Determining the amount of compensation equitable for a given moral harm is not
an easy task. The absence of a concrete standard for measuring non-pecuniary
(moral) loss in terms of money creates the danger that the courts arbitrarily award
different amounts for non-pecuniary harm in comparable cases. [Id. P. 273]
Acknowledging this danger of arbitrariness in assessment of moral damage and the
concomitant discrepancy in the quantum of the awards that may result from such
arbitrariness in assessment, our civil code puts a ceiling amount, which is one
thousand Ethiopian Birr (Article 2116(3)). So, the discrepancy in the Ethiopian case
145
may fall between the smallest positive number and one thousand Ethiopian birr
and possibly between denial of monetary compensation and awarding the highest
figure, one thousand in comparable cases. This is also the case in many countries.
As was discussed earlier, different countries take different positions concerning the
issue whether non-pecuniary (moral) injury to a person‟s interest shall be
compensated monetarily or not. While some countries like the former Soviet Union
deny compensation for moral damage in absolute terms, others like France allow
the compensability of moral damage in monetary equivalence in the same footing as
compensation for material damage. Still some other countries take the middle
position. They allow compensation for moral damage in exceptional cases specified
under the law. A typical example of these countries is Ethiopia which allows
equitable compensation for moral damage in specific cases expressly stated under
the law.
Under the principle of equivalence the idea is that the amount of compensation
must be equal with the amount of damage. The main purpose of compensation here
is that putting the plaintiff in a position he would have been in the absence of the
injurious event as much as possible. Hence, this principle particularly applies to
material damage. As already discussed, moral damage is an injury caused to a
person‟s feeling. It is not as such easy to award a monetary compensation for a
victim in case of moral damage because of the immeasurability of one‟s feeling in
money terms. So the principle of equivalence does not apply to moral damage.
Hence the solution adopted is compensating the victim based on equity. The word
equity in this context refers to standards of fairness and justness, which results
from a conscientious judge‟s appreciation of what is fair in the circumstances of a
case.
However, even between those countries that allow equitable pecuniary

compensation for moral damage, there are discrepancies concerning the extent of
146
the award. As already indicated, the Ethiopian civil code does not allow monetary
compensation for moral damage beyond the ceiling figure - one thousand Ethiopia
Birr. But in some common law jurisdictions, it is commonplace to see hundreds of
thousands and sometimes six digit compensations awarded to the victims of moral
injury. In Ethiopia, too, there seems a general consensus among the general public,
the legislature and the judiciary concerning the inadequacy of the one thousand birr
which is set as a ceiling amount for compensating moral damage under the 1960
civil code of Ethiopia. Under Article 34(4) of the Copy Rights and Neighbouring
Rights Proclamation (proclamation no. 410/2004), the House of Peoples‟
Representatives fixed a minimum of one hundred thousand Ethiopian Birr
compensation for moral injury caused due to the infringement of the copy rights
laws. The Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court in one case (civil
cassation file no. 11042) awarded Birr ten thousand in the form of moral
compensation to a woman whose marriage is terminated due to an act of adultery
committed by here husband during marriage.
13.3 Compensation for personal Injuries

13.3.1. General Damages vs. Pecuniary Loss
General Damages: As discussed in the preceding sub-sections, for the purpose of

determining the mode and extent of compensation awards, authorities usually
categorize the generic term damage into pecuniary (material) damage and non-
pecuniary (moral) damage. Physical injuries caused to a person‟s body often times
bear these two components of damage. For the purpose of convenience, let us
discuss them in turn.
The term “general damages” which may be taken as synonymous with moral
damages refers to the monetary award granted to a person who suffered loss of
amenity, pain and suffering due to the tortuous acts of another person. Loss of
147
amenity is in essence the reduction in the capacity to enjoy life. It will depend in
148
piecework. The cost of care, including the cost of private medical treatment, is also
recoverable. The defendant cannot argue against the claim for the recovery of cost of
private medical treatment by invoking the fact that National Health Service
facilities were available free of charge. Problems have arisen in relation to nursing
care. If this is provided by a professional, it is clearly recoverable. Where it is
provided by a relative out of a sense of moral obligation, it is strictly the case that
the claimant has not suffered a loss, in the sense of paying for the care. The law
takes the common sense view that there is a need which is being met and the
claimant should be in a position to reward the provider, even though it may, in
these family cases, actually amount to compensation to a third party rather than to
the accident victim: Cunningham v Harrison [1973] QB 942. [Id. pp. 374 – 375] This
is the logic behind the refusal to allow the claim where the tortfeasor himself
provided the care: Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 All ER 385 (Cases and Materials
(12.1.2.2)). [Id. p. 375]
It is clearly relatively easy to assess pecuniary loss to date (present material

damage), although in practice, especially in cases of average or below average
complexity, a settlement figure is taken is reached which can take a broad approach
rather than analyzing each item of the claim in fine detail.
On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to assess future loss. While assessing
future pecuniary loss, the following three key variables need to be considered:
(a) the future progress of the injury;
(b) the impact of all the other vagaries of life, such as unrelated
illness, on the claimant;
(c) the claimant‟s future employment prospects. [Id.]
Until recently it was necessary to assess all these in every case, as the court was
obliged to award a final lump sum to cover all heads of claim. In all cases
assumptions were made. In the case of the development of the injury, the main
150
problem in practice is the uncertainty surrounding such complications as late onset

post-traumatic epilepsy following head injuries or osteo-arthritis following limb and
joint injuries. In these cases, the impact of the complication if it occurred, is
assessed and then discounted by the likelihood of it occurring. If osteo-arthritis has
a „value‟ in the particular case of $30,000, and there is a 10 per cent chance of it
occurring, the damages are increased by $3,000. [Id.]
Having taken this scholarly accounts of foreign experience related to the

assessment of pecuniary loss resulting from personal injury, let us turn to
appreciate the way our law tries to handle such complications. In Ethiopia, material
damage (pecuniary loss) that will be “certain to occur” in the future is compensable
without waiting for it to materialize (Article 2092 civil code). Acknowledging the
complications and difficulties in assessing future harms (harms that have not yet
materialized) in advance, especially most bodily harm cases, Article 2102 of the civil
code devised a solution as follows:
“ (1) Where the exact amount of the damage cannot be ascertained, the court fixes it
equitably, taking into account the ordinary course of events and the measures taken
by the injured party.
(2) Nevertheless, no indemnity shall be awarded in respect of a damage of which the
very existence, and not only the amount, is uncertain.”
Here, while assessing future pecuniary losses, in difficult situations, the court is
required to take two things into consideration. Firstly, it has to critically appraise
the usual future consequences of an injury of the type under consideration.
Secondly, it has to consider the measures taken by the victim in aggravating or
otherwise of the consequences of the harm. And then the court is required to fix the
amount of compensation equitably where it is difficult to determine the extent of
the damage exactly. But where the very existence of the damage is uncertain and
questionable, no compensation is required to be awarded on mere speculation.
151
Article 2150(2) of the civil code could also be relied on to address the complication
and uncertainty related to the assessment of future pecuniary loss. Where it is
impossible to finally assess the damage sustained by the victim on the date of
judgment, the court has the discretion to grant a provisional judgment that may be
reconsidered within a period of two years upon the application of the parties. Within
this period of two yours, the medical prognosis concerning the nature and the
gravity of the injury may be completed.
While calculating future damages (compensation), that is, compensation to be

awarded in advance in a lump sum form for pecuniary losses to be suffered by the
claimant in the future, some foreign jurisdictions consider other additional factors
such as inflation and interest. In fixing future compensation, inflationary
tendencies that diminish the real value of the money are required to be considered.
That means, the compensations, needs adjustment, having regard to the rate of
inflation. And since the claimant receives a lump sum now rather than a stream of
income over a period of time, and can invest that lump sum to produce further
income, a discount to such effect has to be made in the compensation.
Having appreciated the assessment of personal injuries and the corresponding

compensatory remedies in a general perspective, let us turn to further appreciate
within the context of a more specific situation by classifying the victims into three
categories based on the nature of their engagement.
13.3.2. Injury of an employee
Like any person, the general losses discussed above such as loss of amenity, pain
and suffering as well as pecuniary losses, may be suffered by an employee, too.
Despite the complications involved in their assessments, general damages are
awarded for injuries caused to a person‟s non-economic (moral) interest. The
discussion made in the previous sub-section concerning general damages is
152
operative for non-pecuniary damage suffered by any person regardless of the

difference in the nature of his occupation. Thus, further discussion concerning this
issue in this sub-section is unnecessary. This section focuses mainly on the economic
losses that may be suffered by an employee due to bodily injuries caused to him by
tortuous acts.
In order to determine the quantum of compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained
by an employee, it is a prerequisite to calculate the economic loss suffered by the
employee due to the bodily injury. Based on the classifications made under Article
99 of the “Labour proclamation No. 377/2003”, bodily injuries that decrease or
impair the capacity of the person injured to work have the following effects:
(a) Temporary disablement
(b) Permanent partial disablement
(c) Permanent total disablement and
(d) Death.
The last injury, death, is not the concern of this sub-section. It will be appreciated in
the subsequent sub-sections. Although theoretically it is possible to categorize
disability as done above, practically determining the exact degree of disablement
even in each category is not an easy task. As Mehari Redae stated in the paper he
presented in the workshop mentioned earlier, different medical experts have been
shown producing different degrees of disablement for the same kind of bodily injury
at different times. In order to show the magnitude of the problem , Mahari cited the
following cases: at one time in medical evidence produced by a medical board
concerning a person whose left leg was cut off because of injury estimated the
degree of disability of that person at 60% (Cassation Bench, Civil case file no.
1/1980 E.C). At another time for a similar injury a medical evidence estimated the
degree of disability to be 45% (Civil Appeal file no. 26/74 E.C) In different case for a
person whose right leg was cut off due to injury, the medical evidence estimated the
disability to be 50% (Cassation Bench, civil case, file no. 320/1981 E.C), and at
another time a medical evidence produced concerning a person one of whose legs
153
rendered useless because of injury, estimated the extent of disability at 20% (Civil
case file no. 1563/75). These are good examples that illustrate the magnitude of the
discrepancy of the medical evidence produced by medical boards concerning the
degree/percentage of disability a certain kind of bodily injury entails to the victim
on his future earning capacity. This discrepancy may be caused mainly due to the
absence of objective bodily injury assessment criteria.
Temporary disablement (incapacity) impairs the working capacity of the worker

