{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016574585635359115, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.6625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CHOICE OF LAW FOR NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY: SELECTED PROBLEMS UNDER THE ROME II REGULATION

The rule refers to the place where the damage occurs, rather than the place where the tort occurs, to cover the situation where the wrongful act of the defendant takes place in one country and the damage occurs in another. In the past, this has caused problems with regard to jurisdiction. The words ‘irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred’ are intended to ensure that the rule laid down in Bier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace applies also with regard to choice of law, while the words ‘irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur’ are intended to ensure that the rule in Dumez v Hessische Landesbank and Marinari v Lloyds Bank also remains applicable. No attempt has been made to clarify the ambiguities in these rules.