Technological Change

Convenor: Miquel Martin-Casals, Girona
This group has been examining a number of specific problems arising from technological developments occurring at approximately the same time across Europe. The group has been interested in the similarity and diversity in response to such developments in different jurisdictions. Three examples have been studied in depth: the escape of sparks from steam engines in the middle of the nineteenth century; exploding boilers in the latter part of the nineteenth century; asbestos-related industrial disease in the middle and late twentieth century.

Outcome

Technological change was considered in relation to three areas: sparks from railways, exploding boilers, and asbestos. The emerging picture from all three is the importance of specific regulation, rather than the use of the general law of delict to provide solutions. Regulation was undertaken by the state, but also by associations of boiler owners, often encouraged by insurers. There was no need in most countries for tort/delict law to play a significant role in regulation. Most of the victims in these areas were employees and many of the problems for using delict lay in proving causation and fault. As a result, there were very few reported cases.

In relation to sparks, the techniques within delict in the 19th century were to over-extend the notion of “fault”, e.g. by creating presumptions, to create in some cases strict liability (especially France), or to use property law to provide compensation for de facto expropriation. (Once something was authorised by the legislature or public authority, it was usually lawful, but rights to compensation were not excluded). In relation to boilers, then the special inspection and planning regimes helped to reduce accidents, and the law on workmen’s compensation provided many people with compensation. Delict law provided a temporary solution in some countries by adjusting rules on proof of fault (France, but not Spain). Asbestos was long regulated, but in ways that did not prevent the recurrence of injury. Workmen’s compensation regimes provided most of the remedies to first wave victims, but not to other groups. On the whole, it has been difficult to prove causation and litigation in a number of countries has tried to cope with this. (The workmen’s compensation schemes also require proof of causation.)