partially or totally for a limited period of time. The pecuniary loss that may be
suffered by this worker includes loss of net wage (if any), loss of interest that would
accrue from saving part of the wage, if any, increased outgoings such as medical
expenses and nursing expenses, if proved any, and any other pecuniary loss
occasioned by the temporary cessation of capacity to work for the duration of such
period. But what if the employee receives his full wage during such period? Can the
tortfeasor ask for setoff? See Articles 2093 and 2094 if they would be of some help to
answer this question.
The second type of bodily injury is that of resulting in permanent partial

disablement (incapacity). It refers to incurable bodily injuries that decrease, but not
absolutely impair the victim‟s future working (earning) capacity. While assessing
the material damage suffered by the victim in this case, in addition to calculating
the loss of earning (net income) and the increased outgoings suffered by the victim
up to the date of assessment (judgment), the magnitude of the decrease in the
working capacity of the employed victim and the future earnings that will be
frustrated because of the injury has to also be measured as permanent partial
incapacity decreases the future earning capacity of the victim permanently. For
example, where the working capacity of an employee is permanently decreased by
30%, it is possible to say that his earning capacity during the rest of his working life
is reduced by 30%. So, if the annual salary of the injured worker prior to the injury
was Birr 10,000, and the worker would have been worked for additional 20 years in
154
the same capacity had it not been for the occurrence of the injury, then, his future
loss may be crudely calculated as follows: (10,000 Birr x 30% x 20) plus/minus
inflation minus interest. This calculation is made based on the formula adopted by
some foreign jurisdictions that made adjustment to lump sum award of
compensation for future damage to inflation, and discount interest.
The last type of bodily injury worth discussing is related to the category of injuries
that impairs the working capacity of the victim worker permanently and totally. To
use the wording of the labour proclamation cited above, “permanent total
disablement” means incurable employment injury, which prevents the injured
worker from engaging in any kind of remunerated work. This type of injury not only
results in total frustration of the net income and increases the outgoings of the
injured worker up to the date of judgment, but also frustrates all future gainful
opportunities of the injured worker. Thus, the economic loss caused to the injured
worker in this instance is absolute in its nature. For instance, if you take the
annual salary of the injured worker to be Birr 12,000, and the assumption that this
worker could have continued to work for additional 10 years had it not been for the
occurrence of the injury-causing event, then the pecuniary loss of this worker can be
roughly calculated as follows:
 Present material loss, which includes losses of earnings (at minimum Birr
1000 a month from the date of injury up to date of assessment plus
interest from saving that would have been made, if any), increased
outgoings, e.g. medical and nursing expenses and other consequential
outlays, if proved any.
 Future material losses (losses to be materialized after the date of
assessment or judgment due to the lasting nature of the injury. If the
assessment in this example is made at the end of one year, the future loss
of the worker when calculated in terms of such salary is = [(Birr1000 - tax)
x 9 years] plus/or minus inflation minus Interest. Since awards of
damages are free from tax, the argument is that the net loss should be
155
taken into consideration. In some foreign jurisdictions, although our law is

not clear in this regard, lump sum awards of future damages are adjusted
to inflation, and interest accruals expected from such payment are
discounted from the figure. In addition to the loss related to the loss in the
net salary of the worker per year, future damages may also fairly include
other additional gainful opportunities frustrated due to the injury.
But an important question that would be relevant to all pecuniary losses occasioned
by bodily injury is: How is material loss calculated where the employee receives full
or part of his wages or other benefits during the period of his incapacitation? Can
the tortfeasor ask for setoff? Before trying to address this question in Ethiopian
context, let us see some relevant foreign experiences.
Awards of damages are tax free, so the calculations, e.g. of loss of earnings, must all
be of net of tax: BTCv Gourley [1956] AC 185. Where the claimant has himself
taken out insurance, or is entitled to a pension or other allowance as part of his
terms of employment (whether the scheme is contributory or not), benefits received
are regarded as independent of the defendant, and will not thus be set against
damages. The principle was first established in relation to insurance, being justified
on the basis that the claimant had paid for and earned those benefits: Bradburn
vGWR (1874) LR 10 Exch 1. It was extended by analogy to the pension situation by
Parry v Cleaver [1970] AC 1, and applies even where the pension provider is also
the tortfeasor: Smoker v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority [1991] 2 Ac 502.
The defendant is taken to be wearing two separate hats in this situation. Parry v
Cleaver is also authority for stating that voluntary payments from charitable or
other benevolent sources will be treated as independent and thus not set off.
[Hodgson and Lewthwaite: p. 376]
Sick pay received from an employer, or under a scheme administered by the

employer will be deducted from the claim. The principle was established in Hussain
156
v New Taplow Paper Mills [1988] AC 514, where the employer was also the
tortfeasor, and the sick pay could be seen as in effect a payment on account of
damages. The rule also applies to sick pay where the employer is not the tortfeasor
unless the contract of employment contains, as it normally will, an obligation to
refund sick pay if it is paid in consequence of a tortiously inflicted injury. Now, it is
time to appreciate the case in Ethiopian context.
Whether the damage incurred by the person shall be calculated based on the gross
or net income of the victim after deducting the tax that would have been paid to the
government from the frustrated gross income had the injury causing event not
occurred, our law lacks clarity. Some Ethiopian authorities argue that the gross
income of the victim should be taken into account. For example, Mehari Redae
(2006) argues that the injury sustained by the victim should be calculated based on
the gross income of same, that is without deducting taxes. In support of his
argument, he cited, among other things, Article 13(f) (1) of the Income Tax
Proclamation (proc. No. 386/2002) that exempts compensation to personal injuries
from taxation. However, it does not seem plausible to infer from the very
exemptions of compensation earnings from taxation that the law intends to award
compensation to the victim based on the frustrated gross earning. As it has been
already discussed, the purpose of extra contractual liability is to restore the victim
to a state he would have been had the injury causing event not occurred. Thus, since
the loss incurred by the victim is the net earning, the assessment of pecuniary
damage should be computed based on the monthly or annual net earning of the
victim. In this the principles of equivalence between damage and compensation
envision under Articles 2091 and 2092 of the civil code is contemplated.
In relation to insurance and pension recipients, our law takes similar position with
the cases cited above. As can be inferred from Articles 2093 and 2094 of the civil
code, insurance and pension benefits received by the victim on the occasion of a
bodily injury caused to him cannot be raised by the tortfeasor as a ground to setoff
157
the victim‟s claim for compensation. The tortfeasor cannot escape full liability for
the pecuniary loss he caused to another by inflicting bodily injury. Insurance and
disability pension benefits are independent claims of the victim that cannot be
invoked by the tortfeasor to setoff the victim‟s claim for compensation. But whether
or not this position can be sweepingly extended to other independent benefits
received by the victim on the occasion of the injury is a moot issue for both the
practitioner and the academics.
13.3.3. Injury of self-employed Persons
As contrasted to employees, self-employed persons do not work for wages pursuant

to Article 2512 ff. but for remuneration or income as an independent entrepreneur
pursuant to Article 2610 one doing intellectual work pursuant to Article 2632 ff.,
one in the medical profession pursuant to Article 2639 ff. ,an innkeeper (Article
2653 ff.), publisher (Article 2672 ff. ), or any kind of independent businessman,
craftsman, etc [Krzeczunowicz: p. 62] The phrase includes all classes of persons who
pursue their livelihood in any independent activity other than employment.
Assessment of material damage incurred by self-employed persons resulting from
bodily injuries is much more difficult than loss of wages from an employee. The
earnings of self-employed persons usually fluctuate from time to time because of
uncertain external market and non–market related variables and factors personal
to each person.
However, depending on the nature of the bodily injury, the victim‟s pecuniary injury
can be roughly assessed having regard to his pre -injury earnings. But, even here,
there are difficulties: the plaintiff may have kept no accounts, his other evidence
may be shaky, or he may keep accounts which (for fiscal reasons) conceal some
earnings. Once such hurdles are passed, the self-employed person‟s pre-injury year‟s
earnings could – as in the case of wage-earners, be presumed to represent what
would have been his subsequent yearly earnings as well, subject to counter-
158
evidence by plaintiff and, exceptionally, counter-evidence by defendant. Of course,

