Introduction
Extra-contractual liability, commonly known as tort law, forms a crucial pillar of any legal system, governing obligations that arise independently of a contractual agreement. In Ethiopia, the primary legal framework for extra-contractual liability is enshrined in the Civil Code of 1960. This chapter delves into the fundamental principles and various forms of extra-contractual liability recognized under Ethiopian law, examining key provisions of the Civil Code and, more importantly, analyzing a series of interpretive decisions rendered by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench. These Cassation Bench decisions are pivotal, as they provide authoritative interpretations, clarify ambiguities, and guide lower courts in the application of the Civil Code’s provisions in this complex area of law. The analysis will cover both fault-based and fault-independent (strict) liabilities, liability for the acts of others, unjust enrichment, and the critical aspects of damage assessment and limitation periods.
1. Fault-Independent (Strict) Liability
Ethiopian Civil Code recognizes instances where liability arises irrespective of fault, often due to the inherent danger associated with certain activities or the ownership of specific properties. This concept is typically referred to as ‘strict liability’.
1.1. Liability Arising from Buildings (Civil Code Articles 2077, 2088)
The owner or possessor of a building can be held strictly liable for damages caused by unforeseen incidents related to the building. This principle aims to protect third parties from risks associated with structural integrity or inherent dangers of a property.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.52595 (Vol. 11): This case clarifies the scope of Article 2077(1) of the Civil Code regarding liability for buildings. The Court held that the owner of a building under construction is not liable under this Article for injuries sustained by a contractor’s employee who falls from the building while performing work. Such a case, involving an employer-employee relationship and a work-related injury, falls under the Labour Proclamation No. 377/96 (now replaced by No. 1156/2019), rather than the Civil Code’s extra-contractual liability provisions. This decision highlights that Article 2077(1) primarily concerns damages caused by the building itself (e.g., collapse, falling debris) to third parties, not injuries arising from contractual work performed on the building.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.161417 (Date: September 12, 2011 E.C.): This case involved a tenant’s car damaged by falling debris from the rented building. Despite the existence of a lease agreement between the tenant and the building owner, the Court ruled that the building owner is liable under the extra-contractual liability provisions. The decision explicitly states that Civil Code Article 2088, which refers to liability arising from a contract with the owner or responsible person, does not preclude the building owner’s strict liability under Article 2077(1) for damage caused by the building itself. Consequently, the tenant’s insurer, subrogated to the tenant’s rights, could validly claim damages from the building owner based on extra-contractual liability. This underlines that contractual relationships do not necessarily supersede strict liability for inherent dangers of property to third parties, even if they are also party to a contract.
1.2. Liability Arising from Dangerous Activities (Civil Code Article 2069)
Article 2069(1) of the Civil Code establishes strict liability for damages caused by inherently dangerous activities, where fault need not be proven. This applies to activities that, by their nature, present a significant risk of harm despite all reasonable precautions.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.175142 (Vol. 24): This decision reinforces the principle that liability for damages caused by an electric power line falls on the entity that installed and operates the line. It clarifies that a person is not strictly liable for damages caused by an electric line installed within their house, over which they do not have ownership or control under the dangerous activity provisions. Liability rests with the entity responsible for the dangerous activity itself, not merely where the activity takes place.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.104512 (Vol. 19): This case concerns environmental damage caused by hazardous factory waste. The Court referenced Environmental Protection Proclamation No. 300/95, which prohibits the generation, storage, transport, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste without a permit. The Cassation Bench held that if factory waste containing toxic by-products is disposed of on a farmer’s land without proper environmental agency permits, causing damage, the factory is strictly liable. The decision rejects the argument that the farmer’s permission for disposal constitutes contributory negligence if evidence does not show that the farmer acted in bad faith or knew how to mitigate the harm. This emphasizes the strict liability for hazardous waste disposal and places the burden on the polluter.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.88432 (Vol. 15): The Court affirmed that a person who piles soil on a road without placing warning signs is liable for damages caused to a motorcycle rider under Civil Code Article 2069 (which generally deals with fault, but in this context, implies liability for dangerous conditions created). While this case may lean towards fault-based liability, its inclusion here suggests the creation of a hazardous situation.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.57904 (Vol. 11): This ruling pertains to the strict liability of the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation for damages caused by its power lines. The Court stated that the Corporation is strictly liable solely due to its ownership of the electric power lines. It can only be exonerated from liability if it proves that the damage was caused entirely or partially by the fault of the victim and that it had fulfilled all legal obligations regarding safety and care. This places a heavy burden of proof on the utility company.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.65395 (Vol. 13): This decision specifies that to assess whether the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation is liable for damages, courts must examine whether the Corporation adhered to technical, mechanical, and other safety standards prescribed by relevant laws (Proclamation No. 86/89, Regulation No. 49/1991, and quality standards issued by the Ethiopian Electric Agency). If the damage resulted from the Agency’s failure to fulfill its legal duties or if it cannot prove compliance, it can be held liable for fault or negligence. This emphasizes adherence to regulatory standards as a key aspect of preventing liability for dangerous activities.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.63231 (Vol. 13): In cases of fire accidents caused by electric lines, the Court clarified that simply stating the Electric Corporation is strictly liable without fault is insufficient. Courts must ascertain the cause and circumstances of the damage, whether the power company created dangerous conditions without fault, or failed to exercise due diligence in its operations, based on appropriate evidence. This calls for a nuanced approach to strict liability, requiring a causal link and consideration of relevant circumstances.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.33201 (Vol. 9): This ruling categorizes operating a fuel station as an inherently dangerous activity due to the flammability and explosive nature of fuel. Therefore, the owner of a fuel station is strictly liable for damages caused by its operation under Civil Code Article 2069(1), irrespective of fault.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.101229 (Vol. 18): This case confirms that an entity (governmental or authorized) conducting dangerous activities is liable for damages caused to others, unless it proves that its operations met legal standards and that the damage was wholly or partly caused by the victim’s fault. This reiterates the strict liability for dangerous operations and the burden of proof on the operator.
