Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 8 (2015)

Articles

The Situation of the Aggrieved Party in the Context of the Statute of Limitations for Claims Based on Tort in Accordance with Article 442 of the Civil Code

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tkp.6237  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2015-12-31

Abstract

The issue of defining the limitation periods for claims, both the periods a tempore facti and a tempore scientiae, undoubtedly, is extremely important for the conduct of legal transactions, and, above all, for defining the legal situation of the aggrieved party and the person obliged to redress the damage. Therefore, the statement that the period cannot run endlessly should not be criticized, even in the case of the damage of the most important personal interests such as life and health. It should favour the stabilization of each participant of legal transactions. However, it is inadmissible to accept the situation in which the obligator’s interests are more important than the interests of the aggrieved party, which in the case of Article 442 of KC in respect of the damage on a person took place, and it seems to be a justified statement, which may also take place in the interpretation of Article 4421 of KC. The interests of the aggrieved party cannot be deprecated, justifying it with the need of the stable conduct of legal transactions, and with the fact that the tortfeasor is in the condition of long-term uncertainty. It should be remembered that the condition of uncertainty may occur only after the damage discovery, thus, the condition of uncertainty may be referred to the period a tempore scientiae. It should be agreed that the limitation period should have the functions that discipline and motivate the aggrieved party, which stay in close connection with the compensatory function of the liability for damages. Moreover, the lapse of time has a negative influence on the evidence possibility, both when it comes to the aggrieved party and the person obliged to redress the damage, which, however, cannot be an obstacle for the possibility of exercising subjective rights. The issue of the statute of limitations for claims resulting from the damage based on tort takes on particular meaning, also due to the fact that every year the citizens’ sense of law is improving; among others, thanks to gratuitous legal advice that is developing rapidly.

