legal reponsibility

For the freedom of art, freedom of law and freedom to err


Art cannot exist without freedom. And where freedom exists, art experiments must be allowed – experiments more or less in line with expectations and what viewers of art are accustomed to. There must be an acceptance of searching, allowing not only for wandering the “dirt track” where nobody has ever seen art, along with scandals where art has long been present. However, everything has its limits. Even the freedom of art. For art, these flexible limits set out the aesthetic canons of the era and the boundaries of law. The aesthetic canons protect the sensitivity of art viewers, while the law protects other values, recognised by the law as more important than the freedom of creativity. If these canons and values are breached by art, then the boundaries within which it is allowed are described by law and set out by the courts of law.

Read more

Posted on by ACUS in General Issues

Actio de effusis vel deiectis – the boundaries of flexibility


Article 433 of the Polish Civil Code embraces the classical construction of liability for damages caused by objects or liquids falling out from a room. Following the classical pattern of the Roman actio de effusis vel deiectis, the Code tightens considerably the liability in comparison to Article 415 CC, setting out a general obligation to compensate for damage caused by an unlawful deed, as long as the culprit remains in the wrong. The peculiar tort in question, on the other hand, awards the right to claim compensation from every person who occupies the room, regardless of their fault (which clearly rates this provision in the Polish doctrine under what is known as “liability upon the risk basis”). Among the relieving circumstances, the statute rates only force majeure, the exclusive fault of the victim or a third party for whose deeds the resident does not bear liability. Read more

Posted on by Mateusz Grochowski in Contract Law