But I have been thinking about this quite a lot recently (mostly because I get angry at the power states sometimes have over individuals). Would the distinction really matter in this case?. I would think that in a "civil law" contry things could be even worse for the aggressor
The law is no stranger to "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios.
Here's France, the Platonic embodiment of European civil law:
> To get damages, you must compile a file that gathers all the elements that make it possible to determine that your damage is compensable
> You must demonstrate that you are the victim of harm: [snip]
> In order for your damage to be repaired, you must also determine:
> - A fault, negligence or infringement committed by another person
> - And that your injury occurred as a result of that fault, negligence or breach.
> Example :
> A person walking down the street hits you because he is looking at his phone. You fall and you break your arm. So you are suffering bodily harm that was caused by the negligence of the person who shoved you. It was precisely this negligence that led to your damage, because if the person did not hit you, you would not have fallen. You can therefore ask him for damages.
( https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1... ; note the banner saying "This page has been automatically translated. Please refer to the page in French if needed.")