References

  1. Balwicka-Szczyrba, Małgorzata, 2005. Commentaries on the judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 May 2003, IV CKN 378/01. Thesis 1, “Rejent”, No. 5, LEX no. 48086/1:153–159. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dubis, Wojciech, (in:) Gniewek Edward (editor) the Civil Code Commentary, Księga trzecia. Zobowiązania, Tytuł VI. Czyny niedozwolone, art. 422–443, edition 2, C.H. Beck, Warsaw 2006. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dybowski, Tomasz, 2005. Commentaries on the judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 May 2003, IV CKN 378/01. Thesis 3, „Przegląd Sądowy”, No. 6, LEX 47721/3:132–138. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jastrzębski, Jacek, i Agnieszka, Koniewicz, 2006. „Wymagalność roszczeń”, PPH, no. 5:33–41. [Google Scholar]
  5. Józefiak, Anna, 2006. „Przedawnienie roszczeń z tytułu naprawienia szkody wyrządzonej czynem niedozwolonym w świetle Konstytucji”, KPP, clause 3. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kordasiewicz, Bogudar, 2008. Chapter XI. „Problematyka dawności”, (in:) „System Prawa Prywatnego” [Private Law System], Volume 2. „Prawo cywilne – część ogólna, editor: Zbigniew Radwański, Warsaw. [Google Scholar]
  7. Majewska, Monika, „WZW B: objawy” „Jak rozpoznać zapalenie wątroby typu B?”, www.poradnikzdrowie.pl [Google Scholar]
  8. Nesterowicz, Małgorzata, 2004. Commentaries on the judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 May 2003, IV CKN 378/01, OSNC 2004, no. 7 – 8, item 124, OSP, clause 4, item 55. [Google Scholar]
  9. Niedośpiał, Michał, 2002. Commentaries on the judgement of the Administrative Court in Warsaw of 21 June 2000, I ACa 208/00, OSA, clause 2. [Google Scholar]
  10. Policzkiewicz-Zawadzka, Zofia, 1966. „Powstanie szkody a bieg 10-letniego przedawnienia art. 442 k.c.”, NP, clause 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  11. Policzkiewicz-Zawadzka, Zofia, 1965. Przedawnienie roszczeń według kodeksu cywilnego, PiP, clause 3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Radwański, Zbigniew, 2007. Przedawnienie roszczeń z czynów niedozwolonych w świetle znowelizowanego art. 442 KC, Monitor Prawniczy, no.11. [Google Scholar]
  13. Safjan, Marek., in: the Civil Code Commentary, v. I, editor: Krzysztof. Pietrzykowski, Warsaw 2005. [Google Scholar]
  14. Śmieja, Andrzej, 2009. (in:) Olejniczak, Adam (editor), Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna, v. 6, System Prawa Prywatnego, Rozdział III, Czyny niedozwolone, C.H. Beck, Warsaw. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tofel Marcin Stanisław, Commentaries on the judgement of the Supreme Court of 16 March 2005, II CK 538/04, PiP 2006, clause 3:118–123. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tofel Marcin Stanisław, Commentaries to the resolution of the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of 17 February 2006, III CZP 84/05, OSNC 2006, No. 7 – 8, item 114, PS 2006, no. 11–12:277–288. [Google Scholar]
  17. The Act of 5 December 1996 on Professions of Doctor and Dentist, (i.e. Dz.U. of 2015, No. 464 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  18. The Act of 22 May 2003 on Compulsory Insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau (i.e. Dz.U. of 2013, item 392 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  19. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997, DZ.U. 1997.78.482 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  20. The decision of the Supreme Court of 17 February 1982, III PZP 3/81, OSNC 1983, No. 1, item 8. [Google Scholar]
  21. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 November 1967, II PZP 34/67, OSN 1968, No. 6, item 94. [Google Scholar]
  22. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 26 March 1971, III CRN 556/70, OSP 1972, clause 1, item 7. [Google Scholar]
  23. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 19 March 2002, IV CKN 917/00, LEX no. 54485. [Google Scholar]
  24. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 18 September 2002, III CKN 597/00, LEX no. 1211130. [Google Scholar]
  25. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 11 February 2003, V CKN 1664/00, OSNC 2004, No. 5, item 75. [Google Scholar]
  26. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 16 May 2003, I CKN 372/01, LEX no. 80246. [Google Scholar]
  27. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 May 2003, IV CKN 378/01, OSNC 2004, Numbers 7–8, item 124. [Google Scholar]
  28. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 13 January 2004, V CK 172/03, LEX no.182118. [Google Scholar]
  29. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 December 2004, I CK 166/04, LEX no. 277853. [Google Scholar]
  30. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 16 March 2005, II CK 538/04, LEX no. 402286. [Google Scholar]
  31. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 2 March 2006, I CSK 45/05, LEX No. 179969. [Google Scholar]
  32. The Judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of 1 September 2006, SK 14/05, (Dz. U. No.164, item 1166), OTK-A ZU 2006 No. 8, item 97 [Google Scholar]
  33. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Białystok of 14 May 2008, I ACa 192/08, OSAB 2008, No. 2–3, item 3. [Google Scholar]
  34. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 27 October 2010, V CSK 107/10, LEX no. 677913. [Google Scholar]
  35. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 June 2011, I PK 258/10, LEX no. 1001280. [Google Scholar]