1.3. Liability for Motor Vehicles (Civil Code Articles 2081-2084)
The Ethiopian Civil Code specifically addresses liability arising from motor vehicle accidents, recognizing the inherent risks posed by such vehicles.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.117506 (Vol. 20): This decision interprets Civil Code Article 2157 regarding joint and several liability where multiple parties are liable for damages. It clarifies that if one of the jointly and severally liable parties is solely at fault for the damage, that party is ultimately responsible for the entire debt. Thus, if a vehicle owner is held jointly and severally liable with the driver for an accident caused by the driver’s negligence, the owner, after paying the compensation, can seek full reimbursement from the at-fault driver.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.95267 (Vol. 17): This case interprets Civil Code Article 2084 regarding liability in collisions between two motor vehicles. It states that each vehicle is deemed to have caused damage to the other, and each owner (or responsible person) is liable for half of the total damage, unless it is proven that the accident was caused specifically or entirely by the fault of one driver. If one driver’s fault is proven, then the general rules of fault-based liability apply, and the rules of Article 2084(1) and (2) (equal shared liability) do not hold. This emphasizes the shift from strict proportional liability to fault-based liability when fault is established.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.24643 (Vol. 11) and CASSATION CASE NO.83877 (Date: July 17, 2006 E.C.): These seminal decisions concern the liability of a registered owner of a vehicle after sale but before transfer of ownership. A motor vehicle is a special type of movable property requiring formal registration for ownership transfer, unlike most tangible movable property where possession suffices. The Court consistently held that if a vehicle causes damage while its ownership transfer process has not been completed according to law, the seller, whose name is still registered as the owner, remains liable. However, the buyer, who possesses and uses the vehicle for their own benefit, bears ultimate liability. If the seller pays the compensation, they can seek full reimbursement from the buyer. This principle applies unless the vehicle was stolen at the time of the accident. The Cassation Bench explicitly reinforced this interpretation in CASSATION CASE NO.83877, stating that the seller cannot be absolved of liability if they failed to complete the transfer process, and the vehicle was still registered in their name at the time of the accident, assuming no theft was proven.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.55228 (Vol. 11): This case clarifies liability when a rented vehicle causes damage while operated by the owner’s driver. The Court stated that the fact that the driver was employed by the owner does not exempt the person who rented and was using the car from ultimate liability under Civil Code Article 2082. This means the lessee, as the user of the vehicle, retains final responsibility for damages.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.16270 (Vol. 3): This decision addresses the liability of a vehicle owner who hits a person driving a stolen vehicle without a license. The Court ruled that the owner who caused the collision is not automatically exempt from liability. The key consideration is the fault of the injured party in causing the collision, not the fact that they were driving a stolen vehicle. This separates the criminal act from the tortious liability for causing the accident.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.90836 (Date: November 18, 2006 E.C.): This ruling clarifies the burden of proof for victims in motor vehicle accident claims under Civil Code Article 2081(1). The Court held that the injured party (plaintiff) is only required to prove that the collision accident occurred. They are not required to prove that the accident happened due to the fault of the driver or the owner of the vehicle. This shifts the burden to the defendant (driver/owner) to prove absence of liability or the victim’s contributory fault.
2. Liability for the Acts of Others
Ethiopian law also holds certain individuals or entities liable for damages caused by the acts of those under their supervision or control, even if they themselves did not commit the wrongful act.
2.1. Liability of Public Institutions for Employees’ Acts
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.137589 (Vol. 22): This case affirms that government institutions have an undeniable duty to supervise and monitor their employees. If they fail to do so and damage is caused to clients, their argument that they are not concerned with the matter is unacceptable. If a government employee receives more payment than due from clients and remits it to the government, and the government institution pays the refund, the institution can subsequently recover the amount from its employee based on their employment relationship. The argument that the institution should not be jointly and severally liable with the employee for wrongfully received funds is invalid. This emphasizes the vicarious liability of government institutions for their employees’ actions, especially when there is a failure of supervision.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.82154 (Vol. 15): This decision outlines the conditions under which a government agency can be held liable for its employees’ actions. The Court stated that a government agency is only liable for an employee’s wrongful act if the act constitutes an “official fault” – meaning the employee acted in good faith, believing they were acting within their authority and performing their job correctly. If the act is considered a “personal fault” outside the scope of their official duties, the agency is not liable.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.54567 (Vol. 11): This case illustrates vicarious liability for government bodies. If a government agency (e.g., a municipality) receives a court order to block a house but the block is violated and the house is sold, the municipality is liable unless it proves that the violation was due to its employees’ fault. Failure to comply with a court order is a breach of specific legal rules (Civil Code Articles 2028, 2035, 2126), leading to liability.