this may not be a perfect assessment. In addition to the practical difficulty to
determine the victim‟s pre-injury earnings as stated above, such determination
itself is full of problems. That is, a person‟s pre-injury annual earnings may not
perfectly represent that person‟s life long annual earnings. The conditions of that
person would have been improved or worsened had the injury-causing event not
occurred. Unless the possibility for any of these two extremes are proved to the
contrary, the assessment of post-injury present and future losses of self-employed
persons can be made on the basis of their pre-injury yearly earnings. Even where
pre-injury pecuniary earning cannot be determined exactly, it can be fixed equitably
having regard to surrounding circumstances as discussed elsewhere. The peculiar
problem related to the assessment of the material damage incurred by a self-
employed person is bound in the determination of that person‟s pre-injury earning.
Once this problem is solved, the quantum of compensation can be fixed based on the
frustrated present and future net earnings of the victim, having regard to inflation
and interest adjustment as discussed above.
13.3.4. Injury of Non-Employed Persons
The term “non-employed persons” in this context refers to persons who are neither
employees nor self-employed individuals in the sense discussed under the preceding
sub-sections. The reasons for their unemployment could be, among other things,
lack of incentive, opportunity, or ability to work. Krzeczunowcz in his book under
the title “THE ETHIOPIAN LAW OF COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE” (1977),
pp. 64 – 66, discussed the problems related to the assessment of pecuniary losses
suffered by unemployed individuals because of another person‟s tortuous acts in a
comparative perspective as follows:
(a) Lack of incentive to work professionally may be due to the possession of wealth,
which allows a person choice of leisure or work. Suppose that a medical graduate
159
does not practice because of having inherited enough assets to live on. In case of an
injury disabling him from such practice, it seems that most American courts would
compensate him for loss of professional earning “capacity”, while English courts
would refuse to compensate him for loss of “earnings” which he will not lose. The
latter approach seems imperative for us. Indeed the American practice of placing of
a pecuniary value on a person‟s earning capacity whether or not used and/or
intended to be used is incompatible, in Tort law, with Article 2091of the Ethiopian
civil Code and, in Contract Law, with Article 1800. [Id.]
But an important question that may be raised here is: Can‟t a person have choice
between leisure and work at different times? If he can, does not the injury in the
medical graduate example impair that person‟s post-injury (present and future)
occupational choice? More probably, the answer is, it does impair. Such an absolute
or partial impairment of a person‟s choice for work not only results in a moral shock
to that person but may also frustrate his gainful opportunity in the future due to
the choice foregone by the injury. So, is not the American approach that recompense
impaired professional earning “capacity” logical than the opposite followed by
English courts? Is it possible to conclude that the Ethiopian tort law, regarding the
case in hand, fits the English approach?
(b) Lack of opportunity for permanent work is often connected with the existence of
a largely unused residuum of unskilled workers. When one of them suffers a
disabling injury, the amount of his prospective loss of earnings is very uncertain. In
this country such men, commonly named “coolies”, are, from time to time, called to
do some sporadic work.
(c) Where an injury does not increase a person‟s pre-existing physical and/mental
inability to work, there is no loss of earnings. Where, however, the pre -existing
inability to work for profit is transitional because it is due merely to tender age
(child) or learning process (student), loss of future earnings, even though uncertain
160
in amount, can be claimed. It will be easier to predict in the case of a student or

apprentice than in that of a young infant, whose future is a guess. [Id.] But the
issue here also is whether or not we should bound only by these exceptions. In
another words, should childhood and student hood only be accepted as grounds for
awarding compensation on the basis of equity for material loss presumed to be
suffered some time after? Perhaps, recourse to the preceding discussion under (a)
would suffice to appreciate the problems that may result from accepting this
restrictive classification of pre-existing inability as transitional. Indeed, it would be
rational to deny pecuniary damages for the victim of a bodily injury if his capacity
to work had already been frustrated by fortuitous or other tortuous acts and
nothing was aggravated or added by the subsequent alleged tort.
13.3.5 Compensation for Fatal Accidents
For the purpose of assessment of bodily injuries suffered by employees, we have

already classified disabilities into those that cause physical/mental injury of various
degrees, and injuries resulting in death. Where a person suffers personal injuries
other than death, the nature and extent of the harm can be assessed having regard
to surrounding circumstances of the case and the interest frustrated by the injury.
As will be discussed in the subsequent chapters, in bodily injury cases, it is only the
direct victim of that injury who is entitled to claim compensation for moral and
material injuries suffered by him due to tortuous acts committed by another. No
matter how serious the bodily injury may be, dependants of the victim are not
entitled to independent claim. This is because an award to an injured claimant is
intended to replace his total income, out of which he is expected to maintain his
dependents as he would have done out of his earnings.
161
As a principle, no action for compensation lay for the death of another except by
dependants nominated under the law. The way compensation awards for fatal cases
are treated and the purpose it serves is different. Regarding this issue, interesting
remark is given by an authority, named Lord Diplock: “… the purpose of an award
of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act is to provide the widow and other
dependants of the deceased with a capital sum which with prudent management
will be sufficient to supply them with material benefits of the same standard and
duration as would have been provided for them out of the earnings of the deceased
had he not been killed by the tortuous of the respondent…” (A Case Book on Tort:
pp. 648- 649)
In line with this overriding purpose, the Ethiopian Civil Code under Article 2095
entitled specified dependants of the victim of a mortal accident with the right to
institute a civil action for compensation for the loss of the economic support they
suffered by the death of the person providing such support. Postponing the
discussion related to the prerequisites that the claimants nominated under this
article shall fulfill in order to exercise this right to the subsequent chapters, what
follows is a discussion on the assessment of pecuniary loss occasioned by fatal
accidents.
According to Lord Diplock, the usual method, both England and Northern Ireland,
follow in computing total award for losses sustained by dependents is „multiplying a
figure assessed as the amount of the annual “dependency” by a number of “year‟s
purchase.” If the figure for the annual “dependency” remained constant and could
be assessed with certainty and if the number of years for which it would have
continued were also ascertainable with certainty, it would be possible in time of
stable currency, interest rate and taxation to calculate with certainty the number of
years‟ purchase of the dependency which would produce a capital sum sufficient to
produce an annuity equal in amount to the dependency for the number of years for
which it would have continued.‟ Here, two essential factors are used to calculate the
162
total award: the amount of annual dependency and the number of years‟ purchase.
The term „annual dependency‟ refers to the amount of annual support provided by
the deceased to the dependent at the date of the former‟s death due to the fatal
accident. The term „number of years purchase‟ refers to the number of years such
support may continue, that is, the period between the date of the deceased‟s death
and that at which he would have reached normal retiring age.
Thus, the starting point in any estimate of the number of years that a dependency
would have endured is the number of years between the date of the deceased‟s
death and that at which he would have reached normal retiring age. That is
reduced to take account of the possibility not only that he might have not lived until
retiring age but also the chance that by illness or injury he might have been
disabled from gainful occupation. The former risk can be calculated from available
actuarial tables. The latter cannot. There is also the chance that the widow may die
before the deceased would have reached the normal retiring age (which can be
calculated from actuarial tables). But in so far as the chances that death or
incapacitating illness or injury would bring the dependency to an end increase in
latter years when, from the nature of the arithmetical calculation their effect on the
present capital value of the annual dependency diminishes, a small allowance for
them may be sufficient where the deceased and his widow were young and in good
health at the date of his death…. [Id.]
The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the “dependency” is the annual
value of the material benefits provided for the dependents out of the earnings of the
deceased at the date of his death. But quite apart from inflation, there are many
factors that might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings
might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his
dependents. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have
had spells of unemployment. As his children grow up and become independent the
proportion of his earning spent on his dependents would have been likely to fall.
163
But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible

variations in the dependency, there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is
that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence
there can be in the chances of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be
made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of
the calculation of the present value, the later the change takes place the less will be
its effect on the total award of damages. [Id.]
From the above stated scholarly remarks, one can deduce that there are two
essential factors that need critical consideration in the assessment of dependency
awards occasioned by fatal accidents. These are the „amount of the annual
“dependency” and the number of “years‟ purchase”. But both of these factors are
amenable to different changing variables as noted above. Such changing variables
that might affect both or any of the essential factors in one or another way should
be critically considered., for example, the number of years purchase may be changed
due to unforeseeable circumstances related to the dependant. In order to
accommodate the changing circumstances that may invariably affect the quantum
of compensation due to dependants, the court is at liberty to order the damage to be
made good in the form of periodical allowance (structured settlement) provided that
the judgment debtor is ready to produce adequate security for the payment of the
allowance. This is what Article 2095(2) of the civil code of Ethiopia contemplates.
Another point that needs clarification is related to the difference between

dependency awards and moral damages occasioned by fatal accidents. An award
granted to the dependent of the deceased person is compensatory by its nature. Its
primary objective is to recompense the dependant for the economic or pecuniary
support he suffered by the deceased‟s death due to tortuous act of another. The
support frustrated due to the fatal accident may involve cash and/or services
capable of being valued in terms of money. Whereas awards of moral damages that
may be granted to some close relatives of the deceased are not compensatory by
164
their nature, equitable moral damages may be awarded to close relatives of the
deceased, not in the real sense of compensation for any pecuniary loss; rather as
recognition of the grief and distress they suffered.
The Ethiopian Civil Code also clearly demarcates the distinction between
dependency awards and moral awards both occasioned on the death of a certain
person due to the tortuous act of another person (see Article 2095 cum Article 2113
civil code). So, while assessing the extent of damage ensued in cases of fatal
accidents for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation, it is
imperative to have such distinction in mind.
13.4 Finality of Assessment and Appeals
As discussed earlier, assessment of the extent of damage is a prerequisite for

determining the quantum of compensation. In order to fit the amount of
compensation award to the extent of damage suffered by the claimant pursuant to
the principle of equivalence or reduction to a certain amount where any of the
mitigating circumstances comes into operation, it is imperative to quantify the loss
suffered by the claimant and value it in monetary terms.
Save the exception provided under Sub-Article two, where the court can pass
provisional judgment on the grounds of impossibility of final assessment of damage,
Article 2150(1) of the Ethiopian Civil Code requires assessment of the damage to be
made on the day on which the court renders its final judgment. Thus, two types of
judgments are envisioned under Article 2150. The first is a provisional judgment
that can be granted by the court in exceptional circumstances where it is impossible
to finally assess the damage on that date. The presumable purpose of this
provisional judgment is to provide an interim compensation to a victim who is in
urgent need of means of livelihood. The law in this regard anticipates the
165
difficulties and complications abound the assessment of damage that may prolong
final judgment. So, until such complications are resolved in one way or another and
having regard to the conditions of the claimant, the court can provisionally fix the
amount of compensation award. In this case any of the parties are at liberty to
apply to the court for reconsideration of the provisional judgment within a period of
two years from the date when the provisional judgment was granted. In the absence
of any application to such effect within the time bound, the judgment would be final.
The other judgment is final from the very beginning. Where the extent of damage is
ascertained and valued in terms of money, the court is required to pass its final
judgment concerning the quantum of compensation awards. It is this court
judgment that is stated as “final” in Article 2051(1) of the Civil Code. Finality in the
context of this provision seems to imply two things. Firstly, it implies re judicata.
That is, a person cannot bring fresh action for compensation for another damage
that arose from the same tortuous act that has been already litigated and
determined on the same issues of fact and law. Civil claims arising from a single
and the same transaction cannot be split and be separate grounds of action.
Secondly, it implies the absence of statutory right of appeal as stated in Article