  36. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 12 May 2011, III CSK 236/10, OSP 2012, No. 11, item 107. [Google Scholar]
  37. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 21 October 2011, IC CSK 46/11, LEX no. 1084557. [Google Scholar]
  38. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 26 July 2012, I PK 18/12, LEX no. 1430432. [Google Scholar]
  39. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 August 2012, I CSK 40/12, LEX no. 1228579. [Google Scholar]
  40. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Szczecin of 17 August 2012, I ACa 427/12, LEX no. 1237849. [Google Scholar]
  41. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Szczecin of 8 November 2012, I ACa 414/12, LEX no. 1246845. [Google Scholar]
  42. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Lublin of 15 November 2012, I ACa 527/12, LEX no. 1271909. [Google Scholar]
  43. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Krakow of 22 November 2012, I ACa 1059/12, LEX no. 1286535. [Google Scholar]
  44. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Łódź of 22 November 2012, I APa 25/12, LEX no. 1289525. [Google Scholar]
  45. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Warsaw of 8 January 2013, I ACa 993/12, LEX no. 1289621. [Google Scholar]
  46. The judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of 22 January 2013, P 46/09, OTK-A 2013, no. 1, item 3. [Google Scholar]
  47. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Krakow of 5 February 2013, I ACa 1369/12, LEX no. 1362749. [Google Scholar]
  48. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Szczecin of 13 March 2013, I ACa 836/12, LEX no. 1344225. [Google Scholar]
  49. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Łódź of 15 March 2013, I ACa 1286/12, LEX no. 1312005. [Google Scholar]
  50. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Poznań of 3 April 2013, I ACa 197/13, LEX no. 1369363. [Google Scholar]
  51. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 4 April 2013, II PK 236/12, LEX no. 1347863. [Google Scholar]
  52. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Łódź of 9 April 2013, I ACa 1348/12, LEX no. 1313320. [Google Scholar]
  53. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 25 April 2013, V CSK 239/12, LEX no. 1365757. [Google Scholar]
  54. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Warsaw of 5 July 2013, I ACa 217/13, LEX no. 1378893. [Google Scholar]
  55. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 10 July 2013, II PK 316/12, OSNP 2014, No. 3, item 40. [Google Scholar]
  56. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 August 2013, I ACa 256/13, LEX no. 1402963. [Google Scholar]
  57. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Katowice of 8 January 2014, I ACa 834/13, LEX no. 1428065. [Google Scholar]
  58. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Poznań of 20 March 2014, I ACa 63/14, LEX no. 1451748. [Google Scholar]
  59. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 May 2014, V CSK 322/13, LEX no. 1491263. [Google Scholar]
  60. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Katowice of 26 June 2014, I ACa 272/14, LEX [Google Scholar]
  61. no. 1496412. [Google Scholar]
  62. The judgement of the Supreme Court of 8 October 2014, II CSK 745/13, Lex no. 1544225. [Google Scholar]
  63. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Warsaw of 22 December 2014, I ACa 986/14, LEX no. 1651982. [Google Scholar]
  64. The judgement of the Administrative Court in Gdańsk of 30 December 2014, III APa 37/14, LEX 1621044. [Google Scholar]
  65. The Law of 23 April 1964 – the Civil Code, (i.e. Dz. U. 2014, No. 121 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  66. The Law of 30 June 2000 – Industrial Property Law (i.e. Dz. U. of 2003 No. 119, item 1117 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  67. The Law of 16 February 2007 amending the law – the Civil Code, Dz. U. No. 80, item 538). [Google Scholar]
  68. The Order of the President of the Republic of Poland of 27 October 1933 – the Code of Obligations, Dz. U. of 1933 No. 82, item 598 as amended). [Google Scholar]
  69. The resolution of the panel of seven Supreme Court judges of 11 February 1963, III PO 6/62, OSNCP 1964, No. 5, item 87. [Google Scholar]
  70. The resolution of the panel of seven Supreme Court judges of 17 June 1963, III CO 38/62, OSNC 1965 No. 2, item 21. [Google Scholar]
  71. The resolution of the panel of seven Supreme Court judges of 12 February 1969, III PZP 43/68, OSNCP 1969, No. 9, item 150. [Google Scholar]
  72. The resolution of the Supreme Court of 25 October 1974, II PZP 39/74, OSN 1975, No. 5, item 82. [Google Scholar]
  73. The resolution of the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of 17 February 2006, III CZP 84/05, OSNC 2006, No. 7 – 8, item 114. [Google Scholar]
  74. The resolution of the Supreme Court of 24 February 2009, III CZP 2/09, OSNC 2009, No. 12, item 168. [Google Scholar]
  75. The resolution of the panel of seven Supreme Court judges of 29 October 2013, III CZP 50/13, OSNC 2014, No. 4, item 35. [Google Scholar]
  76. The resolution of the Supreme Court of 22 November 2013, III CZP 72/13, LEX no.1391775. [Google Scholar]
  77. Warciński Michał, Commentaries on the judgement of the Supreme Court of 16 March 2005, II CK 538/04, Palestra 2006, clauses 1–2:266–274. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wolter, Aleksander, Zofia Policzkiewicz-Zawadzka, 1965. Przedawnienie roszczeń według kodeksu cywilnego, PiP, 3:373–385. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.