2.2. Liability of Parents for Minors’ Acts (Civil Code Article 2115)
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.31721 (Vol. 9): This ruling clarifies parental liability. Under Civil Code Article 2115, a mother is obligated to pay compensation for damages caused by her child only if the child is a minor and the father is absent. If the child has reached the age of majority and commits an act that incurs liability, the parents are not legally obliged to pay compensation.
2.3. Liability of Main Contractors for Sub-Contractors
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.106147 (Vol. 18): The Court held that, in the absence of a contrary contractual clause, a main contractor is generally not extra-contractually liable for damages incurred by an employee hired by a sub-contractor. This indicates a general principle that liability follows the immediate employer, unless specific contractual agreements transfer this liability.
3. Fault-Based Liability (General Tort)
The cornerstone of extra-contractual liability in many legal systems, including Ethiopia, is the principle that a person who causes damage to another through their fault is obliged to compensate for that damage.
Civil Code Article 2027(1): “Any person who, by his fault, causes damage to another shall be bound to make good such damage.” Civil Code Article 2028: “A person shall be deemed to be at fault where he does not behave as a normal diligent person in similar circumstances.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.156425 (Vol. 23): This decision concerns the protection of a person’s image rights. Referencing Civil Code Articles 11, 13, 27-30, the Court affirmed that photographing, reproducing, or selling someone’s image in public without their permission is prohibited (Article 27). Article 29 further prohibits showing or selling an image without permission, outside of specific exceptions in Article 28. The remedy for violation includes a court order to prevent public display/sale or a claim for damages. Therefore, if a person’s image is used for advertising on TV without their consent, the advertiser is liable for damages.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.142630 (Vol. 23): This case involved police officers who caused a vehicle to overturn by throwing a tire in its path to stop a suspected contraband vehicle. The Court stated that while police have the authority to stop and search vehicles, they must exercise their professional duties according to relevant laws and regulations (Civil Code Article 2031(1)). If the method used to stop the vehicle (throwing a tire) was not professionally sanctioned and directly caused the vehicle to overturn, the police officers are partially liable for the damage. This highlights that even public officials, while exercising their duties, are subject to fault-based liability if they act negligently or contrary to professional standards.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.96548 (Vol. 19): This ruling addresses medical malpractice during childbirth. If a medical institution and professionals fail to exercise due diligence during delivery, resulting in physical injury to the newborn, the medical professional and the institution are jointly and severally liable for future loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and any other necessary costs related to the injury. This confirms liability for professional negligence in healthcare.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.77238 (Vol. 14): This case clarifies liability for damages to infrastructure (telecommunication or electric power networks) during construction. Referencing Proclamation No. 464/97, the Court stated that both administrative bodies (issuing construction permits) and permit applicants have a duty to ensure that no damage occurs to such networks during construction. If an administrative body fails to provide a map showing the presence of infrastructure, it does not exempt the construction applicant from extra-contractual liability under Civil Code Articles 2027(1) and 2035(1) and Proclamation No. 464/97. Both parties bear responsibility for ensuring safety and preventing damage to critical infrastructure.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.89504 (Vol. 15): This decision clarifies the possibility of suing only one of several potentially liable parties in a tort case. The Court held that the procedural law does not obligate a plaintiff to sue all potentially liable parties. If a property owner’s insured property is damaged extra-contractually, the insurance company, after paying compensation, can sue only the direct tortfeasor’s property owner to recover the compensation paid to its client.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.28750 (Vol. 5): This case distinguishes between contractual and extra-contractual liability and the principles of joint and several obligations. It states that joint and several obligations can arise from contract or directly from law. However, a plaintiff cannot mix claims arising from different causes of action (e.g., contractual and extra-contractual liability) and demand joint and several payment from defendants liable under different legal bases. For example, a bank cannot sue a goods importer (contractual relationship) and the Customs Authority (extra-contractual liability for wrongful release of goods) jointly and severally in the same claim, as their liabilities arise from distinct legal relationships.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.34906 (Vol. 5): This decision relates to defamation. The Court ruled that if a supervisor submits a report to their superiors regarding an employee, without disclosing it to irrelevant third parties, and the report is later found to be untrue, it does not constitute a civil act of defamation for which compensation can be claimed. The truth or falsity of the report is for the recipient superiors to determine, and the act of reporting to superiors is within the scope of duty, not an act causing civil liability for defamation.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.222458 (Date: February 27, 2015 E.C.): This case concerns contributory negligence in a rear-end collision where the victim’s car, hit from behind, was pushed into another car in front. The Court held that the tortfeasor’s liability can only be partial if there is direct contributory fault from the victim. The fact that the victim’s car was parked in a prohibited area (a traffic violation) does not by itself prove direct contribution to the damage if evidence shows the collision was primarily due to the tortfeasor’s fault and the victim’s car being parked there did not directly cause or exacerbate the damage in a manner that would reduce the tortfeasor’s primary responsibility. Therefore, the victim should be fully compensated for the damage.