2152. This provision is reproduced as follows: “No appeal shall lie against the
judgment of the court of first instance relating to the amount of compensation.”
Depending on the amount of the claim, extra contractual action for compensation
can be instituted either before the Federal First Instance or the Higher Court or
any of the Regional Courts having jurisdiction. The judgments passed by the courts
under their respective original (first instance) jurisdictions relating to the amount of
compensation are non-appealable, except for the reasons specified under Article
2153 of the Civil Code as follows:
166
(a) the court has considered circumstances which it should not have taken into
account or has failed to consider circumstances which it should have taken
into account; or
(b) the amount of compensation fixed by the court is manifestly unreasonable
and could only have been inspired by prejudice or anger; or
(c) such amount is due to an error of calculation on the part of the court.
The lists provided here as exceptions to the finality of judgments related to the
amount of compensation seem exhaustive. However, such exceptions especially
those provided under list (a) and (b) are broad enough to cover a number of
practical problems related to the assessment of damage and/determination of the
quantum of compensation.
13.5 Modes of Payment

13.5.1 Lump sum Payment: the Rule
Once a claim for compensation is brought before the court having jurisdiction and
upheld by the court, the next important question is how payment of the
compensation award fixed by the court should be executed. Shall the court order the
tortfeasor to dispose (pay) the compensation in a lump sum form – at once or in a
structured form in the form of periodic allowance? These are important issues to be
addressed under this chapter in turn.
As a principle, lump sum payment of compensation is widely recognized in almost

all jurisdictions as an appropriate mode of disposition of awards for civil wrongs.
Our Civil code also, although lacks clarity to the desired degree, seems in line with
this principle. Pertinent provision in this regard is Article 2154, which deals with
the possibilities where the court may order compensation awards to be disposed in
the form of periodical allowance in appropriate cases. In order to make the
167
discussion clear, Sub Article one of Article 2154 is reproduced as follows: “ (1) Where
such mode of payment is justified by the nature of the damage or other
circumstances, the court may order the damage to be made good by means of a
periodical allowance." From the very wordings of this sub-article inference can be
made that lump sum payment of compensation is the ordinary rule of compensation
in Ethiopia. As an exception to this rule implied in this sub-article, the court is
conferred with a narrow discretion to order payment of compensation awards in the
form of periodical allowances only for strong justifications. In the ordinary parlance
of the law, payment of compensation in lump sum form may have extra advantages.
It is easy for execution and avoids further complications in the relation of the
judgment debtor and judgment creditor. It avoids any sense of insecurity on the
part of the judgment creditor whether or not payment will be frustrated by
intervening events, which some times happens in the case of periodical allowance.
But it has to be noted that when the court is convinced to depart from the rule for
strong reasons, it has to make sure first that the judgment debtor can produce
adequate security for the payment of the allowance. Sub-Article two of Article 2154,
which says: “In such a case, the debtor shall provide security for the payment of the
allowance” has to be considered as a cumulative requirement to order periodic
allowance as a mode of payment of the compensation award.
13.5.2 Periodical Allowance: Exception
As incidentally mentioned above, periodical allowance, also known as “structured

settlement” is recognized as a mode of payment of compensation in exceptional
cases. Having regard to the nature of the damage to be made good and other
relevant circumstances, the court is at liberty to order the damage to be made good
in the form of periodical allowance (structured settlement) provided that the
168
judgment debtor is ready to produce adequate security for the payment of the
allowance.
Thus, the nature of the damage to be made good is a key element in determining the
mode of payment of compensation awards. As was discussed somewhere else,
damage is a harm caused to a person‟s interests and these interests at stake can be
classified into various components such as material vs. moral damage, present
damage vs. future damage. There are different difficulties, complications and
uncertainties related to the assessment of the extent of damage, which are the
prerequisite for determining the quantum of compensation awards. Particularly,
these complications are prevalent in the assessment of future pecuniary losses.
For example, in the assessment of the total pecuniary losses suffered by dependants
in the case of fatal accidents, there are two essential factors that need to be
considered. These are „the amount of annual “dependency” and the number of
“years‟ purchase”.‟ But as discussed earlier, these essential factors cannot be
determined for certain as they are amenable to unavoidable intervening variables
that cannot be accurately foreseen. So, the determination of future damage
(pecuniary loss), particularly the overall pecuniary losses suffered by dependants in
the case of fatal accidents is more than difficulty. The quantum of compensation
fixed in advance based on a number of uncertain assumptions might not accurately
measure the future loss. Thus, in order to make the quantum of compensation fit to
the extent of the damage, circumstances dictate the court to order periodic
allowance as a mode of payment. The important essence of periodic allowance is
that it is amenable to changes occasioned by the changes in the assumptions made
during the assessment of the damage.
These and other pertinent reasons may be taken by the court as justifications to
order payment of compensation awards in the form of periodical allowance instead
169
of a single payment in lump some form. This is, for example, what Article 2095(2) of
our civil code envisions.
Review Questions
1. Proving damage is a prerequisite for claiming compensation in extra
contractual liability law. Comment on it.
2. Who shoulders the burden to prove damage?
3. Discuss the modalities of assessment of material and moral damage
4. Compare and contrast between equivalent compensation and equitable
compensation.
5. Discuss why the principle of equivalence becomes relevant for material
damage but not for moral damage.
6. Discuss the circumstances that justify departure from the principle of
equivalent compensation for material damage.
7. Discuss the meaning of the “finality” clause in relation to the assessment of
damage and determination of the quantum of compensation.
8. Discuss the following payment modalities of compensation:
 Lump sum payment
 Periodical payment
9. Discuss the circumstances that make periodical payment of compensation
preferable to lump sum form of payment.
10. What are the measures to be taken in favour of the claimant while the court
orders periodical payment of compensation
11. Discuss the difference between provisional determination and final
determination of compensation envisioned under article 2150 of the Civil
Code.
12. Discuss the circumstances that may justify provisional determination of
compensation.
170
Chapter XIV: Action for Compensation
14.1. Who May Claim Compensation?
Claimants (plaintiffs) in Law of torts can be classified into independent claimants

and derivative claimants. Claimants falling under the first category are those who
can institute a civil action for compensation on their own behalf, whereas those
falling under the second category can institute action by subrogating (substituting)
the victim of the tort. The basis of the subrogation could be contractual or legal.
14.1.1. Independent Claimants
One or more persons may bring independent action for compensation for injuries
resulting from a given tort. But in order to bring such action each person must have
interest at stake. That is, proving damage caused to one‟s legitimate interest is a
prerequisite for instituting action for compensation in tort. So, in order to stand as
an independent claimant, the plaintiff must show vested interest in the subject
matter of the suit. This prerequisite, which is set under Article 33(2) of the civil
procedure code, is applicable for civil actions .
Having noted this procedural hurdle, let us discuss the possible persons that may
sue for compensation on their own behalf by invoking the relevant provisions of the
Ethiopian extra contractual liability law.
A. The Victim Himself. In a case where a non-mortal bodily injury is caused to a

person or where an injury is caused to any person‟s material interest, only
that person whose interest is at stake can sue the harm doer for
compensation. As clearly provided under Article 2146(1) of the civil code, the
victim‟s claim against the person liable for the damage may not be assigned
so long as it has not been upheld by a judicial decision and the amount fixed.
That is to say that the right to institute action for compensation is personal
171
by its nature. This very right per se cannot be transferred or assigned to a

third party. But once the victim himself took his case before a court of law
and won it, he is at liberty to assign fully or partly the compensation awarded
to him to a third party in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1962 –
1975 of the civil code.
However, there are exceptional circumstances where a person can institute an

independent action for compensation on his own behalf for the non-mortal bodily
injury ensued to another person. These persons are stated under Articles 2114 and
2115 of the civil code. Sub-Article 2 of Article 2114 states “where a girl or a woman
has been raped, equitable compensation may also be awarded to the husband of the
woman, or to the family of the girl.” This refers to the amount that may be
independently claimed in the form of compensation by the husband of the woman or
the family of the girl raped apart from the compensation awarded to the direct
victims (the woman or the girl raped). For example, if 1000 Ethiopian birr, which is
the maximum amount for moral injury, is awarded in the form of moral damages to
the woman or the girl raped, another additional 1000 Birr or less may be awarded
to the husband of the woman or the family of the girl following an independent
action by the husband or the family of the girl to such effect.
Q. Would the reverse be applicable if the husband is raped in an act of

homosexuality?
The other exception provided under Article 2115 deals with a bodily harm to a wife.
As per this article, where the companionship of the wife is rendered less useful or
less agreeable to the husband because of tortuous act of another person, apart and
in addition to the compensation awarded to the woman for the bodily injury she
sustained, the husband of the woman can institute an independent action for
compensation against the harm doer.
172
B. Next of Kin in Case of Mortal Accidents

