Over the past 200 years, almost nothing has changed in the Belgian legislation governing who is liable for what damage and when, or in jargon: extra-contractual liability. The rules cover recognisable situations. Think of a footballing child breaking a window or a stray dog running into the street and causing a traffic accident. If there is a causal link between the damage and the fault, the damage must be compensated.
> PARENTS MORE LIKELY TO BE LIABLE IF CHILDREN CAUSE DAMAGE
> PARENTS MORE LIKELY TO BE LIABLE IF CHILDREN CAUSE DAMAGE
A more modern liability law should finally replace the rules from the Napoleonic era. The reform, which was given the green light in the Justice Committee, aims to make parents automatically liable for damage caused by their children. Insurers should intervene more quickly.
The current legislation is not only dated, but with barely six articles, it is also quite concise. As a result, there were gaps, which judges had to fill over the years. The legislation became unpredictable and unclear for many citizens.
42 items
A new bill, submitted by Koen Geens (CD&V) and Katja Gabriëls (Open VLD), should remedy that by enshrining settled case law in 42 new articles of law. The proposal contains an important amendment regulating the liability of parents for damage caused by their minor children.
Under current regulations, there is a presumption that parents did not supervise their children adequately or raise them properly if they cause harm unlawfully. 'Parents can argue to a judge that they did raise their child properly and did not make a mistake in supervision, to escape liability,' says doctoral researcher in law Victor Schollaert (Uantwerpen).
Mischief
The bill toughens the liability of parents, guardians or other adults with parental authority. Parents will henceforth always be liable for damages caused by their children under 18. For adolescents between 16 and 18, there is margin for parents to prove that they are not at fault and not liable for damages caused by their children. This can be the case, for example, if their child is up to mischief, when the parents were justified in assuming they were at school.
The increased liability for parents led to a debate on family insurance. The new rules would increase the financial risk for parents, so one slogan was to make family insurance compulsory. 'That was sensitive,' says Schollaert. 'Many thought it was a good idea to introduce an obligation, to protect parents and not leave victims out in the cold financially.'
The insurance industry in particular was opposed. An obligation would mean, among other things, setting up funds for people who do not take insurance, and nothing was planned for that. Family insurance would probably also become slightly more expensive. In the end, compulsory family insurance was abandoned for the time being. 'However, insurers are obliged to intervene to compensate damages, even if a child has acted deliberately or if there is gross negligence,' says Schollaert.
A second notable reform is the introduction of 'proportional liability'. Schollaert: 'Previously, there was no liability if there was no causal link between the fault and the damage. The new proposal accepts degrees of liability depending on the probability of the causal link. In practice, this will make it much easier to decide that there is liability.'
The bill was given the green light by the House Justice Committee on Wednesday afternoon. The vote was uncertain due to agenda problems. The opposition party N-VA already indicated it would ask for a second reading and will be discussed again soon. The proposal will also have to go to plenary after that.
Source: De Tijd
© D’hondt Insurance | insurance broker | T: +32 50 46 10 46 | info@dhondt-insurance.com | RPR: Gent, afdeling Brugge | FSMA: 0451 836 292 | Gistelse Steenweg 302 / 0001, 8200 Sint-Andries (Brugge)
Website by Abe Luga