4. Unjust Enrichment
Unjust enrichment arises when one person benefits at the expense of another without a legal justification (without just cause). The law mandates the return of such a benefit.
Civil Code Article 2162: “Any person who has obtained a benefit from the work or property of another without just cause shall restore such benefit to the person from whom he obtained it to the extent of the damage caused to such person.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.100651 (Vol. 19): This case involved a wife who continued to live in a house after her husband’s death, which she initially claimed was marital common property but was later ruled otherwise by higher courts. The Court held that the wife’s use of the house was not “without just cause” (አላግባብ) because she was under the good faith belief that it was marital property. Therefore, she was not liable to pay rent for the period she occupied the house based on unjust enrichment principles. This emphasizes the “without just cause” element of unjust enrichment; good faith belief in a right prevents the claim.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.59698 (Vol. 11): This decision states that there is no explicit legal provision requiring claims of unjust enrichment (e.g., for money obtained through fraud) to be proven solely by documentary evidence. Therefore, such claims can be proven by witness testimony and other forms of evidence, as long as there is no clear legal prohibition against it.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.90529 (Vol. 18): This reiterates the principle of unjust enrichment: a person who benefits from the labor or property of another without just cause must restore the benefit to the owner of the property or labor to the extent of the damage caused.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.93104 (Vol. 16): This decision further elaborates on the assessment of compensation in unjust enrichment cases. It clarifies that the compensation payable should be proportional to the benefit gained by the defendant and the loss suffered by the plaintiff, but it should not exceed either. The benefit can be tangible property, a right, or the cancellation of a debt. The benefit must be quantifiable in monetary terms and provide a real satisfaction.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.131804 (Vol. 23): This ruling affirms that if public officials caused wrongful payments of money outside legal procedures and this is established by a criminal conviction, the improperly paid money can be reclaimed from the responsible official based on extra-contractual liability (unjust enrichment/fault).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.91643 (Vol. 16): This case concerns interest on payments made without proper cause. The Court held that if a payment was made for a service that was legitimately due, the recipient is not considered to have received it in bad faith. Interest on such payments is only due from the date the money was received if the recipient acted in bad faith (e.g., misrepresented the service or payment due). Without bad faith, charging interest is inappropriate.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.22008 (Vol. 6): This simply states that an entity that made an undue payment (e.g., a housing administration organization making an improper compensation payment) can demand its return based on unjust enrichment (Civil Code Article 2164).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.54518 (Vol. 11): This ruling clarifies that Civil Code Article 2024 (related to contractual obligations) is not applicable to a claim based on unjust enrichment for occupying a house without a contract and benefitting from it. Such a claim must be based on the unjust enrichment provisions of the Civil Code.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.216285 (Date: October 3, 2015 E.C.): This comprehensive decision discusses what constitutes “without just cause” (without just cause) in unjust enrichment. The Court explains that if a person uses another’s property or labor without sufficient reason, they are liable for unjust enrichment. Liability can only be avoided if the person proves they had just cause or did not, in fact, benefit. Just cause is determined by whether the person’s source of right was legal and if they acted in good faith. For instance, if a person without a right sells another’s house, the owner can sue the seller for unjust enrichment, but not necessarily the buyer if the buyer acquired the property in good faith through a valid contract, as the buyer’s possession would be with just cause (the contract).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.228617 (Date: February 29, 2015 E.C.): This case further elaborates on “without just cause” in the context of a cancelled mortgage contract. The Court held that if a person occupied a house under a mortgage contract that was later nullified by a court, their occupation prior to the nullification was not without just cause, as they believed they had a valid legal right. Therefore, they are not liable to pay rent based on unjust enrichment for the period they held the house under the (later invalidated) mortgage. Liability for unjust enrichment (e.g., paying rent for the property’s use) only arises when the person knew they had no right to the property.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.153596 (Date: September 29, 2010 E.C.): This case concerned a defendant who used gravel produced by the plaintiff’s labor within a permitted area. Even though the defendant might not be legally obliged to pay for the gravel if they obtained a permit from the government, the Court ruled that if the defendant used gravel produced by the plaintiff’s labor and the plaintiff incurred expenses to produce it, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for those expenses. This implies that benefiting from another’s invested labor, even if the strict legal right to the resource is unclear, can trigger an unjust enrichment claim for the expenses incurred.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.103425 (Date: November 20, 2008 E.C.): This decision deals with a vehicle owner’s liability for a driver’s contract to safeguard a damaged vehicle. The Court held that a contract between a driver and a guard to protect a disabled vehicle falls under Civil Code Articles 2201(2) and 2204(1). The vehicle owner is jointly and severally liable with the driver for the payment to the guard under Civil Code Article 2212(1). Furthermore, the driver has the right to demand that the owner share or fully cover the expenses incurred to safeguard the owner’s vehicle.
5. Transfer of Extra-Contractual Liability by Contract
The question arises whether parties can contractually transfer extra-contractual liability to another party.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.93772 (Vol. 17): This case interprets Proclamation No. 464/97, Article 3(3), which mandates a construction owner to ensure no damage occurs to telecommunication or electric power networks during construction. The Court held that this obligation does not explicitly prohibit the construction owner from contractually transferring this civil obligation to the contractor performing the construction. Referencing Civil Code Articles 1675 (freedom of contract), 1716 (validity of contract), and 1731 (effects of contract), the Court indicated that such an agreement would be legally valid. This suggests that civil obligations arising from extra-contractual liability can, under certain conditions, be transferred or indemnified through contractual agreement between parties.
