رابطه سببیت سبب مجمل در حقوق ایران ،انگلستان و هندوستان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

مربی حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد زاهدان

10.22111/jsr.2020.5237

چکیده

وقتی به اجمال معلوم شود که یکی از چند علت محاط در گروهی معین و محدود زیان را ایجاد کرده است ولی نمی­توان به طور قاطع علت وقوع حادثه را معین کرد، احراز رابطه سببیت دشوار است و زیان دیده نمی­تواند رابطه سببیت را بین فعل زیان بارو خسارت وارده ثابت کند و سبب در آن مجمل است.دشواری انتساب فعل زیان بار به یکی از اطراف علم اجمالی از یک سو و لزوم جبران خسارت زیان دیده از سوی دیگر موجب شده است. نظریه‌های گوناگونی ارائه دهند؛ ازجمله مسئولیت تضامنی اسباب مجمل، تقسیم مساوی. سوال اصلی تحقیق اینکه چگونه باید فرد مسئول را از میان مسببان یافت؟ روش تحقیق آنالیز مفهومی تطبیقی است.نتیجه کلی تحقیق، مطالعه تطبیقی مسئولیت مدنی سبب مجمل در سه نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلیس و هندوستان حاکی از آن است که در قوانین و رویه های قضایی این سه کشور اختلافاتی وجود دارد؛به نحوی که در قانون مجازات ایران مسئولیت به تساوی و در حقوق انگلستان مسئولیت به میزان تاثیر و درجه تقصیر و در هندوستان مسئولیت جمعی پذیرفته شده است.لیکن هر سه نظام از جهت گرایش به لزوم جبران ضرر و حمایت از زیان دیده، وجه مشترک دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The relationship between Inconclusive Cause in respect of the Law of Iran and Britain

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Ravanan
lecturer of Private Law Dept, Islamic Azad University, zahedan branch.
چکیده [English]

Abstract
When it is generally approved that one of some available causes in certain and limited group has developed the loss but it is not possible to define certain cause of event, obtaining the causality relation is difficult and the victim is not able to prove the casualty relation between damaging act and incurred loss and is cause in that concise . Difficulty of assignment of a damaging act to a part of collective knowledge from one hand and requirement of compensation for the victim on the other hand has caused developing different theories including joint and several liability of concise cause, and equal division. The main question of the research is that how is it possible to find a liable one among causes? Research analysis method is of conceptual-comparative. General results of research, comparative study of civil liability of concise cause in three law systems of Iran, England and India, indicates that there are some differences in the laws and judicial procedures of these three countries so that in criminal law of Iran, England and India, liability is accepted equally, in regarding the rate of effect and fault and collective liability, respectively. However, all three systems are common in the terms of requiring compensation and supporting the victim.
  
 
 
1-      Introduction
With a glance at the controversy of the opinion of the prosecutors and judges of the three countries, we find that the causal relationship has been compounded by the concept of causality and its complexities in all three legal systems of Iran, England and India. This complexity and ambiguity has progressed so far that neither Iran nor the United Kingdom nor India have been able to fully overcome this legal barrier with a full satisfaction and reach a consensus solution. The complexity and applicability of the subject are among the important factors that make this article.
In Islamic law, to determine the responsibility for compensation of various methods, such as the principle of the practical alteration in the case of science, a lot of damages from the general budget ... It is suggested that at the beginning of the case, assuming the absence of a causal relationship, assuming that the summary of responsibility is based on But later on the collective responsibility of the perpetrators was raised, which was aligned with the legislature's innovations in the penal code of 1392, for the liability of the total causes. But in the legal system, the general law is proportionate to the type of responsibility and the positive aspect of the issue is of great importance. But in the Roman-Germanic legal system (written rights), liability is a form of guarantee. But in all systems, they share the same direction in terms of the need for redress and protection.
The most important issue surrounding the issue is a summary of how liability and damages are imposed, which, with the silence of the Iranian legislator, remains unresolved, and in order to find a ruling, inevitably, one must refer to the experience and other laws of the legal system, and The answer to this basic question is: 1. How should the responsible person be found among the perpetrators? 2. What is the fair solution to compensation in other legal systems? The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between causality and the rights of Iran, England and India.
 
 
 
 
2-      Research Method
The Moore method is used in this research to be descriptive-analytic. After collecting information that will be carried out in a library, it will be based on the compilation of resources, including books and valid scientific articles, to analyze the subject under discussion.
 
