The fault of the wrongdoer is one of the preconditions for general tort liability. Nowadays, fault-based liability and strict liability are two equally important forms of liability that are not polar opposites but, rather, complement one another. This article focuses on the meaning of the fault of a tortfeasor. It considers the notion of fault in two European model rules (the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the Principles of European Tort Law), in the Estonian Law of Obligations Act, and also makes reference to German, French, English, and Russian tort law. We shall begin with a comparative discussion of the questions of general liability based on fault, fault capacity, various forms of fault, the burden of proving fault, and the importance of differentiating those forms of fault. Thereafter, we will treat the issues of fault in the context of liability for torts committed by another person and, also, borderline issues between fault-based liability and strict liability. This analysis seeks to offer the reader a basis for determining whether the regulations of Estonian tort law are justified or whether amendments should be considered within such a comparative-law framework.

While case law in cases of wrongful conception, wrongful birth and wrongful life is completely missing in Estonia, this article is aimed at providing possible solutions under Estonian law to some of the legally complex problems that these cases contain. Through the analysis of Estonian, German and U.S. legal literature and case law, the article is mainly focused on proposing some solutions to the legal problems concerning compensable damage, but also explains the Estonian legal framework of the contractual and delictual basis for compensation for the damages. The application of several grounds for the possibility of limiting the compensation in the afore-mentioned cases are analysed.

No abstract

No abstract

The Internet today is increasingly being shaped by users who post material on it. One type of user-generated Internet content comes in the form of texts written and posted on various public forums and commentary rooms. In Estonia, for example, almost all leading periodicals allow readers to add their comments to published articles. There are also commentators whose remarks contain incorrect facts or value judgments that defame third parties. Since the victims cannot in such circumstances identify the person who posted the comment in question, they often file claims for compensation against the operator of the commentary room. Commentary room operators cannot exactly be described as typical information hosts because of their active 'encouragement' of adding comments. Therefore, a flexible solution that would enable the liability of commentary room operators to be determined is needed. A solution that strikes a fair balance between the interests of the commentary authors, the victims, and the operators is needed. The aim of this article is to identify the conditions in which web hosts are capable of incurring liability and to establish exactly who the commentary operators are - when can they be regarded as traditional publishers (who are liable under the general law of torts) and when can they be treated as information hosts enjoying the privilege of limited liability? Résumé: L'internet est aujourd'hui de plus en plus utilisé par des internautes qui envoient des messages sur la toile. L'un des types de contenu du réseau prend la forme de textes écrits et envoyés à divers forums publics et à des espaces réservés aux commentaires. En Estonie par exemple, presque tous les grands périodiques permettent à leurs lecteurs d'ajouter leurs commentaires sur des articles publiés. Il existe aussi des commentateurs dont les remarques contiennent des faits erronnés ou des jugements de valeur diffamatoires à l'égard d'autrui. Comme les victimes ne peuvent identifier dans de telles circonstances la personne qui a envoyé le commentaire en question, elles déposent souvent plainte pour dommages et intérêts contre l'opérateur de l'espace reservé aux commentaires. Ces opérateurs ne peuvent être décrits exactement comme des hôtes typiques d'informationsen raison de leur "encouragement" actif permettant d'ajouter des commentaires. C'est pourquoi ilest nécessaire de trouver une solution souple qui permette de déterminer la responsabilité des opérateurs d'espaces de commentaires. Il faut arriver à une solution qui trouve un juste équilibre entre les intérêts des auteurs de commentaires, des victimes et des opérateurs. L'objet du present article est de déterminer les conditions dans lesquelles les hôtes du réseau sont susceptibles d'encourir une responsabilité, et d'établir exactement qui sont les opérateurs de commentaires - quand peuvent-ils être considérés comme des éditeurs traditionnels (dont la responsabilité est basée sur la loi générale de la responsabilité délictuelle) et quand peuvent-ils être traités comme des hôtes d'informations pouvant bénéficier du privilège d'une responsabilité limitée?