B.1. Dependants of the Deceased for Compensation of Material Damage
As was discussed earlier, when a person dies from an accident caused to him, some
of his specified dependants are entitled to institute an independent action for
compensation against the person liable. As provided under Article 2095(1) of the
civil code, the spouse of the victim, his ascendants and descendants can institute an
independent action for compensation for the material damage they have sustained
because of the death of the victim. Despite the use of the term „his‟ in this provision
the victim of the mortal accident could be either of the spouses. Thus, if any of the
persons listed under Article 2095 are able to show that he had been receiving a
material support from the victim and that the support would have continued had
the death of the victim not resulted from the accident, he can institute action for
compensation against the person liable. The list provided under Article 2095(1)
seems exhaustive. Surprisingly, brothers and sisters who were dependents of the
victim of mortal accident cannot claim compensation for the loss of support they
forgo due to the death of their breadwinner brother or sister. because, to this effect
Article 2096 states “No other persons shall have independent claims to be
compensated because of a mortal accident, even where a plaintiff was factually
supported by the victim, or the latter was bound to maintain him.” Another
important issue related to Article 2095 is whether or not the term “descendants of
the victim” covers an adopted child. But the general opinion is that since an adopted
child is considered under the law as the natural child of the adopter for all practical
purposes, he should be treated as the descendant of the victim in Article 2095.
So, in order to be entitled to such a right the person must not only be within the list
provided under sub-Article one of Article 2095 but must also prove that he had been
receiving material support from the victim of the mortal accident, which would
have been presumed to continue had it not been for the death of the person ensued
because of the accident. If the dependant(s) mentioned is able to show that he was
173
receiving some sort of material support from the deceased in a regular manner until
the death of the latter, the continuity of such support has to be presumed unless
otherwise the defendant proved to the contrary.
According to authorities, the purpose of the law in conferring the right to institute
independent claims to the person s specified above is probably to help such
claimants in getting compensation for the loss of the material support they would
have received from the deceased had be not been killed by the event for which the
defendant is liable. An important question may be raised here. That is, should the
claimants be in a state of necessity for care and support in order to sue the
defendant by invoking Article 2095 of the civil code? In this regard the law is not
clear enough. As cited by Mehar Redae in a paper he presented in a workshop
mentioned earlier, in a case brought before the former Sidama Administrative
Region High Court in Awassa (civil case file no. 78/77 E.C.), a certain person sued
another person for compensation by indicating that he had lost his child because of
a car accident for which the defendant was liable. According to Mehari, the
defendant objected to the plaintiff‟s claim for compensation stating that he
(plaintiff) was a high income self-reliant trader and could support others in
destitution. Mehari further cited a similar case brought before the Federal Supreme
Court (Civil Appeal file no. 2325/88 E.C.) by ascendants who lost their child because
of a car accident claiming compensation by invoking Article 2095 of the civil code.
According to Mehari, the Court rejected the claim for compensation for the following
reason:
Respondents (ascendants) did not prove that they were dependent up on the money
they received from the deceased. The material support that the deceased was
providing to them on the occasion of holidays could be considered as a gift; it could
not be regarded as support provided to the respondents in the form of a
maintenance/allowance. They did not fulfill the criteria mentioned in Article 2095 of
the civil code mentioned above. On top of this, since the livelihood of the
respondents depend on agriculture, they are self-reliant in terms of allowance.
174
Thus, their claim for compensation on the basis of the support that was provided to
them in the form of bonus on the occasion of holidays ha s no legal basis.
(Translation mine) According to this line of argument, unless the material supports
that were supplied by the deceased person to the persons enumerated under Article
2095 in a regular manner and the receivers of the support were in a state of
necessity to claim maintenance allowance (in the sense of Articles 807- 812 of the
civil code) but for the occurrence of his death, the claim for compensation by such
persons cannot be sustained under the law.
On the other hand, according to Mehari, there are arguments that contradict the
reasoning of the court provided above. It is argued that the only similarity between
the rights of a person who may claim maintenance allowance by invoking Article
807 through Article 812 of the civil code and those who may invoke Article 2095 of
the same is that the appropriate manner of payment of compensation under both
cases is periodical allowance. The obligation to provide maintenance allowance as
per Article 812 & ff. of the civil code emanates from the consanguinal or affinal
relationship that exists between the allowance provider and the receiver. The rights
and obligations of the provider of the allowance and the receiver of the same
depends, firstly on the existence of a specified family relationship under the law,
secondly on the capacity of the debtor (the person responsible to provide allowance)
and thirdly on the need of the creditor (the person entitled to receive maintenance
allowance) from the debtor. All these are cumulative requirements. But the first
and the second elements in this case are not relevant requirements for the
independent claimants envisioned under Article 2095 of the civil code. The
defendant contemplated under Article 2095 is liable to compensate the claimants
enumerated over there for the loss of material support they would have received
from the deceased had not the latter been killed by the event for which the
defendant is liable. Family relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff and the
credit worthiness of the defendant are immaterial.
175
However, it is a moot issue whether or not the third requirement should be taken as
essential element to establish liability under Article 2095. According to the
reasoning of the court mentioned in the above case (Civil Appeal file no. 2325/88
E.C.), it seems a requirement. But there are contradictory arguments developed in
other cases. Mehari Redae cited the following conclusion reached by the Hawassa
High Court in one case:
The awarding of a compensation claimed by a father for the damage he incurred due
to the mortal accident resulting from on extra contractual wrong shall be considered
in accordance with Article 2027 and ff, especially in accordance with Articles 2090-
2091 and 2095 of the civil code. Since it is not a claim for maintenance allowance
invoked between descendants and ascendants, sisters and brothers or other blood
relatives, the provisions of the civil code listed from Articles 807-812 are not
applicable. (Translation mine) The reasoning of the court in this case seems
plausible. The strong reason behind Article 2095 may be just to help persons
enumerated there to get compensation for the material benefit frustrated because of
the death of a person within the relationship defined there due to the tortuous act of
another person. The law may be highly motivated to provide redress for those
persons who may be rendered helpless due to the death of their breadwinner within
the relation defined under Article 2095. But the question is that would it be faire to
deny compensation to those persons mentioned in Article 2095 for the loss of the
material support they forgo due to the death of the person mentioned there by the
tort of another person, for the mere reason that they are not in a state of necessity
to claim maintenance allowance in the sense of Articles 807-812 of the civil code?
Should the law favor the plaintiff or the defendant in this case?
Another important point related to the discussion here is where the deceased is a
minor. That is, may the persons enumerated in Article 2095 claim compensation for
the loss of material support they suffered because of the death of their child who
was below the statutory majority age? As cited in Mehari Redae‟s unpublished
176
paper mentioned above, there was a case appealed to the Federal Supreme Court
(Civil Appeal File No. 480/88 E.C.). In this case, according to Mehari, the mother of
a 14 year old deceased student claimed compensation for the loss of material
support she alleged to suffer due to the death of her son by an event for which the
defendant was liable. The mother stated that although her son was a regular
student, he used to sell cigarettes and other related items in his extra time and
support her from the money he earned from such activities. She claimed a
compensation of the benefit she would have received from her deceased son had not
his death occurred. According to Mehari, the court rejected the claim for
compensation stating that the deceased who was a 12 or 14 years old at the time of
his death did not have the legal duty to provide maintenance allowance to his
mother. Hence, as per the court‟s reasoning even though the mother‟s factual
allegation of loss of support is proved true, she had no legal right to claim
maintenance allowance from the deceased who had no legal duty to provide
maintenance allowance to his mother under such age category. However, the
court‟s reasoning in this case does not seem in the spirit of the law. As was
mentioned above, the rights and obligations of the provider of maintenance
allowance and the receiver of same depends, firstly on the existence of a specified
family relationship under the law, secondly on the economic capacity of the debtor
(the person responsible to provide allowance) and thirdly on the need of the creditor
(the person entitled to receive maintenance allowance) to the debtor. Age does not
seem a requirement in imposing the duty to provide maintenance allowance.
B.2. Family of the Deceased for Compensation of Moral Damage
When a person dies from a tortuous act of another person, the families of the victim
may claim compensation for the moral damage they suffered by the family due to
the death of their family member. Needless to say, the death of a spouse, ascendant,
descendant, brother or sister or other members within the close family tie inflicts
grief and sorrow to the family of the deceased. Thus, the family (through their
177
qualified representative who may be determined in accordance with local custom as
per Article 2116 or in default of it by the law as provided Article 2117 of the civil
code) can sue the person liable for compensation of the moral damage they suffered
due to the death of their family member because of an event that makes the
defendant liable. The court is given the discretion to award equitable moral
damage to the family of the deceased having regard to local custom and the ceiling
figure set under 2116(3) of the civil code.
14.1.2. Derivative Claimants
178
Article 683(1) of the commercial code also state: “The insurer who has paid the
agreed compensation shall substitute himself to the extent of the amount paid by
him for the beneficiary for the purpose of claiming against third parties who caused
the damage.” Although Article 2093(3) of the civil code recognized the possibility of
subrogation or substitution when the insurer and the insured agreed to such effect
under the insurance contract, Article 683(1) of the commercial code made
subrogation mandatory. But it has to be noted that even under the commercial code
subrogation is made mandatory only when the insurance is related to an object.
Article 678 of the commercial code states: “A contract for the insurance of an object
is a contract for compensation. The compensation shall not exceed the value of the
object insured on the day of the occurrence.” So, if the insured victim is
compensated fully by the insurance company for the risk caused to his object by a
third party, then the insurance company as of right can subrogate (substitute) the
insured to bring action for indemnity against the third party responsible for the
materialization of the risk. As the purpose of both insurance law and extra-
contractual law is not to make the victim more rich but to restore him to his
previous position to the extent possible by awarding him a monetary equivalent to
the harm caused to his pecuniary interest, the commercial code as contrasted to the
civil code seems logical in making subrogation mandatory. Thus, to the extent the
insurer compensates the insured for the material damage sustained by the latter
because of the materialization of the risk covered under the insurance policy, the
former can legally subrogate the insured for the purpose of claiming indemnity from
the third party responsible for the materialization of the risk.
The other point of contrast between the civil code and the commercial code in
relation to subrogation is that while the former makes contractual subrogation
sweepingly possible in Article 2093(3), the latter makes subrogation absolutely
impossible when the insurance is against a risk to persons. As per Article 689 of the
commercial code “a contract for the insurance of persons shall not be deemed to be a
contract for compensation. The amount insured may be freely fixed and shall be due
180
regardless of the damage suffered by the insured person.” The human person‟s body
or life is extra-commercium in the sense that it cannot be subjected to market
transaction and so cannot be valued in terms of market price unlike the insurance
of objects. The amount fixed under the insurance contract does not indicate the
market value of the risk covered by the insurance. So, when an insured person
suffers injury to his person because of the materialization of the risk covered under
the insurance policy, he can claim the amount fixed under the insurance policy from
the insurance company. In addition, the victim can claim compensation from the
tortfeasor by invoking the relevant provisions of the civil code. Since the amount
paid by the insurance company is by definition not compensation, over (double)
compensation cannot be raised as an issue. In this case the insurer cannot claim
indemnity from the tortfeasor by substituting the insured victim (Art. 690 com.
code). Sub-Article 1 of Article 2093 of the civil code seems relevant to insurance of
persons.
14.2. Who May Be Sued in Tort?
As you may remember from your reading on law of persons, any entity endowed
with legal personality is the subject of rights and obligations from birth to death. So
a person, be it physical or juridical, can sue and be sued before court of law. For
example, minors can sue and be sued in their own names in tort through the help of
their agents. Organizations endowed with legal personality such as trade unions
and other bodies corporate can also sue and be sued in their own names. Having
this general information in mind, let us turn to the specific point of discussion
concerning persons who can be sued in tort.
14.2.1. The Author of the Damage
A person may, by his action or inaction, cause damage to another. This person may
be held liable to compensate the victim. The basis of his liability is his own faulty
conduct or in exceptional circumstances his faultless activities or engagements. The
181
author of the tort or wrongful damage could be one or more persons acting in
concert or independently. For example, two drivers may involve in a car collision
and cause damage to a pedestrian. Regardless of whether the wrong committed by
these drivers is in concert or independent, they are equally liable to the damage
suffered by the pedestrian as per Article 2084(1) of the civil code unless proved that
the damage is caused solely by the fault of one of the drivers in which case the
driver at fault would be made fully liable. In all circumstances the author of the
wrongful damage is liable to make good the damage he caused to another by his
fault or sometimes-faultless behavior regardless of whether or not there is another
third party answerable under the civil law (Art.2136).
However, there may be a situation where there is a difficulty to identify the

