Unlawfulness corresponds to the wrongful nature of the fact giving rise to tort liability, which may manifest in two distinct forms. The first is the violation of another’s right, in particular a subjective right, and most notably an absolute right such as property. The second is the infringement of a statutory provision designed to safeguard the interests of others. This distinction rests on the recognition that not all legally protected interests constitute subjective rights. Unlawfulness therefore presents both a positive dimension (the breach of law) and a negative dimension (the absence of any legal justification). Imputation entails the attribution of the wrongful act to a natural or legal person. Although doctrine reveals some divergences, the classical dichotomy between imputation based on fault - whether intentional or negligent - and imputation based on risk remains persuasive, with the more recent addition of imputation by sacrifice. A fact will only be attributed to an individual (the injuring party) if their conduct can be qualified as intentional or negligent, or if attribution is expressly provided for by statute under the headings of risk or sacrifice. The fourth requirement is damage. Damage, understood as the suppression or diminution of a legally protected interest, is a core element of civil liability, since in its absence the very structure of liability collapses. Finally, causation requires the establishment of a link between the wrongful act and the damage, so as to demonstrate that act x was the direct and necessary cause of harm y. The problem of causation has accompanied the evolution of law in general, and civil liability in particular, from its inception, and its interpretation continues to vary according to the criteria employed. Furthermore, civil liability may be classified as either subjective or strict, depending on the criterion for imputation. Where imputation is made on the basis of fault—whether intention or negligence—liability is subjective. Where, by contrast, imputation arises irrespective of fault, on the basis of risk, liability is strict. The increasing socialisation of risk, particularly evident in Western societies over recent decades, provides the normative foundation for strict liability. It reflects the notion that certain risks of harm are allocated beyond the immediate sphere of the victim and the wrongdoer, extending liability in the interests of fairness and collective responsibility. 182 JOÃO ALMEIDA VIDAL
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==