THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE CAUSATION

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

PhD in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The studies about causation have been conducted in two steps; the first step is identification of the cause in fact. The “cause in fact” is the condition, action, or object that caused the damage. The second step identifies the legal cause or proximate cause from all causes that identified at first step. This is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury or damage as the cause of that injury or damage. In some legal systems, the negligence is an essential factor for defendant’s responsibility and from all causes identified at first step, those will be responsible that have a fault. Recently, the theory of comparative causation has been raised in western legal systems adopting a system of non-fault liability that assesses the costs of accidents according to the involvement in the activity irrespective of legal notions of fault. The study of the local laws and regulations indicates that dividing the costs of an accident among the sub-activities has been accepted by Iranian law.

Keywords

References

الف) فارسی
1. انصاری، علی؛ مبین، حجت (1390). «نظریۀ قابلیت انتساب در مسئولیت مدنی؛ مطالعۀ تطبیقی در فقه امامیه و حقوق فرانسه»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 15، ش 1 (پیاپی 71)، ص 23-1.
2. بادینی، حسن (1384). فلسفۀ مسئولیت مدنی،‌ شرکت سهامی انتشار.    
3. جعفری تبار، حسن (1375). مسئولیت مدنی سازندگان و فروشندگان کالا، دادگستر.
4. ------------- (1393). نظریه‌های اتمی و مولکولی در مسئولیت مدنی، با قافلۀ عدالت، یادنامۀ دکتر ناصر کاتوزیان، انتشارات سودۀ تبریز.
5. حاجی نوری، غلامرضا (1389). «مطالعۀ تطبیقی رهیافت‌های سببیت در مسئولیت مدنی»، مجلۀ فقهوحقوقاسلامی، سال اول، ش 1.
6. عابدی، محمد (1390). معمای تعدد اسباب در قانون مجازات اسلامی با تأکید بر مسئولیت اسباب و عوامل متعدد در خطاهای پزشکی، ارائه‌شده در چهارمین همایش سراسری طب و قضا، شیراز.
7. کاتوزیان،‌ ناصر (1386). الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد (ضمان قهری)،‌ مسئولیت مدنی،‌ ج 1، چ ششم،‌ تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
8. کاشف‌الغطاء، محمدحسین (1422ق). تحریر المجله، ج 1، المجمع العالمی للتقریب بین المذاهب الاسلامیه.
9. وهبه الزحیلی (1409ق). الفقه الاسلامی وادلته،‌ ج 5، بیروت: دارالفکر، ص741.
 
ب) خارجی
10. Guido Calabresi (1965). The Decision for Accidents: An Approach to Nonfault Allocation of Costs, 78 harvard Law Review, 713.
11.Guido Calabresi (1996). The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, 1970
12.Gudio calabresi & Jeffery Cooper, New Directions in Tort Law, 30 Val, U. L. Review, 859.
13. Francesco Parisi, Vincy Fon (2005). “Causation and Responsibilty: The Compensation Principle From Grotus to Calabresi”, George Masun University, School of Law, Law and Economics Working Paper Series, Published in the Maryland Law Review, Vol 64, No. 1.
14.Grimley, William (2000). “Comparative Fault & Solidary Delictual Obligations: On Further Consideration”, 60Louisiana Law Review 513.
15.Strassfeld, Robert (1992). “Causal Comparisons”, 60 Fordham Law Review 913.
16.Palmer, Vernon (1988). “A General Theory of the Inner Structure of Strict Liability: Common Law, Civil Law and Comparative Law”, 62 Tulane Law Review 1303.
17.Gershonowitz, Alan (1986). “Comparative Causation As an Alternative to, Not a Part of Comparative Fault in Strict Liability”, 30 St. Louis University Law Journal 483,
18.Prentice, Roberty (1995). “Can the Contributory Negligence Defense Contribute to a Defusing of the Accountant’s Liability Crisis?” 13 Wisconsin International Law Journal 359,
19.Yoshihsa, Nomi (1999). “Environmental Liability in Japan”, in Modern Trends in Tort Law, Kluwer Academic Publishers (Ewould Hondius ed. 1999).
20.Yu, Li (2000). “Book Review: Modern Trends in Tort Law: Dutch and Japanese Law Compared”, 6Columbia Journal of European Law.
Law Quarterly
Volume 48, Issue 4
January 2019
Pages 567-586

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics