Übersetzung für "Schaden eintreten" in Englisch

For some types of dyes this damage may occur immediately and may also not be reversible.

The carrier or the actual carrier is not entitled to the exonerations and limits of liability provided for in this Convention or in the contract of carriage if it is proved that he himself caused the damage by an act or omission, either with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with the knowledge that such damage would probably result.

The Athens Convention establishes a fault-based liability regime, in which the carrier can limit his liability unless he acted “with intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result”.

The servant or agent of the carrier or of the performing carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of those limits if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of that servant or agent done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

The limitation right, both in the Athens Convention 1974 and in the LLMC regime, is lost only where the carrier has acted “with intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result”.

The carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of the limits of liability prescribed in Articles 7 and 8 and paragraph 1 of Article 10, if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

Save in respect of the carriage of cargo, the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the servant or agent done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.

The limits of liability provided for in these Uniform Rules as well as the provisions of national law, which limit the compensation to a fixed amount, shall not apply if it is proved that the loss or damage results from an act or omission, which the carrier has committed either with intent to cause such loss or damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage would probably result.

The carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of the limits of liability prescribed in Articles 7 and 8 and Article 10(1), if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

The servant or agent of the carrier or of the performing carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of those limits if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of that servant or agent done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.

So far as concerns articles stowed on the outside of the vehicle, including the boxes referred to in paragraph 1, the carrier shall be liable in respect of articles placed on the outside of the vehicle only if it is proved that the loss or damage results from an act or omission, which the carrier has committed either with intent to cause such a loss or damage or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage would probably result.

Nevertheless, the period of limitation shall be two years in the case of an action for loss or damage resulting from an act or omission committed either with the intent to cause such loss or damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage would probably result.

Article 13 of the Athens Convention 2002 adds: “The carrier shall not be entitled to the benefit of [those] limits of liability (…), if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result”.

Knowledge that damage will probably result, however, is not essential for there to be serious negligence.

In that case a lifting device is intended to prevent damage from occurring in the region of the seal during the warm-up and condensing phase of the steam.

Can the Commission explain why it has not yet taken a decision when it has been clearly stated by the Court of First instance, in the judgment of La Cinq, that if there is a prima facie case and there is evidence of irreparable damage, interim measures can be imposed?

During tests, collapse of the slab is avoided so as to prevent damage to the furnace and other apparatus.

None of the parties appears to object to the concept of serious negligence where it is construed — as advocated here in respect of the high seas, the straits and the exclusive economic zone — in conformity with Marpol 73/78 as recklessness in the knowledge that damage will probably result.

This process can take place so rapidly that if an avalanche breakdown or a corresponding state is measured, the MOSFET affected can be switched on again, before thermal damage can occur.

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

This means that both low and high doses may induce stochastic damage, but it does not necessarily have to occur.

The liability shall not be limited if the damage can be traced back to an action or failure which the contractor or his/her assistants committed with intent or levity and knowing that a damage will probably occur (§ 435 HGB, German Commercial Code).

Insofar liability for damages shall be limited in its amount to the foreseeable, typically occurring damage.

The compensation for damages as a result of delays is limited to foreseeable, typical damage.

This liability is limited to foreseeable, typically occurring damages.

Oil analysis can detect potential problems before catastrophic damage occurs.

So what are the predictable, typically occurring damages as a result of incorrect translations?

Our liability for damages shall in any case be limited to the foreseeable damage which typically occurs.

The compensation claim is then limited to the foreseeable, typically occurring damage.

Thereby the liability is limited to foreseeable, typically occurring damages.

The same is applicable for damages occurring during the delay of the supplier.

Moreover, an emergency procedure has been devised to take account of the speed at which loss and damage can occur.

In this case, however, liability for compensation is limited to the typically foreseeable damages.

Liability for compensation of damages in this case shall be limited to the predictable, typically occurring damage.

In these cases, liability is limited to compensation for predictable, typically occurring damage.

In this case, our liability shall be limited to foreseeable, typically-occurring damage.

Because the system collects data on the condition of the vehicles, repairs can be planned before any damage occurs.

However, our liability to compensate for damages in such cases shall be limited to the typically occurring, foreseeable damages.

In the event of gross negligence, the liability for damages shall be limited to the foreseeable, typically occurring damage.

In this case, liability is limited to foreseeable and typical damages.

Where M & C has caused damage negligently, compensation shall be limited to the reasonable foreseeable and typical damage.

In this case, however, liability for damages is limited to foreseeable ones, typically occurring damage.

In order to prevent such damages, a high-quality preventive service and maintenance concept is required.

Liability shall however in these cases be limited to damage or loss which is predictable and of typical occurrence.

In this case, however, the damage compensation claims are limited to foreseeable, typically occurring damage.