Navigating Civil Liability: Contractual and Extra-Contractual Frameworks

Understanding Civil Liability

Civil liability refers to the legal obligation to compensate for damages caused to another person. This right to seek compensation arises when an individual or entity has an obligation to bear the consequences of harm inflicted. The injured party is entitled to claim civil liability, and the responsible party must pay compensation for the damage caused.

Types of Civil Liability

Contractual Liability

Contractual liability arises when the damage is a direct consequence of a breach of an existing contract between the person causing the damage and the injured party. In such cases, a pre-existing contractual relationship defines the scope of responsibility.

Extra-Contractual Liability

Extra-contractual liability, also known as tort liability, occurs when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the person causing the damage and the injured party. This type of liability is primarily governed by the Civil Code.

Article 1902 of the Civil Code

Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code states: "A person who, by action or omission, causes damage to another, intervening fault or negligence, is obliged to repair the damage caused." This fundamental principle establishes the basis for extra-contractual liability.

Distinctions in Extra-Contractual Liability

Extra-contractual liability can be further categorized based on its origin:

• Civil Extra-Contractual Liability: This type originates from a tortious act that is not considered a crime or offense under the Criminal Code. It is governed by Article 1902 and subsequent articles of the Civil Code. (Refer to Article 1093 of the Civil Code for context).
• Criminal Extra-Contractual Liability: This arises when the damage is a direct consequence of a crime or offense. In such cases, the liability rules are primarily derived from Article 109 and subsequent articles of the Criminal Code, as referenced by Article 1092 of the Civil Code.

Systems of Extra-Contractual Liability

Civil liability can operate under different systems regarding the requirement of fault:

• Subjective Liability: This is the general rule, where the person who caused the harm is liable only if their actions or omissions involved fault or negligence. The damage must be attributable to their blameworthy conduct.
• Objective Liability (Strict Liability): In specific, limited cases, liability can arise without the need to prove fault or negligence. The responsible party must respond regardless of whether they acted diligently. This often applies to activities that inherently carry a significant risk or from which the responsible party derives a substantial profit, even if all due care was exercised.

In both subjective and objective liability, it is crucial to demonstrate that damage has occurred and to establish a causal link between the action/omission and the damage.

Burden of Proof under Article 1902

Under Article 1902, the injured party generally bears the burden of proving fault or negligence on the part of the person who caused the damage. However, proving fault can sometimes be exceptionally difficult, a challenge historically referred to as "diabolic proof" (prueba diabólica) in legal doctrine.

To address this difficulty, legal interpretation and jurisprudence have, in certain circumstances, established a reverse burden of proof. This means that fault or negligence is presumed, and the person who caused the damage must prove that they acted with due diligence to be exempted from liability.

Liability for Acts of Others (Article 1903)

Article 1903 of the Civil Code addresses situations where a person is held responsible for damages caused by another individual for whom they are legally accountable. A common example is the liability of employers for the actions of their employees.

Employers are generally liable for damages caused by their employees in the exercise of their functions. However, this liability is not absolute. An employer may be exempted from responsibility if they can demonstrate that they acted with due diligence to prevent the damage. This diligence can relate to two key aspects:

• Culpa in Eligendo (Fault in Choosing): This refers to negligence in selecting the appropriate worker for a task.
• Culpa in Vigilando (Fault in Supervising): This refers to negligence in supervising or overseeing the worker's actions to prevent damage.