Judicial principles and studies
Tort Liability, Burden of Proof, Expert-Report Discrepancies and Effect on Interest Claims
A brief summary of principles on tort liability, required evidentiary elements, how differing expert reports affect claims, and treatment of legal interest under power of attorney.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The official points address application of tort liability and the burden of proof for damages arising from works on property, the role of technical expert reports, how discrepancies between reports are treated, and the effect of power-of-attorney limits on claims for legal interest.
Summary
- Where plaintiffs base their claim on tort (Article 256), acts performed on the property are attributed to its owner and Article 1021 need not be applied; this principle is drawn from a prior cassation decision No. 1245/2022. - Relevant civil provisions require proof of damage, the act, the causative agent, and the causal link between them; this principle is also drawn from cassation decision No. 1245/2022. - If evidence shows excavation works directly caused the damages, the dispute exists between the party who performed the excavation and the claimant (principle drawn from a prior cassation decision). - Court-ordered inspection and technical expertise are admissible means of proof for the trial court; the court of cassation does not re-evaluate them so long as they comply with the law and produce an acceptable conclusion. - If experts do not specify compensation values per damage, repair costs, required materials and their values, whether the building becomes safe after repairs, or lost profits for the periods of the damaging works and repairs, the appellate court must summon the experts for discussion and order a supplementary report or a new expertise as appropriate. - Tort liability covers material damage and lost profits once those damages are realized. - When the elements of compensation differ across expert reports (for example, some reports assess only diminution in land value while another lists only repair items), the principle of a "wide discrepancy" cannot be applied. - If a special power of attorney did not authorize the agent to claim legal interest, not awarding legal interest is consistent with the law. Note: This is a general educational summary based on the official points provided; it is not a judicial text nor legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.