wrongful author of the damage. As a pragmatic solution to this difficulty, Article
2142(1) of the civil code provides: “Where damage has been caused by the fault of
one or another of several persons and it is impossible to determine which of the
persons involved is the author, the court may, where equity so requires, order the
damage to be made good by the group of persons who could have caused it and
among whom the author of the damage is certainly to be found.” In order to make
the group liable, first the court must be certain enough that the author of the
damage is found within the group identified, second it must be absolutely
impossible to determine the one who caused the damage from the group, and lastly
the court is expected to exercise its discretion whether or not its decision is in the
interest of justice. But any member of the group should be relieved from liability if
he can prove his innocence in an equivocal manner.
14.2.2. The Vicarious Defendant
In addition to the author of the damage, the victim of the tort can also sue the
vicarious defendant for compensation jointly and severally with the author where
there is a relationship recognized under the law between the author of the damage
182
and the vicarious defendant and the damage is caused by the former during the
course and within the scope of such relationship. As you have already appreciated
in the previous parts of this course, there are certain relations recognized under the
law that makes one person liable for the tort committed by another person. In this
case, the author of the tort and the vicarious defendant (person answerable under
the civil law) are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the victim.
That means, the victim can sue the author of the tort and the vicarious defendant
jointly and severally. This is what Article 2136(1) of the civil code clearly stipulates
and Article 2155(1) of the same code reinforces. So, the person responsible for the
tort committed by minors, the employers for torts committed by their employees,
bodies corporate for torts committed by their agents, representatives and salaried
employees, the state and its administrative territories and organs for torts
committed by officials and civil servants of the state are respectively answerable
under the civil law.
14.2.3. Heirs of the Person liable
As was discussed above, heirs of the victim can sue the person liable claiming
compensation for the material damage suffered by the victim. Here in this sub-
section, you will appreciate cases where the heirs of a deceased person may be sued
for the damage caused by the latter during his lifetime. This goes with the principle
that a person shall not inherit only the rights of the deceased person but also the
obligations attached to such rights. So, if a certain person named Mr. Z is involved
in a car accident because of his sole fault and died from such accident, and his
property devolved to his son named Y, then an action for compensation can be
instituted before court of law against Y by any innocent person who suffered injury
in such accident or in any other actionable tort committed by Z during his lifetime.
However, the liability of an heir may not exceed the value of the property devolved
to him by virtue of the succession.
183
14.3. Immunities
As was discussed somewhere else in this course material, any person who by his
fault causes damage to another is liable to make the damage good. But this is not
always the case. There are certain persons to whom the law extends special
protection and exculpates them from tort liability. According to Article 2137 of the
civil code, “No action for liability based on a fault committed by Him may be
brought against His Majesty the emperor of Ethiopia.” The wording of this provision
reflects the prevailing political reality of Ethiopia in the 1960s. The absolute
immunity granted to the Emperor goes in line with the then saying “Negus
Aykesess Semay Aytaress” which literally means the king cannot be sued and the
sky cannot be ploughed.
As per Article 2138 of the civil code, ministers, members of parliament and judges
are also legally immune from tort liability. Accordingly, “No action for liability may
be brought because of facts connected with their office against:
“ (a) a member of the Imperial Ethiopian Government; or
(b) a member of the Ethiopian Parliament; or
(c) a judge of the Ethiopian courts.”
The wordings of the provisions reflect the nature of the existing government at
time when the law was enacted. The phrase “members” of the Imperial Ethiopian
Government under 2138(a) seems to refer to ministers. But has to be construed
broadly in line with the currently prevailing governmental system to include not
only “ministers” or “members of the cabinet of ministers” operating at the federal
level but also the top executive officials in the respective regional states of Ethiopia.
Unlike the absolute immunity granted to the Emperor, the immunity granted to
ministers, members of the parliament and judges under Article 2138 seems
qualified. That is, it is not an absolute protection from liability. As per Article 2139
of the civil code, if any person protected under Article 2138 of the code has been
criminally convicted under the penal code he would be personally liable to the civil
184
damage caused to another because of such criminal act. The immunity from
personal liability in this case operates in so far as the injury causing conduct of the
person(s) is connected with their respective office and such conduct is not
condemned under the penal code.
However, it has to be noted here that the purpose of the legal immunity granted
under the provisions discussed above is not to render the victim helpless. The
victim of the tort may bring action for compensation against the state in
appropriate cases by invoking the pertinent provisions of the law dealing with
vicarious liability of the state for the tort of its officers. But it would be unfair and
unadvisable, for example, to make a judge personally liable for damages he has
caused to another during the discharge of his duty in good faith. To do so may
intimidate judges and hamper the justice process.
It has to be noted further that the provisions of the code under Articles 2137 and
2138 has to be construed in line with the existing administrative structure of the
Federal system of Ethiopia.
14.4. Period of Limitation
An action for compensation can be instituted only within the time bound set by law.
If the victim of a tort fails to exercise such right within the time bound set under
the law, he can no longer exercise such right after the expiry of the period
successfully. As per Article 2143 of the civil code, there are two types of period of
limitations within which an action for compensation may be instituted before the
court of law. The first one is the two years period that is stipulated under sub-
Article 1. And the second is the period of limitation provided under the penal code
for the particular criminal offence that gives rise to civil claim, tort (Art. 2143(2)).
Where the period of limitation prescribed under the penal law for the particular
offence is less than two years, then the period of two years provided under Sub-
185
Article 1 of Article 2143 becomes operative. Whereas when the period of limitation
set under the penal law for such criminal offence is longer than two years, this
period becomes operative to the advantage of the victim of the tort. However, in
order for the longer period of limitation prescribed under the penal code to operate,
the tortfeasor has to be convicted criminally for the same act that gives rise to tort
liability.
Review Questions
1. When do you think an action for compensation can be instituted?
2. Who can claim compensation in tort law?
3. Discuss the differences between independent claimants and derivative
claimants.
4. Who can claim compensation for moral damage in tort law?
5. Identify the persons who can be sued for damage in tort.
6. Discuss what the concept of immunity is all about.
7. Identify persons immune from liability for damage and discuss the scope of
the protection given to them.
186
PART IV
Chapter XV Unjust Enrichment
15.1. Doctrinal Foundation
The law of unjust enrichment, also known as restitution, is a fundamental part of

our laws although neglected by legal scholars and practitioners. Some authorities
labeled this law as the third branch of civil liability along with contract and torts.
But some other authorities treat the law of unjust enrichment as a „gap filler‟, that
is, a law that only comes into operation when the laws of contract, property and tort
fail to provide appropriate remedy for one or another reason in their respective
province. Accordingly, they subordinate the law of unjust enrichment to other areas
of private law, namely contract, tort and property laws.
The law of unjust enrichment is built upon the basic maxim of the doctrine which
prescribes “a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is
required to make restitution to the other.” Based on this fundamental tenet, the law
of unjust enrichment, which is inappropriately named as “unlawful enrichment”
under the civil code, is recognized as a separate ground of civil action in Ethiopia.
So, this chapter will introduce you to the principles and rules governing unjust
enrichment and the circumstances whereby this law is called upon for operation.
15.2. General
namn15v2r4.275
ProvisionsTfApplicable(
16on )28(p15(t)21(o)-24( )15(U)75(F)7U)75(F)7U1 A
187
person‟s unjustifiable intervention. So such impoverishment or loss has to