6. Assessment of Damages (Compensation)
When extra-contractual liability is established, the next crucial step is the assessment of damages (compensation) to be paid to the injured party.
Civil Code Article 2090: “The person liable shall make good the damage he has caused.” Civil Code Article 2091: “The compensation due shall correspond to the damage caused to the injured party.” Civil Code Article 2092: “The compensation shall include the actual damage suffered by the injured party and the profit of which he has been deprived.”
6.1. Material Damage
6.1.1. Personal Injury
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.152417 (Vol. 23): This decision states that Civil Code Article 2102 does not explicitly list factors for determining compensation for damages equitably. In such cases, the court must weigh the evidence and facts to ensure compensation is proportional to the damage, in line with Civil Code Article 2091. For personal injury, compensation cannot be valued like property; it must be calculated based on the extent of the victim’s overall loss of working capacity. When assessing personal injury compensation equitably, courts must consider the negative impact on the victim’s future life, current economic and social development, the diminishing purchasing power of money over time, and potential future income loss in light of actual circumstances.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.19338 / CASSATION CASE NO.34138 (Vol. 5): When personal injury is sustained, the victim only needs to prove the occurrence of the damage and a direct causal link between the act and the outcome. They are not required to prove the tortfeasor’s state of mind, as liability can be strict. Compensation should be proportionate to the damage, meaning the victim should neither profit from nor be under-compensated for the injury. When permanent injury or partial/total loss of working capacity occurs, damage assessment becomes challenging. The Court affirmed that compensation should be based on the general utility (overall working capacity as a human being), not specific utility (ability to perform a specific job), because every body part has varied utility for overall human existence. Even if an injury (e.g., loss of an eye) does not reduce future income, compensation is due for the general harm to daily life and activities, indicating a component of non-pecuniary damage tied to overall functioning. If the amount of compensation is difficult to assess, judges have the power to determine it equitably under Civil Code Article 2102.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.42962 (Vol. 10): This decision reinforces that compensation for personal injury should be assessed based on the reduction of the victim’s general working capacity as a human being, not solely on their ability to perform their pre-injury job. Even if the victim had no income before the injury, they are not precluded from receiving compensation if damage and reduced working capacity are proven. The focus is on the future negative impact on their earning potential.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.92040 (Vol. 16): This ruling clarifies that damage compensation must be based on sufficient evidence or equity. It reiterates that the assessment should follow the principle of specific utility rather than general utility for fairness, to avoid over or under-compensation where exact damage is hard to ascertain. If damage is proven and reasonably certain to negatively impact the victim’s future, compensation is appropriate, even if material damage cannot be precisely quantified. Judges have discretion under Civil Code Articles 2101 and 2102 to assess compensation equitably. The Court also notes that future life expectancy should be based on national/local studies, not mere claims. Furthermore, compensation can be paid in a lump sum, which is a matter for judicial discretion. It also clarifies that if a pedestrian crossing a zebra crossing is hit by a car and suffers 30% permanent injury, the car owner is liable, even if the victim can still perform their old job, because the damage will negatively affect their overall life.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.226178 (Date: October 28, 2015 E.C.): This decision emphasizes that while converting physical injury to monetary terms is difficult, “future damage” must be compensated if the injury has a negative impact on the victim’s future working capacity. This is primarily proven by medical evidence. If the victim is a child, and thus not yet earning income, and precise damage is difficult to ascertain, judges can determine compensation equitably under Civil Code Article 2102.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.179829 (Date: September 25, 2013 E.C.): This reiterates that the plaintiff in a damage claim has the burden to prove the occurrence of the damage. If the damage amount is difficult to determine, the court can use its power under Civil Code Article 2102 to determine it equitably. The Court also emphasizes that future damage must be determined based on medical evidence confirming the injury’s permanent or temporary nature. If medical evidence is unclear, courts should order a medical board review rather than ruling on future damages prematurely.
