On Reasonable Liability: A Comparison of Dutch and Canadian Law regarding the limits of criminal liability

The topic of thls paper lS a comparative study of the posi- tlon of two different law systems, Dutch Civil Law and Canadian Common Law, in their treatment of liabllity problems arlsing from negllgent conduct at one hand, or In no-fault situatlons on the other, that lS In their treatment of strict liability issues wlthln the amblt of the crlminal law, wlth some digressions lnto tort law. At the suggestlon of the wrlter's Promotor, Prof. Dr. G.E. Mulder, a brlef overvien of the common law system, its develop- ment between 1066 A.D. and 1867 A.D., and of some of the relevant baslc notions, precedes the discussion of the maln topic. Its purpose lS to asslst the Dutch reader in assessing the merits of the concluslons suggested. The dlscussion of topics of a purely lntroductory nature has been kept succlnct In order to keep the size of this paper wlthin reasonable limlts. Practlcally, thls means that no detailed discusslons of diverglng points of view regarding certain doc- trines are being presented. Rather, the writer has limlted him- self to statlng generally accepted prlnciples, contrasted against a hlstorical backdrop where thls would clarify the statements made. An attempt was made to arrange this lntroductory material in such a fashion that it will lead up to and prepare for a detailed discussion of strict liability. -5- Jus est norma recti, et quicquid est contra normam recti est in- juria. Dig.l,l,l,l; Bract.fol. 2b.