be quantified and indemnified by the person liable. Being a claim for
indemnity, the liability of the person made accountable shall not exceed
the impoverishment caused to the right holder because of the gainful
invasion.
 „…and within the limit of his own enrichment.‟ This phrase implies that
the gain derived from the work or property of another without cause
justifying it could be less than, equal to or greater than the
impoverishment caused to the right holder. In this case when the gain is
equal to the impoverishment caused to the right holder, there is no
problem as all such gain has to be restituted to the right holder. But the
problem is when the gain derived is less than or greater than the
impoverishment. As to the law, it is clear and simple; where the gain
derived by the defendant is greater than the impoverishment caused to
the right holder, the liability of the former is limited to the extent of the
latter‟s impoverishment. But where the gain derived is less than the
impoverishment caused to the right holder, the liability of the defendant
is limited to the actual gain he derived. The question here is why the law
prefers this position. Why should the law not require the defendant to
fully indemnify the right holder under all circumstances?
In a nutshell, the law of unjust enrichment comprises three basic elements. These
elements are:
(a) Benefit acquired by the defendant
(b) At the plaintiff‟s expense (from the plaintiff‟s resource)
(c) In an unjust manner (injustice)
Where these cumulative elements are met, the person who has been impoverished
by the unjustified act of another can successfully institute an action for restitution
based on the law of unjust enrichment.
The subsequent Article qualifies the principle stated under Article 2162 of the civil
code. Article 2163 of the civil code under the title “Loss of enrichment” provided in
189
Sub-Article 1 that: “Restitution is not due to the extent to which the defendant can
show that he is no longer enriched at the time of the claim for restitution.” This
means, even if the plaintiff proved that the defendant enriched himself at his
expense, the defendant would not be liable to indemnify the plaintiff if he succeeded
to prove that the benefit or enrichment had already gone from him. But this defense
cannot stand valid where the defendant has parted with the enrichment in bad faith
or where, at the time of parting with it he should have been aware that he was
bound to make restitution (Article 2163(2)). So the defendant can raise Sub-Article
1 as a defense validly only if he has parted with the benefit in good faith before the
time when a claim for restitution is brought before the court. But proof of his
objective or subjective knowledge of the fact that he knew or should have known
that he was bound to make restitution to the right holder when he was parted with
the enrichment is a strong indication for absence of good faith. Where the unjust
enrichment has been transferred gratuitously to a third person, the claim for
restitution may be brought against the latter (Article 2163(3)).
15.3. Grounds of Unjust Enrichment
A. Undue Payment
Without defining what the term undue payment is, Article 2164(1) of the civil code
states: “Whosoever had paid what he did not owe may claim restitution of it.” In
order to clarify this provision, it seems important to quote Article 2165 of the code
which reads:
“Restitution is not admitted where a person cognizant of the facts pays voluntarily
what he knew he did not owe.” This provision qualified the scope of application of
Article 2164(1). The cumulative reading of these two provisions implies that when a
person paid what he did not owe due to a mistake or the wrong appreciation of facts,
he can claim restitution of such payment including the increments of the thing, or
190
the legal interest on the money starting from the date of payment, where the payee
acted in bad faith. Conversely, even if the person does not owe payment, if such
payment is made voluntarily with full knowledge of the facts, restitution of such
payment may not be claimed. The same is true when the payment is made in the
performance of a prescribed or moral obligation unless the payer lacks capacity to
alienate gratuitously (Art. 2166(1) (2)). Another provision related to restitution of
payment worth noting is stated under Article 2167 of the civil code. Sub-Article 1 of
this provision relieved the receiver of the undue payment from the obligation to
return what he has received if, due to such payment, he has in good faith destroyed
or cancelled his title, relinquished the security for his claim or allowed his action
against the true debtor to lapse. When this happens, the person who made the
undue payment may recourse against the true debtor only (Art. 2167(2)).
As discussed earlier, restitution is a remedy that may be sought by a person on the

basis of unjust enrichment. Literally, the term restitution may be defined as the
„action of giving something that was lost or stolen back to its proper owner.‟
Technically speaking, restitution is a remedy that may be sought from the court to
order the defendant to return things which have been taken improperly and its
increments to the right holder. In a nutshell, it is an act of returning the thing itself
and its increments to the right holder. Restitution as a remedy can be sought not
only for an unjust enrichment; it can also be sought as a remedy in law of contract
when a contract is cancelled or invalidated for one or another reason, and in tort
laws in appropriate cases.
Where the thing required to be restituted has deteriorated, lost or where restitution
of the thing in kind to the person entitled becomes impossible for various reasons,
the defendant may be obliged to pay the value of the thing in the form of indemnity,
having regard to its market value at the time when it becomes impossible to return
it in kind. This is true even if the deterioration or loss of the thing is caused by force
majeure, if at the time when this occurred the defendant knew that he had no valid
191
contractual or legal right to the thing (See Article 2175 through Article 2177). These
provisions should have been incorporated under the section that deals with undue
payment as alternative or supplementary remedies to restitution.
B. Expenses
The other important part of the law of unjust enrichment worth discussing deals
with the deduction of expenses. This part is no more concerned with restitution of
benefits (enrichments) from the acquirer to the person at whose expense such
benefit is acquired. Rather it is concerned with the rights of the person bound to
make restitution of the thing in controversy to demand reimbursement for some
expenses he has made to preserve the thing and/or the right to retain increments
made on the thing. Since the purpose of the law of unjust enrichment is to rectify
injustice, it would be unjust to require the person who is bound to make restitution
of the thing to surrender all the investments he has made on the thing and/or to
deny him the deduction of expenses he has made in good faith to preserve the thing
subject to restitution.
As discussed above, the defendant is liable to make restitution of the thing and/or
indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of the latter‟s impoverishment and, within the
limit of his own enrichment (Art.2162 civil code). This is to say not only the
plaintiff‟s claim cannot and shall not exceed the loss caused to him by the
defendant‟s gainful invasion but also the defendant may not be held liable beyond
the limit of his enrichment. Here, there are two variables that need to be calculated:
the plaintiff‟s loss (impoverishment) and the defendant‟s enrichment or positive
gain, because proof of both these variables is a prerequisite to determine the extent
of the liability of the defendant to make restitution of the thing and/or indemnify
the plaintiff. So the critical question here is how can one calculate the benefits
derived by the defendant from the work or property of another. Is the defendant
entitled to deduct the expenses he has incurred in obtaining such gain? In order to
192
appreciate these questions, it becomes deems important to have recourse to the

relevant provisions of the civil code.
Article 2168 sets a general rule as follows: “Where a person is bound to return a
thing which has been in his possession for some time, his rights and obligations
arising out of any modifications he may have made to such a thing are, unless
otherwise provided by law, or contract, subject to the following provisions.”
According to Article 2168, where there is contrary stipulation provided by law or in
the agreement of parties to a contract, the provisions subsequent to it will not be
operative. What follows is a discussion of the governing provisions envisioned under
Article 2168 of the civil code.
Reimbursement of necessary Expenses: Without defining or explaining what

necessary expenses are, Article 2169 of the civil code states: “Whosoever is bound to
make restitution shall be reimbursed of the expenses he has incurred in preventing
the loss or deterioration of the thing, unless such expenses were not useful, or were
rendered necessary by his own fault.” As per this article, the person who is bound to
make restitution is entitled to reimbursement of the expenses he has incurred in
preventing the loss or deterioration of the thing to be restituted unless:
 Otherwise provided by law or contract (Art. 2168);
 Such expense were not useful;
 Such expenses were rendered necessary by his own fault.
However, the person bound to make restitution is not entitled to any indemnity for
the cost of maintaining the thing or for the taxes he has paid because of possessing
it, save contrary stipulation under the law or contract (Art. 2170 cum Art. 2168). As
this person is entitled to retain the increments he has collected in good faith from
the thing to be restituted (Art.2178 (1)), it is deemed rational to make him
responsible to bear the expenses of maintenance. In fact, it does not necessarily
mean that the person bound to make restitution of the thing is always entitled to
193
the increment of the thing. If at the time of taking possession or control of the thing
this person had clear knowledge of the fact that he did not have valid contractual or
legal right to the thing, he is not entitled to the increment of the thing. Where
restitution of the increments becomes impossible for one or another reason, the
defendant shall pay to the plaintiff their fair market value in terms of money
(Art.2178 (2) cum Art. 2164(2)).
Reimbursement of Expenses or Investments made on the Thing: Where the person

bound to make restitution is able to prove that he has made expenses or investment
on the thing in good faith and because of such expenses or investment the value of
the thing has increased, he is entitled to the reimbursement of the cost of such
investment within the limit of the value added to the thing because of such
expenses (Art.2171 civil code). In order to succeed in his claim for reimbursement,
the person bound to make restitution needs to establish three things: firstly, he has
to prove the expenses he has incurred on the thing. Secondly, he has to show the
increment in the value of the thing and a causal relationship between the expenses
incurred by him and the value added on the thing. Lastly, he has to prove the
existence of such increment in value of the thing at the time when restitution was
claimed.
However, the fact that the above three elements are established does not
necessarily imply success to the person bound to make restitution. Although the
existence of good faith in incurring such expenses may be and should be presumed,
a proof adduced to the contrary by the plaintiff can nullify the person‟s claim for
reimbursement fully or partly. If the plaintiff demanding restitution of the thing
successfully proves that the defendant knew or should have known of his duty to
return the thing at the time he had incurred such expenses, it could be well taken to
refute the latter‟s claim for reimbursement wholly or partly on the ground of
absence of good faith or the existence of its antonym, bad faith, when the court finds
it necessary in the interest of justice.
194
As an alternative to reimbursement, the person bound to make restitution may