6.1.2. Death
Civil Code Article 2095(1): “In case of death, the husband or wife or the parents or children of the deceased may claim compensation in their own name for the damage they suffer with regard to their maintenance.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.134240 (Vol. 22): This decision strictly interprets Civil Code Article 2095(1), confirming that only the spouse, parents, or children of the deceased can claim compensation for loss of maintenance due to death. Siblings are explicitly excluded from making such claims.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.34314 (Vol. 9): If a human life is lost due to an extra-contractual act and the tortfeasor’s liability is established, the court should determine compensation equitably, even if the claimant cannot prove precisely how much benefit the deceased provided or how much longer the deceased might have lived. The claim should not be dismissed for lack of such specific proof.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.50225 (Vol. 10): This ruling clarifies that children of a deceased parent, even if over 18 years old and not proven to be dependent, are not automatically precluded from receiving compensation for their father’s death in a car accident. The Cassation Bench noted that the law on maintenance (Article 812, etc.) does not necessarily limit claimants to those unable to work. The crucial factor is the claimant’s situation; if they are in a situation where they cannot obtain maintenance, their age is not the primary consideration for compensation.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.226322 (Date: December 26, 2015 E.C.): This case reaffirms that parents are among those who can claim compensation for loss of maintenance due to a child’s death. A mother can claim compensation by proving loss of maintenance or support from her deceased child. However, the compensation should not be calculated based on the deceased child’s full remaining earning life up to retirement age; rather, it should be based on how much the deceased child actually contributed to the mother’s maintenance, the mother’s age at the time of the accident, and how long she might have expected to receive support.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.30442 (Vol. 5): Compensation claims by a spouse and children for death are considered under Civil Code Article 2095(1) and typically take the form of maintenance (pension). The Court clarified that for a spouse, simply being young does not automatically disqualify her from compensation if she can prove she is in financial difficulty and unable to support herself. For a child unable to work, the tortfeasor should pay compensation.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.32250 (Vol. 5): When compensation for loss of maintenance due to death is determined to be paid monthly (e.g., until the victim’s parent reaches 85 years), the court ruled that the tortfeasor should deposit the entire lump sum compensation in a bank or financial institution in the victim’s locality. This ensures the victim receives regular payments, and safeguards are in place for both parties if the victim dies early or the tortfeasor dies prematurely. Annual deposits are insufficient; the full amount should be secured.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.38117 (Vol. 11): This case involved the death of a minor in a car accident where the child provided support to parents. The Court held that if it is proven that the deceased minor provided work assistance and support to their parents, the parents have a claim for loss of benefit under Civil Code Articles 2090 and 2091. Compensation should be determined based on Civil Code Article 2095(2), and if the exact amount of future benefit is difficult to ascertain, it should be determined equitably.
6.1.3. Property Damage
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.127587 (Vol. 21): This decision clarifies that calculating market value for vehicle damage is a task for the Transport Authority, not traffic police. If a vehicle is a “total loss,” the claimant can only demand the total estimated value of the property, not anticipated lost income from its use.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.54021 (Vol. 11): If property is completely destroyed due to an extra-contractual act and the tortfeasor is ordered to pay its estimated value at the time of the damage, including costs for past improvements or renovations is deemed to result in over-compensation. Furthermore, if the victim had the opportunity to mitigate their loss (e.g., by repairing the vehicle promptly and resuming work) but refused to do so in bad faith, they are not entitled to full compensation for the increased loss caused by their own inaction.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.103525 (Date: April 28, 2008 E.C.): This case details the principles for compensating vehicle damage. Compensation must be proportionate to the damage as per Civil Code Articles 2090(1) and 2091(1). If the vehicle is repairable, compensation should cover the repair cost based on expert assessment. If it is beyond repair, compensation should cover the cost of replacing it with a similar vehicle or buying a similar one. The estimated value from the Road Transport Authority’s database may not reflect current market value and requires validation by qualified assessors.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.27565 (Vol. 5): This decision states that if a vehicle is completely destroyed due to damage, and its value is paid, denying compensation for lost income during the period the vehicle was out of service is incorrect, unless there is a specific legal or contractual reason to deny it. The tortfeasor is liable for both the vehicle’s value and the lost income, as compensation should be proportionate to the damage under Civil Code Article 2090.
6.2. Moral Damage (Non-Pecuniary Loss)
Moral damage, also known as non-pecuniary loss or pain and suffering, compensates for emotional distress, mental anguish, and other non-economic harm.
Civil Code Article 2105: “Compensation for moral damage may be awarded where the nature of the damage lends itself to such compensation.” Civil Code Article 2116(3): “In no case shall the compensation for moral damage exceed one thousand Birr.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.32144 (Vol. 5): This decision clarifies that moral damage compensation is legally recognized under Civil Code Article 2105. However, it explicitly states that, as per Civil Code Article 2116, the amount of moral damage compensation “shall in no case exceed one thousand Birr (ETB 1,000).” This fixed cap applies even if the damage involves death or affects multiple claimants (e.g., a wife and children losing a husband/father). The calculation of lost income for death compensation should be based on net (after deduction) not gross salary.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.69428 (Vol. 13): This reiterates the strict cap of ETB 1,000 for moral damage compensation, regardless of the number of victims. If multiple people suffer moral damage from the same incident, their combined compensation cannot exceed ETB 1,000 as per Civil Code Article 2116(3).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.31099 (Vol. 5): This case involved the death of a child due to an electric line under the employer’s control, making the employer strictly liable. While compensation for loss of maintenance (under Civil Code Article 2095) might not be applicable if the child did not provide maintenance to the caregiver, the Court confirmed that the caregiver suffered moral damage due to the death of the child they nurtured. Therefore, they have the right to claim compensation for moral damage, emphasizing that moral damage is distinct from material loss of support.
