جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "زیاندیده" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Ethics in interaction with law as a normative system overseeing behavior and social relations, controls humans in their individual and social life within the framework of reason and logic. Compensation for damages is one of the most important issues in the field of civil liability, and the method and quality of compensation has important personal and social effects and the discussion of moral foundations in the method of compensation strengthens the general acceptance and the perspective of realizing social justice. the approach of playing the role of the cause of damage in compensating all types of damage (material, spiritual, physical) with the acceptance and satisfaction of the victim is a secondary agreement in choosing the method and quality of objective compensation that replaces the primary damage. and by examining and conforming it to moral principles such as justice, fairness, goodwill and negation of difficulty and embarrassment, it is preferable and superior to any method and quality of compensation, including monetary method which is studied in the present research with a descriptive-analytical method of moral foundations, with a comparative view of French and English law. the compliance of this approach with the aforementioned ethical principles is as follows with the description of the information and nobles of the perpetrator of the loss and the victim on the amount of damage and the proportional compensation method, on the one hand, all the damages caused to the victim will be compensated. on the other hand, according to the condition of the person causing the loss and the facilities of the person causing the loss, the mentioned difficulty and embarrassment will be avoided.

Sometimes after the accident occurs, the insured or the injured party due to the possibility of avoiding the accident or reducing the harmful effects of the damage caused by the accident, however, does not take action to perform the said act. The question that arises here is whether the insured or the injured party had a legal obligation to perform the act of avoiding or preventing the development of damage or not? What is used from the provisions of Article 15 of the Insurance Law is the sum of the obligations that the legislator has assigned to the insurer, but if the injured party has a percentage of fault or negligence and the accident occurs, what percentage of this percentage of fault creates the insurer's obligations. As we know, in fact, the insurer compensates instead of the loss factor. Now, if the loss factor and the injured party both have a degree of fault or negligence or laziness, does this relationship spread to the extent of the insurer's obligations or not? It seems that in Iranian law, the victim is obliged to prevent the spread of the scope of damages, and referring to some jurisprudential rules indicates this. With this preamble, the victim must also take measures to prevent the spread of the damage, otherwise, to the extent that the spread of the damage could have been avoided, the liability of the loser would be reduced to compensation, and in the first instance, the insurer's obligations Is affected.

Despite the predominance of the principle of personal responsibility, social necessities and demands of today’s societies have caused the legal systems in some cases to protect the rights of injured ones and those who commit damage while being unable to compensate for it, by considering other persons under whose protection and supervision the perpetrator has been liable. The clear example of this liability known as vicarious liability in Common law, is the employer’s civil liability for the actions of his employees, and the determination of genuine foundation of liability is an essential challenge in scope of civil liability and will be considered in this article. The different legislation of Article 12 of the Civil Liability Code has created several interpretations about the foundation of civil liability in Iranian law such as theories of assumed fault, the guarantee of right and the risk. Therefore, this article intends to identify initially the employer’s strict liability as a basis of governing to Common law referring to the policies such as attributability, economic analysis of civil liability, and loss-spreading  and then, to introduce the strict or liability without fault as the foundation of governing to the employer`s civil liability in Iranian law through juridical bases arranged in the Civil Code and Islamic Penal Code such as theory of conventional invocation of damages and ambiguity resolution about Article 12 of the Civil Liability Code.

Sometimes numerous persons are harmed by harmful act or acts, such as exposure to toxic substances or by a manufacturer using harmful substances in his products. If the harmed persons want to file a claim for damages and be investigated individually, the result of the Individual litigation is that they must prove harmful act, loss-making and causality between the two, and this sometimes leads to a reluctance to file a claim. Also The speed of investigate has slowed and burden costs to the judiciary. A lawsuit has been filed against such cases as "Mass Tort" in the United States. This lawsuit where judicial authorities acknowledge the need for special judicial management and resolve it by choosing the appropriate approach. This article examines this lawsuit and explains its dimensions in the United States of American’s law and then, has been examined the status of dealing with these lawsuits in the Iranian legal system. As a result, in the US judicial system, judicial authorities choose from a variety of approaches and resolve these lawsuits, and there is no solution in the Iranian legal system to deal with these lawsuits, whether class actions or consolidation, and development of appropriate solutions must be considered by the legislator.

The Act of the third party insurance was amended after 40 years.Though late, this promises a striking development in the field of social responsibility and compensation. Clarification of the concept of possessor of policy, extension of insurance coverage, floating of the responsibility of insurer, elimination of the statute of limitations, calling the insurer to hearing session, acceptance of the policy as a guarantee, immediate payment of at least 50% of the approximate blodwyte to the victim (predicted in the Article 16 of the new Act) as well as a professional commission to resolve debates may be regarded as being among privileges of this Act.But, it faces some challenges as well. Ambiguity in the notion of owner as one who possesses policy: whether owner is the one who has an official document or the one who has some ordinary written promise or a proxy may be regarded as the owner. Does the content of the Clause 3 of the Article 1 require a legal judgment to be issued? In cases wherein the blodwyte determined is much more than the costs borne, should it [blodwyte] still be paid? The insurer's responsibility is limited to the amount mentioned in policy; now if the insured party was sentenced to pay more than that amount, who shall pay for the cure costs: the insurer or the insured party? When called to the hearing session, is the insurance company regarded as defendant or as an informed party? Of what influence is communication of the verdict to the insurer? May he protest? These are some examples of points which should be clarified; and, it remains to see how the judicial precedent reacts.

Legal framework dealing with the protection of pedestrians is a particular one, and thus calls for a specific attention. In this short article, my main concern is to examine protections offered by the Iranian legal system to pedestrians in Iran. It is obvious that this protection is not a one way privilege; there are some duties imposed by the Iranian legal system on pedestrians too. Mapping rights and duties of the pedestrians in Iran is the main task of this article.