by Kirstein  on 01 Feb. 2010 20:18
|
Oh, the third question: This is problematic, for two reasons. First of all, the US system is characterized by juducial law making rather than by parliamentary laws. New law is created through judicial decisions, and not (so often) by parliaments.
This is different in our legal system, where judges primarily carry out parliamentary laws. Agreed, the federal judges also set laws, but only within the discretionary scope left to them by the parliaments. It is rather perceived as a disturbance if a federal court (in particular the constitutional court has done occasionally so during the last decade) more or less directs the parliament what it is supposed to do.
So there is no "nusiance law" or "tort law" book in the US, but rather a collection of judicial decisions. In Germany, we have a collection of law books instead, and the areas in question are regulated in many of them, primarily the BGB. However, what you actually find in the BGB is, e.g., "disallowed actions" (§ 823 ff.), which may relate to tort cases as well as to nuisance cases.
I‘d say the German law codes on "Schadensersatz" can be applied to both areas, tort and nusiance, and we don‘t really have a "nuisance law book" which is distinct from a "tort law book".
Hope that clarifies the matter.
Keep on posting if further questions arise,
RK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
