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

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran’s and England’s laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm.

It appears according to writings in common law and domestic law that it’s impossible to consider a single base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability in all cases. Liability based on negligence, strict liability and objective liability are the concepts that have been explained when discussing the basis of liability. However, it seems that strict liability cannot be an independent base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability. Th liability based on negligence is rooted in the invocation of damages to the behavior of damage creator and in fact, the negligence is not the principle. On the contrary, the objective liability can have an independent basis for liability. Of course, mentioning these concepts, necessarily does not imply their existence in both said legal systems, but there is notable evidence that support the existence of a thought-provoking affiliation in the foundation of liability in these two systems. Practically, it can be said that, in terms of the efficiency in suppressing the bailee’s breach of duty, considering the objective liability and in most strict state, domestic law has accepted absolute liability and is more successful than common law.

In the past, there were different views and ideas about civil liability and compensation, therefore there might have been some negligence towards the rights of injured parties; that or the compensation might have been left unsaid, or with justifying the incentives of causing injury the injured person would be included in beneficiaries of public interests. Facing new ideas, nowadays these views have faded and general belief is that no harm should be left uncompensated In this regardthere are various theories about the basis of the responsibility of the owner of vehicle. Two of them are more prominent: presumption of fault and strict liability. In car accidents, industrial and social developments have raised the acceptance of strict liability. In addition, Islamic Jurisprudence has chosen a different basis, which is strict liability rather than fault assumption more than a thousand years ago. Having in mind the forth principle of Iran' s constitution which states all laws and regulations must be based on Islamic Law criteria; here the absolute liability theory is preferred.