See Especially Busto Lago, J.M. (1998), La antijuridicidad del daño resarcible en la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, Tecnos, Madrid, passim, but 175 ff.; Albaladejo, M. (2008) Derecho Civil. II, 13th Edition, Edisofer, Madrid, 923; Bustos Pueche, J.E. (2004) La antijuridicidad, presupuesto de la responsabilidad extracontractual. La Ley, 22 September 2004, 1 ff.; Carrasco, A. (1989) Comentario al art. 1101. In Albaladejo, M., Ed., Comentarios al Código Civil y Compilaciones Forales, Edersa, Madrid, 593, on Contractual Liability; Lacruz, J.L. (1985) Elementos de Derecho Civil. Vol. II, 1.o, 2nd Edition, J.M. Bosch, Barcelona, 502, text and fn. 2; Martín Casals, M. and Solé, J. (2005) Fault under Spanish Law. In Widmer, P., Ed., Unification of Tort Law: Fault, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 227 ff.; Peña López, F. (2013), Comentario al art. 1902. In Bercovitz, Ed., Comentarios al Código Civil, IX, tirant lo blanch, Valencia, 12969-70; Plaza Penadés, J. (2011) Comentario al art. 1902. In Cañizares, A., et al., Código civil comentado, IV, 1457 ff.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Unlawfulness in Western European Tort Law

  AUTHORS: Martín García-Ripoll

  KEYWORDS: Tort Law, Unlawfulness, Wrongfulness, Fault, Liability of Minors and Mentally Ill Persons

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Access Library Journal, Vol.2 No.6, June 15, 2015

  ABSTRACT: In the wake of the German Civil Code (BGB), the codes of different countries of Western Europe include an apparently distorting requisite for an action in tort, which is the unlawfulness. This paper aims to clarify its original meaning and the possibilities of accepting it in jurisdictions where its law does not require expressly that element, including those of Common Law. Before moving directly into the problem, a clarification seems necessary for Common Law scholars, for this paper is focused on a scientific European issue. In Common Law, it is debatable whether there is a general tort law or different torts, but no matter the opinion of the different authors is , each tort is supposed to have its own requisites. In contrast, in Continental Law, the trend is to establish common requisites for all torts (although it is distinguished between “normal” and strict liability), and to insert subsequently nuances when dealing with special group of cases. This paper deals with one of these general elements of an action in tort in some codified systems: the unlawfulness, but without rejecting its usefulness in Common Law jurisdictions.