6.3. Judicial Discretion in Assessing Damages
Civil Code Article 2102: “Where the precise amount of the damage cannot be ascertained, the court may fix the amount of the compensation equitably.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.108251 (Vol. 19): Judges have the power to determine compensation equitably under Civil Code Article 2102 when there is reasonable certainty of damage but the exact amount is difficult to ascertain. However, this discretion must be exercised carefully to ensure the compensation is neither unduly inflated nor reduced. It must be proportional to the actual and potential damage, based on objective considerations rather than emotion.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.64590 (Vol. 11): This ruling clarifies that judges can assess damages equitably under Civil Code Article 2102 in special circumstances where the exact amount is difficult to determine. Equitable assessment can result in either an increase or decrease in compensation. The decision also noted that if the assessed compensation considers the prevailing inflation, it should not be considered an error unless it is clearly unreasonable.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.91710 (Vol. 15): This case reinforces that if a person’s photo or image is used for advertising without their permission, compensation is due. The amount of compensation for such use can be determined equitably by judges, considering the benefit gained by the tortfeasor from the unauthorized use.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.67225 (Vol. 13): This comprehensive decision reiterates that compensation for extra-contractual liability must be proportional to the damage, covering actual and future damages based on sufficient evidence or equity. It advocates for the specific utility principle in assessing compensation (as opposed to general utility) for fairness. Even if material damage cannot be precisely proven, if damage is known to exist and will negatively impact the victim’s future, compensation should be awarded equitably. The Court also clarifies that lump-sum payment of compensation is permissible for living victims, not just death compensation which the Civil Code Article 2095(2) addresses as pension-like payments.
6.4. Contributory Negligence (Civil Code Articles 2097, 2098)
If the injured party’s own fault contributes to the damage, their compensation may be reduced.
Civil Code Article 2097(1): “The injured party shall not be entitled to claim compensation where he has acted contrary to good faith.” Civil Code Article 2097(2): “The injured party shall take reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the damage.” Civil Code Article 2098(1): “Where the damage has been caused partly by the fault of the injured party, the compensation shall be reduced according to the extent of such fault.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.132017 (Vol. 22): This decision reinforces Civil Code Article 2097(1) that compensation cannot be claimed if the victim acted in bad faith. Article 2097(2) obligates the victim to mitigate damages. If a victim’s damaged car could have been repaired promptly to reduce lost income but they refused to repair it, their increased loss of income is partly due to their own contribution. Therefore, they should not receive full compensation for the entire extended period of lost income.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.106450 (Vol. 18): This reiterates Civil Code Article 2097(2): if the victim could have mitigated or prevented the damage through reasonable diligence, they are not entitled to full compensation. If the victim contributed to the damage, the tortfeasor’s liability is partial, and compensation should be reduced accordingly.
7. Limitation Periods (Prescription)
Limitation periods (prescription) set the timeframes within which a legal action must be brought.
7.1. General Limitation Period for Extra-Contractual Liability (Civil Code Article 2143(1))
Civil Code Article 2143(1): “Actions for compensation shall be barred after two years from the day on which the injured party knew of the damage and of the person liable therefor.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.119563 (Vol. 20): This decision clarifies that if a tort claim is filed more than two years after the damage became known (even if the damage continues to increase annually), the claim is barred by the two-year limitation period under Civil Code Article 2143. The fact that the damage amount might increase over time does not prevent the clock from starting when the damage itself is known.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.34544 (Vol. 9): The Court affirmed that the two-year limitation period under Civil Code Article 2143(1) applies to all claims for compensation for damages, including those resulting from death. Therefore, a claim for compensation due to death must be filed within two years from the date the damage occurred (or was known).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.16062 (Vol. 3): This ruling reiterates that claims for loss of maintenance by a spouse or children due to death, under Civil Code Article 2095, are extra-contractual claims governed by the two-year limitation period of Civil Code Article 2143(1).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.226466 (Date: December 25, 2015 E.C.): This comprehensive decision clarifies that the two-year limitation period under Civil Code Article 2143(1) begins to run from the date the damage occurred, not from the date the wrongful act was committed. If damage occurs later or is continuous, the plaintiff can claim for damages incurred within the two years prior to filing the suit, provided they can prove these damages. However, if future damage (profit deprivation) is reasonably certain, compensation can be claimed without waiting for it to materialize, and the limitation period starts from the date that future damage became certain. For example, if flood damage to farmland makes future production impossible, the limitation period for lost future income starts from the date of the flood damage, not each harvest season.
7.2. Exception for Criminal Acts (Civil Code Article 2143(2))
Civil Code Article 2143(2): “Where the act causing damage is a criminal offence, the action for compensation shall be barred after the period of limitation provided for the criminal action.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.58920 (Vol. 11): This decision clarifies that if the act causing extra-contractual damage is also a criminal offense, the limitation period for the civil claim is determined by the limitation period for the criminal action, as per Civil Code Article 2143(2). Crucially, the Court stated that it is the nature of the act as a criminal offense that matters, not whether the tortfeasor was actually prosecuted or convicted for the criminal act.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.161265 (Date: December 26, 2011 E.C.): This further confirms that if the act is criminal, the limitation period is that of the criminal law. The decision states that if the tortfeasor was acquitted in the criminal case, but the acquittal does not definitively state that the act itself was not criminal, or if the acquittal was based on reasons other than the act not being criminal, then the longer criminal limitation period still applies. The civil court does not have to wait for the outcome of the criminal case to rule on the limitation period.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.90706 (Date: December 14, 2006 E.C.): This case illustrates the application of the criminal limitation period. If a driver violates Criminal Code Article 559(2) (e.g., causing an accident through negligence), leading to an imprisonment term longer than one year, the criminal limitation period is five years (Criminal Code Article 217(1)(e)). Therefore, the civil claim for damages arising from such an act is also subject to a five-year limitation period under Civil Code Article 2143(2).