 
3-      Discussion
The mere existence of a verb cannot be the responsibility of the owner of the verb, but in order to fulfill the responsibility, there must be a customary relation between the verb and the harm. The relation between causality is conceptually and in terms of a lot of ambiguities, and its definition is not very clear, and its examples are not precise. The causal relationship is an external and material relationship and must be realized in the outside world. No scholarly and philosophical theory can decisively govern various issues of causation, what matters is that someone is responsible for the existence of a causal relationship between his work and the harm of a relationship, in a way that can be said between it There are two common conventions. The basic jurisprudential strategy of civil responsibility is to provide justice and justice, and what is important in this regard is that there is a common causal link between the wage and the work of the steward, and the best standard of arbitration. There are differences of opinion about the quality of determining the liability of the perpetrators of damage if the damage is caused by several verbs. Some believe that multiple actors should pay the same damage. (Legislator of Iran in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013). Others believe that one should pay attention to the extent of the fault of each of the factors in causing damage, and in the event of a difference in the amount of the fault, each one must pay proportionally the amount of the fault. In the British legal system, there are three pillars needed to fulfill the responsibilities of unreasonableness, firstly, of duty and care. Secondly, the said assignment is Breach of duty. Thirdly, damage has arisen from a breach of duty (Damage) in English law. It is necessary to refer to controversial issues in this regard. One of the ideas expressed by Western thinkers, inspired by the new ideas of responsibility in the 20th century, is the theory of "relative causal relation." Using relative incentives, we can combine the concepts of liability without blame, such as the responsibility of production and hazardous activities for Covering wider areas. In Indian law, civil liability is generally based on the theory of danger. In creating civil responsibility, two elements are considered necessary to create responsibility: action and mentality. The action points to the physical element, while the mind is the mental element. Generally intention or fault are considered as an essential element of liability. But according to the Supreme Court, some of the losses of high-risk activities are considered to be absolute responsibility as civil liability. In the joint debate on the joint responsibility of India, according to the laws of England, they are jointly liable for compensation, in which the Supreme Court voted in favor of England.
 
 
4-       Conclusion
The difficulty of assigning a grave recipe to one of the immediate science of the one hand, and the necessity of compensating for the loss of life on the other, has led various countries to resolve it and provide various theories, including the responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the law, the division of responsibilities between Injury, payment of damages from the general budget or bite-el-Mal, determining the responsible person by lot, etc. Any one of the main goals of each of these theories is the fair compensation of the harm that has been recorded, however, each with its own disadvantages. A comparative study of civil liability has been compounded in the three legal systems of Iran, Britain and India, which shows that there are differences between the laws and procedures of the three countries, but all three systems tend to compensate for losses and support the lost, Have a common.
 In English law m
 
 
 
 
 

