Download here.

May be helpful, for instance, in seeing the sequence of oxcarts (two again) in the harvest festival procession next Sunday.

User’s comment by ivan svrznjak: ‘Passt scho’.

In an earlier entry I mentioned the heavily biased reporting of a Bolivian immigrant to the UK who was said to have been allowed to stay to look after his cat – whereas the acquisition of the cat was just one of several points suggesting that he and his girlfriend planned a long-term relationship.

It seems that Theresa May, the UK home secretary, also believes the tabloid version of this story. The Guardian reports:

The justice secretary told a fringe meeting organised by the Daily Telegraph: “I’ve never had a conversation on the subject with Theresa, so I’d have to find out about these strange cases she is throwing out.

“They are British cases and British judges she is complaining about. I cannot believe anybody has ever had deportation refused on the basis of owning a cat. I’ll have a small bet with her that nobody has ever been refused deportation on the grounds of the ownership of a cat.”

A Home Office source later defended May, saying she had been right. The source quoted the judge in the case, who said: “The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya [the cat] by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that appellant and his partner enjoy.

The UK Human Rights Blog has taken this up.

The decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal by Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson (IA/14578/2008), dated 1 December 2008, can be read here. It is only two and a half pages long. Judge Gleeson explained that the reconsideration was granted in reference to

the inappropriate weight placed on the appellant having to leave behind not only his partner but also their joint cat, [ ]

The judge rather cheekily anonymised the cat’s name, which is almost certainly an attempt at humour, given the final line of the judgment:

The Immigration Judge’s determination is upheld and the cat, [ ], need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.

Here it appears that the Home Office had failed, until the day of the appeal, to follow guidelines issued earlier that year – and so it would have lost anyway, cat or no cat.

Thereas May has already attracted the attention of human rights lawyers once this week, when she called for the Human Rights Act to be abolished because it had led to decisions against the Home Office. From the same weblog:

The Home Secretary Theresa May’s has told the Sunday Telegraph that she would “like to see the Human Rights Act go“.

There is plenty of nonsense out there about the Human Rights Act. For example Emma McClarkin – a member of the European Parliament no less – said on BBC’s Politics Show (at 5:15) that we are “hamstrung by the European Charter of Human Rights”; a charter which does not exist.

This term is a classic example of a legal translation problem. It was used in a medical context, where such a specific legal term was complete overkill, and the medical translator had trouble researching it, unsurprisingly.

The general context was: This patient had an injury, and the haftungsausfüllende Kausalität between the accident and the injury to health has been proved.

Before I go into detail, here is the short answer: haftungsausfüllende Kausalität (literally liability-fulfilling causation) means that the accident caused the injury. Thus the writer is actually explaining the technical term in context. A translator could write ‘It has been proved that the accident caused the injury’.

But in another context it might be necessary to explain the term. One port of call is my ancient edition of Hans Brox, Besonderes Schuldrecht – just occasionally, German students’ textbooks are the best resource – which has index entries:

Kausalität bei unerlaubter Handlung
– haftungsbegründende
– haftungsausfüllende

Haftungsbegründend: if the defendant’s conduct caused the legal wrong (Rechtsgutverletzung) and the defendant is responsible for this.
Haftungsausfüllend: if the legal wrong caused the damage/loss/injury.

This is the German way of determining whether a defendant is liable for an injury. The common law looks at causation in a similar way, differing mainly in detail. The German approach is very theoretical, but so is the American approach.

Now I wonder what Markesinis and Unberath, The German Law of Torts, have to say about this.

Causation
French lawyers, paraphrasing Voltaire’s dictum about the existence of God, have often teased the Germans by saying that if causation did not exist as a subject it would have to be invented so that German lawyers would have something to exercise their minds.

Markesinis says that the Germans, like the Americans and the English but more clearly so than the French, take a bifurcated approach to problems of causation.

The first stage, haftungsbegründend above, requires that the defendant’s conduct is a conditio sine qua non of the hurt, which is better know to Common lawyers as the ‘but-for’ test.

By the way, when I write of the defendant, German texts refer to der Täter or der Schädiger.

There doesn’t seem to be a close equivalent to the second stage in English tort law. The question of foreseeability and directness of consequence arises. There is a term used in the USA in this context, and that is proximate cause. To quote another textbook, Kenneth S. Abraham, The Forms and Functions of Tort Law, ‘Use of the term “proximate cause” is unfortunate and misleading.’

Indeed, the term proximate cause has made it to Language Log, where it was discussed by Roger Shuy, my second-favourite writer there. Interesting links there too. The term came up when a lawyer was a juror and other jurors asked him to define the term. Tiersma is quoted as giving proximate and cause as problematic words.

I note that there is a discussion of this on ProZ. The discussions there are often helpful. Beate Luetzebaeck is very reliable (she’s trained as a lawyer in both common law and German systems). The asker chose proximate cause, which appears wrong to me, especially when contrasted with contributory cause – that’s not the distinction made in German.