before restitution of the thing remove anything he has joined to it, if it can be
separated without appreciable damage to the thing (Art. 2173). The plaintiff can
also raise this in order to avoid payment of indemnity to the person required to
restitute the thing.
Right of Retention: As a security for the payment of his claims for indemnity and
until the plaintiff (person claiming restitution) effected such payment or produced a
security to such effect, the law grants the defendant (person bound to make
restitution) to retain the thing (defer restitution of the thing). But it has to be noted
that a person who has taken control of the thing illegally, like theft, or a person
who, at the time when he took possession of the thing, knew that he had no valid
contractual or legal right to the thing cannot exercise this right of retention (Art.
2174) as he does not have any right to claim restitution from the very beginning.
Review Questions
1. Jot down as many points of differences as possible between unjust
enrichment and tort.
2. Mr. A, who is a well to do businessman in Addis deposited Birr 100,000 in
Mr. B‟s account by mistake. If Mr. B is not willing to return the money, what
course of action would you advise Mr. A to take?
3. Comment on Articles 2118(3) and 2143(3) of the civil code based on the
pertinent provisions of the law of unjust enrichment.
4. Can you see any difference between the term “unjust” and “unlawful”
enrichment? Which one do you think is appropriate to cover such matters
regulated under the provisions of the civil code?
195
REFERENCE MATERIALS
Books and other Materials

1. Dagon Hanoch, Unjust Enrichment, (Cambridge University Press, 1997)
2. Donal Harris, Remedies in Contract and Tort, (London, 1988)
3. Hodgson John & Lewthwaite John, Tort Law, (Oxford University Press,
2004)
4. Kionka Edward J., Torts in a Nutshell, (3 rd Ed, West Group: St. Paul. Minn.
1999)
5. Krzeczunowicz Jerzy( George), The Ethiopian Law of Compensation for
Damage, (Addis Ababa, Faculty of Law, 1977)
6. Mehari Redae, Assessment of Compensation for Damage under the Ethiopian
Civil Law (unpublished Material written in Amharic, 2006), Presented in a
Workshop organized by Action Professional Association for the People (APAP)
7. Michael John, A Text Book on Torts, (3 rd Ed, Blackstone Press Limited Great
Bratain, 1996)
8. Cooke John, Law of Torts 8th ed. (London, New York and Others; Pearson
Longman, 2007)
9. Cooke John, Law Torts 3 rd ed. (London, San Francisco, Kuala Lumpur,
Johanseburg, Finacial Times Pitman Publishing, 2007)
10. Dobbs Dan B. and Paul T. Hayden, Torts and Compensation: Personal
Accountability and Responsibility for Injury 4 th ed. (St. Paul, Minn; West
Group 2001)
11. Kidner, Richard, Case Book on Torts 7 th ed. (Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002)
12. Morbide Nicholas, J.and Roderick Bagshaw Tort Law, 2 nd ed.(London, New
York and Others:Pearson Longman, 2005)
13. Shulman, Harry,Fleming James, Jr. Oscar S. Gray, Donald G. Gifford, Cases
and Materials on the Law of Torts 4 th ed. (New York: Foundation Press, 2003)
196
14. Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis: Markesinis and
Deakin‟s Tort Law,6th ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2008)
15. Pannet Alan, Law of Torts 7 th ed. (London: The M& E Hand Book Series,
1995)
16. Negatu Tesfaye, Extra Contractual Liability and Unjust Enrichment, (Artist
Printing Press, Addis Ababa, 1996)
17. RFV Husten & Buckley RA, Salmond and Husten on the Law of Torts, (20 th
Ed, London: Sweet and Makwell, 1992)
18. Weir Tony, A Case Book on Tort, 8 th Ed, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1996)
19. Occupational Health and Safety Package, Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs,Addis Ababa, May,1997 (Unpublished)
Laws
1. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution, Federal Negarit
Gazeta 1st year No.1 August 1995, Addis Ababa.
2. Revised Family Code, Federal Negarit Gazeta Extra Ordinary Issue No. 1,
2000 Addis Ababa
3. Federal Civil Servants Proclamation, Proclamation No. 262, 2002
4. Criminal Code of The FDRE
5. Transportation Proclamation No. 468,2005
6. Proclamation No. 470,2005 Federal Negarit Gazeta 11 th year No. 60 Addis
Ababa
7. Criminal Procedure Code of The Empire of Ethiopia, 1961 Negarit Gazeta,
Extra-Ordinary Issue No. 1961 Addis Ababa
8. Proclamation Issued To Establish Harari Regional State Prison
Administration, Proclamation No.39, 2004. Harari Regional State Negarit
Gazeta.
9. The House of Peoples‟ Representatives of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia Rules of Procedure and Members Code of Conduct, Regulation No. 3,
2006.
197
10. Anti Corruption Special Procedure and Rules of Evidence Proclamation.

Proclamation No. 23, 2001. Negarit Gazeta 7 th year No. 24 Addis Ababa.
11. Commercial Code of Ethiopia, Negarit Gazeta No. 3 Extra-Ordinary Issue
1960, Addis Ababa
12. Civil Code of Ethiopia, 1996, Proc. No. 165 Neg.Gaz, extra ordinary issue,
year 19, No. 2
13. Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia, 1965, Decree No. 52 Neg.Gaz (extra
ordinary issue), Year 24, No. 3
14. Labour Proclamation, Proc. No. 377/2003, Neg.Gaz, Year 10, No12
15. Copy Rights and Nighbouring Rights Proclamation, Proc. No. 410/2004
Cases
1. Federal Supreme Court, Civil Appeal File No. 4265/92
2. Federal Supreme Court Civil Appeal File No. 480/88
3. Supreme Court Cassation Bench, File No. 1/1980
4. Supreme Court Cassation Bench, File No. 320/1981
5. Civil case, File No. 1563/75
6. Civil Appeal, File No. 26/74 (Former Sidama Administratiove Region High
Court)
7. Civil Case File No. 78/77
8. Civil Appeal Files No. 2325/88
198

Extra Contractual Liability PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extra Contractual Liability PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extra Contractual Liability PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chilot.wordpress.

Prepared under the Sponsorship of the Justice and Legal System

PART I: GENERAL BACK GROUND-------------------------------------------------------------------------1

CHAPTER I: DEFINITION AND PRINCIPLES OF NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY

1.2 Principles -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

CHAPTER II: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS----------------------------------------------------------------4

2.1. Personal Security -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

2.2 Interest in property----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

2.3 Economic Interest------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

2.4 Reputation and privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

CHAPTER III: CONDUCT THAT GIVES RISE TO LIABILITY--------------------------------------7

3.1 Intention and Negligence----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

CHAPTER IV: CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE---------------------------------14

4.2 The ‘but for’ Test----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

4.3 Remoteness of Damage--------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

4.4 Exception to the Foreseeability Test--------------------------------------------------------------19

4.4.3. Psychiatric Illness -----------------------------------------------------------------------------21

4.4.4 Intentional torts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------22

4.4.5. Statutory Torts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

CHAPTER V: Boundaries of Non– Contractual Liability Law------26

5.1 Non-contractual liability law v Contractual law----------------------------------------------26

5.2 Non- Contractual Liability Law v Criminal Law --------------------------------------------28

PART II: Ethiopian Non – Contractual Liability LAW--------------30

CHAPTER VI: SOURCES AND TYPES OF LIABILITIES----31

6.1 Liability for Fault-----------------------------------------------------------------------------31

6.1.2 Professional Fault (2031) -------------------------------------------------------------32

6.1.3 Intent to Injure (2032) -----------------------------------------------------------------34

6.1.4 Diversion of power [2033] ----------------------------------------------------------35

6.1.5 Purpose of Rights (2034) -------------------------------------------------------------36

6.1.6 Infringement of Laws (2035) --------------------------------------------------------37

6.1.7 Chain of Command (2036) ----------------------------------------------------------38

6.1.8 Non – Performance of a contract (2037) ----------------------------------------41

6.2 Special Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42

6.2.1 Trespass To Person----------------------------------------------------------------42

6.2.2. Interference with the Liberty of another (2040)and Defenses--------49

6.2.3 Defamation (2044) and Defenses-----------------------------------------------54

6.2.4 Publication (2049) ------------------------------------------------------------------61

6.2.5 Trespass to Goods-----------------------------------------------------------------------------62

CHAPTER VII: Interference against Economic Interest----------70

7.2 Inducement to breach of contracts [2056] ---------------------------------------------------------71

7.3 Unfair competition [2057] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------73

7.4 Simulation (2058) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----73

7.5 False Information (2059) -----------------------------------------------------------------74

7.6 Exception 2060-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----75

7.6 .1 Witnesses [2061]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------76

7.6.2 Advice or recommendations (2062) ----------------------------------------------------------77

7.6.3 Seizer of another’s property or Distrait (2063) --------------------------------78

7.6.4 Execution of a court order (2064) --------------------------------------------------78

7.6.5 Prescription 2065-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------79

CHAPTER VII: Other Interests-----------------------------------------------81

8.1 Injury to the Right of Spouses (2050) -----------------------------------------------------81

8.2 Duty to Educate and Supervise (2052) ---------------------------------------------------84

CHAPTER IX: Liability Irrespective of Fault Strict

9.1 Necessity (2066) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------86

9.2 Bodily Harm and Defenses (2067) ---------------------------------------------------87

9.3 Sport Activities [2068] ------------------------------------------------------------------89

9.4 Dangerous Activities [2069] -----------------------------------------------------------90

9.5 Types of Instruments---------------------------------------------------------------------93

9.6 Liability For Buildings (2077 – 2080) ----------------------------------------------100