جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « vicarious liability » 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.

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.

The basis of civil liability is one of the most important theoretical issues in this branch of law; and is the answer to why the defendant needs to be compensated. To identify the basis of vicarious liability, jurists have cited different criteria. But none of them are without flaws. In all these theories, the exceptional responsibility of representation is evident. In this paper, by descriptive, analytical and comparative methods, it was concluded that: First, vicarious liability is not an exception to the principle of personal responsibility; Second, the distinguishing feature of this liability with other types of liability for material operations leading to loss by others. It also seems that the legislature has assigned a degree of responsibility and according to the way in which a person interferes in the process leading to the loss, in the case where the compensator has the right to refer to others and in the case where he has no right to refer, distinguishes. Has been. In the first case, in both Iranian and British law, the basis for liability is to protect the victim and to provide assistance and assistance to the victim and not to confront the victim with weak individuals who are under the control or supervision of another. And since breach of duty is not the sole cause of the loss, it only puts the person in charge alongside the main culprit. In cases where there is no right of recourse for the compensator, the basis of civil liability is the Customary Imputability, which causes him to be harmed by others.

Vicarious liability is one of the types of responsibilities arising from other's action. In US law, unlike Iranian legal system, there is a general rule upon which whenever under the control persons, commits a copyright infringement and thereby a financial benefit get to the supervisor, the latter, shall be subject to the vicarious liability. Undoubtedly, children are among the most prominent examples of persons under the control that this usually occurs by their parents. Furthermore, in Current age, it is possible that many infringements occur by children, especially in the Internet. Parents will generally be subject to the vicarious liability for copyright infringements their children. In US law,  has been suggested the probability of parental responsibility for  copyright by children based on the general rule of vicarious responsibility, while it seems that  the nature of the relationship between parents and children  and the bases of suggesting  parental liability for children's fault, demands some differences in this regard. Parental responsibility for children's torts in Iranian law, unlike US law, is based on fault and care rather than control and compliance, and this is an advantage of Iranian law.

Legal systems to overcome the problem of attributing criminal responsibility to persons have already tested various solutions for including criminal responsibility of superiors and employers, criminal responsibility based on the theory Thoughtful Brain, criminal responsibility based on the idea of ​​collective blame, criminal responsibility arising from the theory of power and acceptance. These models, have a common position on the transfer of fault from a person or special persons to a legal person. The criminal liability of an organization is based on the fault of legal person’s structure, in other words, the entity’s policy of crime production, and not a certain Individual. The Iranian penal system Under Article 143 of the Islamic Penal Code has shown a tendency to derivative responsibility based on the legal representation theory. With this in mind, the fundamental question is: how this model of responsibility can be adjusted to the realities of corporate crimes on the ground. This research seeks to examine the flaws and limitations of the criminal model used in the Iranian Penal Code and to propose a solution for strengthening the present model.

One of the issues related to criminal responsibility and the principle of its individuality is the criminal responsibility arising from the other’s behavior that legislator has referred it as criminal responsibility arising from other’s behavior in 142 article of Islamic Penal Law of 2013. This means that the criminal responsibility is on a person who has not committed the crime, but is known responsible and punished due to specific conditions and based on the legislator's discretion. Before approving this law, the examples of this responsibility had been referred discretely in some laws. There is a concept called criminal responsibility of superiors (commander-ship) in the international documents that whereby military commanders or superiors are known responsible for crimes that were committed by forces under their command or control, in the lack of necessary control of their subordinates. This is one of the important issues in international criminal law and there are several reasons for its justification includes criminal responsibility arising from other’s behavior. Accordingly, a separate study of each of these concepts and identification of their relationship is important, which is discussed in the present research through study theoretic principles and refer to regulations, texts and other documents. According to results in this study, criminal responsibility of superiors can be similar criminal liability arising from other’s behavior in the internal law.

This article aims to clarify the nature of denial of heavy burden of sins (naf-yi vizr) principle, which is inferred from some verses of the Qur’an. It seems that the ambiguity of different concepts of this principle has resulted in different viewpoints among scholars. Thus, some scholars have considered that the concepts of this principle are related to the Hereafter, and it is impossible to apply them in jurisprudential discussions. Another group argues that the principle expresses the rational decree and doesnt have any exception; therefore, they have disagreed with some chapters of the jurisprudence such as responsibility of the kinsmen of the offender (‘āqila). This analytical and critical research investigates the naf-yi vizr principle. The findings indicate that the nature of this principle negates vicarious liability. On the other hand, it shows that the principle’s acceptability coincides with the practice of the wise and is capable to exclude some cases. Finally, analyzing this principle provides a Qur’anic evidence for the very frequently-used principle of individual’s responsibility, and that we could assess Islamic jurisprudential perspective with regard to vicarious liability as an exception for the principle.

One of the most important issues about carrier responsibility in international carriage of goods by road, is his responsibility for acts and omissions of his servants and agents that is considered in article 3 of CMR convention. According to Iran's accession to this convention in 1997, study the base, nature and scope of the liability of carrier for acts and omissions of others in the CMR convention, is important. Therefore this article by describe and analyze the theories about the basis and nature of carrier responsibility for act and omission of others, concludes that this responsibility on the one hand is a no-fault liability that is presumed by convention and on the other hand is a contractual liability. Drawing the thematic and personal scope of this liability is also considered in this article and it is determined according to the legal subordination and the term of “scope of employment” in the article 3 of CMR convention. However, due to the being limited the cases of carrier's exemption from liability, only get out of the mentioned thematic and personal scope, does not result the removal of liability from the carrier, but this is subject to the existence at least one of the cases of exemption from liability, which is mentioned in the article 17.

As a result of technological development, each day new inventions are recorded and utilized in human societies. In the light of these technical developments and due to the emergence of new concepts of artificial intelligence, robotics has also entered a new phase in human being's lives. Consequently, anticipation for the realization of a dream of an artificial intelligence has increased. The need to adopt rules and regulations to be used for this technical equipment, and to ensure safe grounding for them seems a necessity at this stage. Criminalization of violations of these rules can be justified for the protection of individuals against the effects of working with these tools, and for avoiding numerous hazards known to them in the industrial life. How can one place responsibility on or punish a robot that has inflicted irreversible damages on somebody or something? This article deals with the criminal liability of robots. These findings can be of use in the legislation of modern robotic technology.