A.M. HONERE, Causation and remoteness of damage, Mohr,1983.
Ahmadvand, Vali allah, comparative study and civil liability of employer in law system of Iran and England, No. 61(PP. 7-46), Tehran: journal of humanities , Imam Hossein university, 2005.
Akhound Khorasani, Muhammad Kazem ben Hossein, Kefayat-al-osoul, Qom, Moassese Ahl-al-Beit institute, edition I, 1409.
Ansel Mark, social defence, translated by Muhammad Ashuri and Ali Hossein Najafi Abrandabadi, Tehran university press, 1996.
Aqababaie, Esmail , conflict between collective knowledge and cash oath and Qasameh on article 477 of Islamic criminal law, No. 54, (pp. 126-143)), Tehrran, islami law press, autumn 2017.
Asghari, Shahram, effect of fault rate in civil liability in Imamieh jurisprudence and law of iran, Journal of Political Science and Law, year I, No. 2 and 3(pp. 13-36), Mazandaran:Mazandaran university press, fall and winter, 2006.
Bariklou, Alireza, civil liability, Tehran, Mizan press, 2013.
Darabpour, Mehrab, civil law priciples in England law, No. 44 and 45 , Legal Perspectives Quarterly, (pp. 77-99), Tehran: Faculty of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services Publications, 2008.
Eskandari, Hossein, causation princip0les in civil liability, Tehran: Tehran university press, 2015.
Farchild. Gelnhaven funeral services ltd 2002 Aller.
Hajidehabadi, Ahmad, compensation for victim at the expense of government and public organizations, Tehran, Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought press, 2009.
Hajinouri, Gholamreza, comparative studies of causation approaches in civil liability, term 1, No. 1, (pp. 61-89), journal of Islamic jurisprudence , Tabriz university, Autumn and Winter, 2010.
Henrick, Captain, Mark, Malch Nickel, compensation for victims, translated by Amir Samavati Pirouz, (pp. 63-70), Tehran Khalilian publication, 2005.
Hofman Fairchild V.Glenhaven funcral services Ltd[2003] 1 AC 32 , See further Compensation,p:243,s.3 Barker v Corus (UK), Act 2006.
Katouzian, Naser, comments on the subject of comparative civil liability, Tehran, Mizan publications, 2000.
Katouzian, Naser, requirements out of contract, Tehran, Tehran university publication, 2008.
Khoyi, Seyed Abolqasem, principles of completing the curriculum , Qom, Lotfi and Darolhadi press, 2017.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR  1987 SC 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
Miller and jentz, Business Law Today 2004.
Mirdadashi, Seyed Mehdi, civil law of public institutes in Iran and Egypt law, Daneshgah-e-Mofid university, 2014.
Mirshekari, Abbas, Conceptual and Explicit assessment of Cause and Condition in Iran civil law, No. 113. (pp 78-100), Kanoun Journal, winter, 2010.
Mohammadi, Ali, description of dissertations, Qom, volume III, Dar-al-fekr publication, 1994.
Momeni, Sajjad et al, casesof deviation from fair trial in Iran law system,(p.5), Tehran university publication, 2017.
Nourayi, Yousef, Jurisprudential and Legal Investigation of the Impact of Concise Science on Punishment, (pp. 1-10), Amol, Payam-e-Nour university, 2016.
Parsapour, Muhammad Baqer, comparative study in Iean law system, Rumi German, common law and some international documents, term 19 of comparative law researches, No.2, (pp. 25-50), Tehran, Tarbiat Modarres university press, summer, 2015.
Qolizade, Ahmad, Terminology of Jurisprudence Principles, Tehran, Nour-ak-asfia, 2018.
Rahpeik, Hasan, civil liability and compensations law, Tehran, Khorsandi publications, 2016.
Rohtas Industries Ltd vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82(93): AIR 1976 SC 425: In the context of tort of conspiracy, the court held, 'We cannot incorporate English torts without any adaption into Indian Law
Safaie, Seyed Hasan and Rahimi, Habibolah, civil liability, Tehran, Sehat publications, 2013.
Safari, Mohsen, civil liability of concise cause, term 49, (pp. 55-85), Tehran, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, autumn , 2000.
Stapleton, June, 2011 factual causation (february7) federal law review, vol.38. no3.2010.
Stapleton, June, 2011 factual causation (february7) federal law review, vol.38. no3.2010.
Steele, Jenny, TORT LAW: Text, Cases and Materials, First Edition, Oxford University Press, 2009.
Steele, Jenny, TORT LAW: Text, Cases and Materials, First Edition, Oxford University Press, p:229, 2009.
Taherinasab, Seyed Yazdollah, causation relationship in Iran criminal law of England and Iran, Tehran: Dadgostar publication, 2009.
Valayi, Isa, descriptive dictionary of principles correction, Tehran, Nashr-e-Ney, 2008.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • concise cause
  • Law of Iran
  • England and India

 