7.3. Limitation Period for Unjust Enrichment Claims
The Civil Code chapter on unjust enrichment does not explicitly state its own limitation period. This has led to conflicting interpretations by the Cassation Bench.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.34406 (Vol. 6) and CASSATION CASE NO.20036 (Vol. 5): Initially, the Cassation Bench held that since the chapter on unjust enrichment does not specify a limitation period, and since unjust enrichment is a form of extra-contractual liability, the two-year limitation period of Civil Code Article 2143(1) should apply to unjust enrichment claims. For instance, in CASSATION CASE NO.20036, a claim for repayment of undue pension benefits was subjected to the two-year limitation period.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.78629 (Vol. 22) and CASSATION CASE NO.88118 (Date: November 6, 2006 E.C.): Later, the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, sitting with five or more judges (making its decision binding), reversed its previous interpretation. It held that the two-year limitation period of Civil Code Article 2143(1) is not applicable to unjust enrichment claims. The Court reasoned that while unjust enrichment and extra-contractual liability share similarities and are found in the same chapter, the specific provision for limitation period (Article 2143(3)) for other causes of action means the general two-year rule does not apply to unjust enrichment. Since no specific limitation period is provided in the unjust enrichment chapter itself, the general ten-year limitation period for civil actions (Civil Code Article 1845, by reference to Article 1677(1)) should apply. Therefore, the current binding interpretation is that unjust enrichment claims are subject to a ten-year limitation period.
8. Disinterested Party (Liability for Benefit without Cause)
Civil Code Article 2089 addresses situations where damage occurs during a “disinterested” relationship, meaning the person providing a benefit (e.g., a free ride) receives no counter-value.
Civil Code Article 2089(1): “The owner or the person using a vehicle or other thing the use of which has caused damage shall not be liable for the damage if the damage was caused while a disinterested relationship existed between him and the injured party.” Civil Code Article 2089(2): “The owner or user shall however be liable where the damage was due to his fault or the fault of his agents.”
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.38457 (Vol. 9): This decision confirms the general principle of Article 2089(1): if damage occurs during a disinterested relationship (e.g., a free ride), the owner or user of the vehicle is generally not liable. This is an exception to the strict liability for vehicles (Article 2081(1)).
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.92020 (Vol. 15): This case interprets the exception to the disinterested party rule under Civil Code Article 2089(2). It states that even if a disinterested relationship exists, the owner or user of the vehicle can still be held liable if the damage was due to their fault. For example, if a vehicle owner carries a child free of charge in the cargo area (a dangerous practice requiring high caution) and causes damage, the owner is liable if their fault is proven. This shows that strict liability under Article 2081 is replaced by fault-based liability under Article 2089(2) in disinterested relationships.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.24818 (Vol. 5): This reinforces the above: if a person is injured while receiving a free ride, they cannot claim compensation under extra-contractual liability unless they prove that the damage was caused by the fault of the vehicle owner or driver.
Cassation Bench Decision CASSATION CASE NO.21296 (Vol. 5): This detailed decision discusses the defenses to strict liability, including contributory fault, existence of a contract, and the “disinterested party” relationship (Article 2089). It clarifies that in a disinterested relationship, the injured party can only claim compensation if they prove the damage was caused by the fault of the owner or custodian, and such liability would be fault-based (under Articles 2028 et seq.), not strict. The Court also clarifies that “other thing” in Article 2089(1) includes any property that can be used, including a vehicle, and that “using” does not necessarily mean the injured party was driving the vehicle themselves; simply benefitting from its use in a disinterested capacity is sufficient for the rule to apply.
Conclusion
Extra-contractual liability in Ethiopia, as codified in the Civil Code and extensively interpreted by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, presents a nuanced legal landscape. While the law broadly aligns with common civil law traditions by recognizing both fault-based and fault-independent (strict) liabilities, the practical application is heavily shaped by judicial precedents. Key areas of strict liability for buildings, dangerous activities, and motor vehicles impose significant burdens on owners and operators, reflecting a policy of risk distribution. However, these strict liabilities are balanced by defenses such as victim’s fault or, in specific contexts, the existence of a disinterested relationship, which shifts the burden back to proving fault.
Liability for the acts of others, particularly for government institutions and parents, underscores the importance of supervision and the distinction between official and personal fault. The principles of unjust enrichment provide a mechanism for restitution where benefits are acquired without legal justification, with the Cassation Bench ultimately settling on a longer ten-year limitation period for such claims.
The assessment of damages is guided by the principles of proportionality, ensuring victims are fully compensated but not unjustly enriched. Courts wield significant equitable discretion in quantifying damages, especially for personal injury and death, where precise monetary valuation is challenging. However, strict limitations on moral damages highlight a specific policy choice.
Finally, the jurisprudence on limitation periods is critical for the enforceability of claims. The general two-year period for tort claims and the longer criminal limitation period for acts that are also criminal offenses provide clarity, though the evolving interpretation for unjust enrichment claims underscores the dynamic nature of judicial law-making. The consistent application of these principles and the ongoing refinement of interpretations by the Cassation Bench are vital for ensuring justice and predictability in Ethiopian extra-contractual liability law.