In the most narrowly construed sense, delict is a Latin word and a legal term, which, in some civil law systems, signifies a willful wrong, similar to the common law concept of tort though differing in many substantive ways. The law of delicts in civil law countries is usually a general statute passed by the legislature whereas tort law in common law countries arises from case law. In addition, a delict is defined abstractly in terms of infringement of rights whereas in common law, there are many specific types of torts. Delict deals with the righting of legal wrongs in civil law, on the principle of liability for loss caused by failure in the duty of care, whether deliberate or accidental. When considering pursuing a claim under delict, in Scots law, there are three criteria that have to be met: firstly you have to establish that you were owed a duty of care, secondly you have to prove that that duty of care has been breached and lastly you have to show a causal link between the breach of care and the loss you have suffered.
German-speaking countries
By contrast, the civil law of German-speaking countries does not differentiate between delict and quasi-delict as do French and Roman law. Under German :de:Deliktsrecht |Deliktsrecht, or ‘law of delict’, claims for damages can arise from either fault-based liability, i.e. with intention or through negligence, or strict liability. Under § 823 BGB, damages can be based on harm inflicted either on an erga omnes right such as life, bodily autonomy, health, freedom and ownership, or on the violation of a law protecting a certain legal interest. However, § 826 BGB compare closely to delict. Under this provision, someone who intentionally inflicts harm on another person contra bonos mores is liable for damages. This widens the scope of delictual liability not just to the infringement of rights but also to pure economic loss.
and Sri Lanka also use the law of delict as opposed to torts. The South African common law elaborates a set of general principles in terms of which liability for loss is allocated. This should be seen in contrast to the Anglo-American common law approach which has distinct tort actions, each with their own peculiar elements which require satisfaction before an action is founded. The delictual elements that have to be satisfied before a claimant can be successful are:
Conduct - which may consist of either a commission or an omission, though liability for an omission will arise only where there is a duty to act.
Unlawfulness - the conduct complained of must be legally reprehensible. This is usually assessed with reference to the legal convictions of the community.
Fault - save in limited cases where liability is 'strict' once the wrongfulness of the conduct is established, it is necessary to establish whether the person being sued acted intentionally or negligently, either of which is sufficient for liability to attach.
Damage - finally the conduct must have resulted in some form of loss or harm to the claimant in order for them to have a claim. This damage can take the form of patrimonial loss or non-patrimonial damages.
Causation - the conduct that the claimant complains of must have caused damage, in this regard both factual causation and legal causation are assessed. The purpose of legal causation is to limit the scope of factual causation, if the consequence of the action is too remote to have been foreseen by an objective, reasonable person the defendant will escape liability.
It is possible that a single set of facts may give rise to both a contractual and a delictual claim. The definition of animus contrahendi states an intention to contract. Public policy considerations are evident in the setting of the limits to each of the requirements.
In the Canon law of the Catholic Church, a delict is the canonical equivalent of a crime. A delict is distinct from a sin, even a mortal sin. One can be legally guilty of a delict and not be morally culpable for a sin, while one can be culpable for a sin and not legally guilty of a delict.