  1. آخوندخراسانی، محمدکاظم بن حسین، کفایه­الاصول، قم: انتشارات موسسه­اهل­البیت (ع) ،چاپ اول،1409 .
  2. آقابابایی، اسماعیل، تعارض علم اجمالی با قسم و قسامه نقدی بر ماده477 قانون مجازات اسلامی، شماره 54،تهران: نشریه حقوق اسلامی، صص143-126،پاییز 1396.
  3. آنسل، مارک، دفاع اجتماعی، ترجمه محمدآشوری و علی­حسین­نجفی­ابرندآبادی، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1375.
  4. احمدوند، ولی الله، مطالعه تطبیقی و مسئولیت مدنی کارفرمادر سیستم حقوقی ایران و انگلیس، شماره 61،تهران: نشریه علوم انسانی دانشگاه امام حسین، صص46- 7 بهمن و اسفند 1384.
  5. اسکندری، حسین، مبانی رابطه سببیت درمسئولیت مدنی،تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1394.
  6. اصغری، شهرام، تاثیرمیزان تقصیر در مسئولیت مدنی درفقه امامیه وحقوق ایران، پژوهشنامه حقوق وعلوم سیاسی ، سال اول ، شماره 2 و3، ، مازندران: انتشارات دانشگاه مازندران، صص 36- 13، پاییز و زمستان 1385 .
  7. باریکلو، علی رضا، مسئولیت مدنی، تهران:نشر میزان،1392.
  8. پارساپور، محمدباقر، مطالعه تطبیقی­درنظام­حقوقی­ایران، رومی­ژرمنی، کامن­لاوبرخی­اسناد بین­المللی، دوره 19 پژوهش­های حقوق­تطبیقی شماره 2، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ، صص 50- 25،تابستان، 1394.
  9. حاجی نوری، غلامرضا، مطالعه تطبیقی ره­یافت های سببیت در مسئولیت مدنی، دوره اول، شماره 1، نشریه فقه و حقوق اسلامی دانشگاه تبریز، صص89-61،پاییز و زمستان 1389.
  10. حاجی­ده­آبادی، احمد، جبران خسارت بزه دیده به هزینه دولت و نهادهای عمومی،تهران: انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی،1388.
  11. خوئی، سیدابوالقاسم، مبانی ­تکمله ­المنهاج، قم: انتشارت لطفی و داروالهادی، 1396.
  12. داراب­پور، مهراب، مبانی ­مسئولیت ­مدنی در حقوق انگلستان، شماره 44و45 فصلنامه دیدگاه­های حقوقی ، تهران: انتشارات­دانشکده­علوم­قضایی­و­خدمات­اداری، صص 99-67، 1387.
  13. ره پیک، حسن، حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و جبران ها،تهران: انتشارات خرسندی،1395.
  14. صفایی، سیدحسین؛رحیمی، حبیب الله،مسئولیت مدنی،تهران: انتشارات صحت، 1392.
  15. صفری، محسن، مسئولیت مدنی سبب مجمل،دوره 49، تهران: مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، صص 85-55، پاییز 1379.
  16. طاهری نسب، سیدیزدالله، رابطه علیت در حقوق کیفری ایران و انگلستان تهران: نشر دادگستر،1388 .
  17. قلی زاده، احمد، واژه­شناسی اصطلاحات اصول فقه، تهران: نورالاصفیا، 1379.
  18. کاتوزیان، ناصر، الزام­های ­خارج ­قرارداد، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1387.
  19. کاتوزیان،ناصر،تقریرات ­درس ­مسئولیت­ مدنی تطبیقی، تهران: انتشارات میزان ،1379.
  20. محمدی، علی، شرح رسائل، قم: جلد سوم انتشارات دارالفکر، 1373.
  21. مومنی، سجاد و دیگران، موارد عدول از دادرسی عادلانه در نظام حقوقی ایران، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، ص5، 1396.
  22. میرداداشی، سیدمهدی، مسئولیت ­مدنی ­موسسات­ عمومی ­در حقوق ایران ومصر، قم:انتشاراتدانشگاه مفید، 1393.
  23. میرشکاری، عباس، بررسی مفهومی و مصداقی سبب و شرط در حقوق مدنی ایران ، شماره 113، مجله کانون، صص 100-78،زمستان 1389.
  24. نورایی، یوسف، بررسی ­فقهی­ و حقوقی  ­تأثیر علم ­اجمالی ­بر مجازات، آمل: دانشگاه پیام نور، صص 10-1، 1395.
  25. ولایی، عیسی ، فرهنگ ­تشریحی ­اصلاحات ­اصول، تهران: نشرنی، 1387.
  26. هنریک، کاپتین؛ مارک، مالچ نیکل، جبران خسارت بزه­دیدگان ترجمه امیرسماواتی پیروز، تهران: انتشارات خلیلیان،صص70 -63، 1384.
    1. A.M. HONERE, Causation and remoteness of damage, Mohr,1983.
    2. Farchild. Gelnhaven funeral services ltd 2002 Aller.
    3. Hofman Fairchild V.Glenhaven funcral services Ltd[2003] 1 AC 32 , See further Compensation,p:243,s.3 Barker v Corus (UK), Act 2006.
    4. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR  1987 SC 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
    5. Miller and jentz, Business Law Today 2004.
    6. Rohtas Industries Ltd vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82(93): AIR 1976 SC 425: In the context of tort of conspiracy, the court held, 'We cannot incorporate English torts without any adaption into Indian Law
    7. Stapleton, June, 2011 factual causation (february7) federal law review, vol.38. no3.2010.
    8. Stapleton, June, 2011 factual causation (february7) federal law review, vol.38. no3.2010.
    9. Steele, Jenny, TORT LAW: Text, Cases and Materials, First Edition, Oxford University Press, 2009.
    10. Steele, Jenny, TORT LAW: Text, Cases and Materials, First Edition, Oxford University Press, p:229, 2009.