Page:Civil code of Japan compared with French (1902-06-01).pdf/16

418 word there is no taint about the matter. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to treat it as an illegal act, nor is it necessary to look upon it with suspicion. The Japanese Code has adopted this view, and so far as the peculiar circumstances admit, applies to it the rules relating to agency.

— Delicts, or wrongful acts, are the “torts” of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The French law on the subject is contained in the five articles, 1382-1386. The student of comparative legislation is struck by the paucity of rules in the French law relating to delicts, and the large mass of law on the subject of “torts” in the common law system. This is not the proper place to examine the various causes that have led to this difference. But one characteristic of the Anglo-American people may be mentioned which has exercised great influence in the development of the exact and detailed principles in regard to torts. I refer to the right loving nature or instinct of the race. The Japanese law on the subject is comprised in sixteen articles, and the provisions are quite comprehensive. Article 709 states that a person who intentionally or negligently violates another’s right is bound to make compensation for the damage arising therefrom. The next article prescribes that whether the case be one of injury to the person, liberty or reputation of another, or to his rights of property, the person who, under the provisions of the preceding article, has rendered himself liable for damages, must also give compensation for injury other than to rights of property. Regarding the liability of minors or of persons of unsound mind or their guardians; of employers for the wrongful acts of their employees; of persons who employ contractors; of the possessors of animals, etc., minute provisions are made. Two peculiar features, however, may be mentioned: First, where a person is killed by the wrongful act of another, the right is given to the parents, to the husband or wife and to the children of the person killed to demand compensation for damage, even though no property right of theirs has been violated. Second, in regard to contributory negligence of the injured person, it is provided that if the injured person is himself in fault, the court may take that fact into consideration in determining the measure of damages. Thus the existence of contributory negligence is simply made a factor in estimating the amount of damages.

The remaining books of the Japanese Civil Code concern Family Relations and Succession, and for reasons which have already been explained, do not come within the scope of the present review. My task is, therefore, completed. I fear I have not always succeeded