Thus, for example, in most cases where liability was without proof of fault compensation was limited.

Moreover, there was support for the principle of liability without proof of fault, which was a trend in liability regimes at both the national and international levels.

Secondly, the principle that liability should not require proof of fault was also correct.

Secondly, that liability regime should include the imposition of liability on the operator or, where appropriate, other person or entity, without requiring proof of fault.

Questions were raised concerning the nature of the liability of the certification authority, in particular whether such liability would be based on negligence or whether it would be defined as strict liability , a notion which was also referred to as objective liability or no fault liability .

It was suggested that the approaches of certain treaties that combined strict and fault liability should be followed.

It should be brought into line with the approach adopted in some treaties where strict liability was combined with fault liability and the regime was applicable mutatis mutandis to specific cases.

2. These measures should include the imposition of liability on the operator or, where appropriate, other person or entity. Such liability should not require proof of fault. Any conditions, limitations or exceptions to such liability shall be consistent with draft principle 3.

Such a strict liability regime was in keeping with the polluter pays principle and was beneficial for victims of hazardous activities since it relieved them of the burden of proving fault.

Such liability would be without proof of fault, and could be limited or subject to exceptions, taking into account social, economic and other policy considerations.

It's my fault. My fault.

Such provision (not necessarily to be included in Chapter 10) could be a fault based liability with a reversal of the burden of proof, similar to the provision relating to the shipper's liability in paragraph 31(1) (previously 29(1)).

In some cases, such liability extends to liability for environmental damage.

It was also noted that draft principle 4, particularly the application of no fault liability under paragraph 2, should be carefully studied, with some delegations seeking more prominence for the polluter pays principle.

It's your fault. it's your fault

It's your fault, too My fault?

B. Liability for service

(b) Liability for service

2. Liability for service

It ain't my fault. Whose fault is it?

If you're saying it's my fault Your fault.

The shipper is relieved of all or part of its liability if it proves that the cause or one of the causes of the loss, damage or injury is not attributable to its fault or to the fault of any person referred to in article 35.

A fault to heaven, a fault against the dead.

I'm sorry for that. It was my fault.

Yes, at fault for not avoiding the blame.

His fault was for asking those stupid questions.

Liability for intentional or reckless behaviour

G. Liability and compensation for damage

Third party liability for leased aircraft

Another possibility for limiting the liability consisted in excluding liability for certain types of damages, such as consequential damages.

My fault.

Your fault!

Father, the fault is not Tancredi's. The fault is the times.

And, you know, you can't fault him for accuracy.

2. Civil liability for nuclear damage (IAEA)

B. Liability for service 16 19 5

It wasn't luck, sir. It was my fault. It wasn't anybody's fault.

It's my fault maybe I didn't do better for her.

It's our fault.

through my fault.

Your own fault.

It's sae's fault.

It's your fault.

It's your fault.

Wasn't his fault.