TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Prispevek podaja kratek pregled slovenskega nepogodbenega odškodninskega prava z vidika varstva različnih pravnih interesov (pravnih dobrin). Nekateri pravni redi omejujejo varstvo nekaterih interesov (dobrin), kar velja zlasti za t. i. čisto premoženje (varstvo pred posegi v premoženje, ki jih ne spremlja poseg v oškodovančevo telo ali lastnino). Iz generalne klavzule francoskega tipa, na kateri temelji slovensko deliktno pravo, takšne omejitve ne izhajajo. Vendar to ne pomeni, da so vse pravne dobrine varovane pod enakimi pogoji. Tudi za slovensko pravo velja, da je za odškodninsko varstvo pred nekaterimi posegi v golo premoženje treba izkazati dodatne predpostavke, na primer nemoralnega ravnanja (nelojalna konkurenca) ali zavestne zlorabe (zloraba pravice). Sodna praksa je po zgledu iz primerjalnega prava razvila institut odgovornosti za strokovno mnenje pod pogojem »specialnega razmerja«, v katerem se prejemnik mnenja lahko upravičeno zanese na pravilnost, ponudnik pa to lahko predvidi. V primerih, kjer fizična škoda nastane eni osebi, nato pa se škoda odrazi (tudi) pri drugi osebi (posredna premoženjska škoda), sodna praksa cilja omejitve odgovornosti dosega posredno, preko pojmovanja vzročne zveze (z razlikovanjem neposrednih in posrednih škod).

The paper provides a brief overview of Slovenian tort law from the point of view of the protection of various legal interests. Some legal systems limit the protection of certain interests, particularly with regard to pure economic loss (patrimonial loss not accompanied by interference with the body or property of the injured party). Such restrictions do not arise from the French-type general clause on which Slovenian tort law is based. However, this does not mean that all legal interests are protected under the same conditions. For some claims regarding pure economic loss additional criteria have to be met, such as immoral behaviour (unfair competition) or deliberate abuse (abuse of rights). Following the examples from comparative law, the courts have developed the institute of liability for expert opinion under the condition of a "special relationship", in which the recipient of the opinion, although without a contract with the expert, can reasonably rely on it and the expert can anticipate it. In cases where phys- ical injury occurs to one person, and then the damage is (also) reflected in another person’s pecuniary loss (indirect loss), the courts achieve the goal of limitation of liability indirectly, through the concept of causation (by distinguishing between direct and indirect losses).

Scope of protection of interests in tort law: how general is the general clause?