نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Abstract
One of the most controversial issues in the law of obligations in any legal system is the liability of non-discriminating persons. The question is whether the non-discriminating persons are responsible and if they are, whether the basis is fault or it should be sought in other theories presented. By resolving this issue, the basis of civil liability in French law and many Roman-Germanic regimes, including Iran, becomes clear. In other words, if it is determined whether the non-discriminating persons are responsible or not and whether the basis of this responsibility is fault or not, it can be better concluded in the general rules that if the basis of civil liability is fault, which of the two concepts of fault, personal and specific, is accepted as the basis of responsibility. This has been a controversial issue not only in doctrine but also in jurisprudence, to the point that the French legislature has been forced to intervene. However, despite the intervention of the French legislature, the ambiguities have not diminished but have been added. On the other hand, as it was said, this discussion and the solution of the problem has an effect on the basis of civil liability and the general rules of civil liability. Because by solving the basis of the responsibility of non-discriminating persons, the traditional or objective concept of fault becomes clear. In Iranian law, nonetheless, unlike the French, the responsibility of a non-discriminating person is specified from the beginning in Article 1216 of the Civil Code, but determining the basis of obligation in Article 1216 civil code has some effect on the concept of fault in the general rules, which in this article will be done with a comparative study. The main question of this article is whether or not in French law, non-discriminating persons are responsible and whether it is based on the theory of fault or not. In Iran, too, with regard to specifying the responsibility of a non-discriminating person , the main question is whether
the meaning of this responsibility is both based on loss and causation or only on the meaning of loss, and if it means causation, whether the non-discriminating person can be guilty or not. In this article, it is assumed that the main basis of civil liability should still be sought in the theory of fault, because the theory of fault has a fundamental value. It has also been hypothesized that one of the differences between loss and causation is that, given some of the examples in civil law, the liability based on causation requires the proof of guilt. In this article, the method of library analysis has been used and by referring to authoritative French sources and focusing more on the developments of the French legal regime, materials have been collected and analyzed. In French law, despite the problems that remain after the intervention of the legislature, the doctrine seems to be inclined to accept the objective theory of fault, and to be less inclined to the personal concept of fault. It seems that in Iranian law, according to the specification of the responsibility of a non-discriminating person and in terms of the words of Article 1216, which appears to be based on causation more than on loss, Article 1216 can be applied not only in cases where both loss and causation exist, but also that the basis of liability, in the causation, is fault, and that by eliminating the subjective element of fault, Iranian law has taken a step towards accepting the objective concept of fault. On the other hand, studying the evolution of French law can be effective in the way of thinking of Iranian doctrine and practice in interpreting Article 1216, which in this article will be done by descriptive method and library analysis with comparative study.
کلیدواژهها [English]
منابع
الف) فارسی و عربی
ب) خارجی
24. Bacache-Gibeili, Mireille (2007). Droit civil,Les obligations La responsabilité civile extracontractuelle,T5, 1é.éd, Paris, Economica.
25. Benabant , Alain (2007). Droit civil ,Les obligations, 11.é.éd, Librairie général de droit et de jurisprudence, Montchrestien.
26. Carbonnier, Jean (1998). Droit civil,Les obligations,T4, 21é.éd,Presses universitaires de France.
27. Dejean de La Bâtie, N.(1966) « Appréciation in abstracto et appréciation in concreto en droit civil français », Revue internationale de droit comparé,18-1. https://www.persee.fr/doc/ridc_0035-3337_1966_num_18_1_14521. Accessed 10 October 2022
28. Delebecque, Philippe & Frédéric Jérome pansier, (2016). Droit des obligations Responsabilité civile délit et quasi-délit, 7é. ed, Paris, LexisNexis.
29. Fabre-Magan, Muriel (2007). Droit des obligations.Responsabilité civile et auasi-contrats,1é.éd, Presses universitaires de France.
30. Fages, Bertran (2017). Droit des obligations,7e. éd. Librairie général de droit et de jurisprudence.
31. Flour, Jaaues & Jean-Luc Aubert, Eric Savaux (2001). Droit Civil, Les Obligations,T2, Le fait juridique,9 é.éd,sirey.
32. Jourdain, Patrice (2014). Les principen de la responsabilité civile,9é.ed, Dalloz.
33. Lecourt,Arnaud (2008). Fiches de droit des obligations. 1é.éd.Ellipes edition marketing. S.A.
34. Jaluzot, Béatrice (2005). « Méthodologie du droit comparé: bilan et prospective », Revue internationale de droit comparé, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 29-48.
35. Jourdain, Patrice (2011). « DROIT À RÉPARATION, Responsabilité fondée sur la faute , Notion de faute : contenu commun à toutes les fautes» , JurisClasseur Responsabilité civile et Assurances,Fasc 120-10.
36. Jourdain, Patrice (2011) ." DROIT À RÉPARATION. Responsabilité fondée sur la faute . Notion de faute: contenu commun à toutes les fautes ’ , JurisClasseur Responsabilité civile et Assurances. Fasc, 120-10.
37. Le Tourneau, Philippe, Loic Cadiet, (1998). Droit de la responsabilité, 1é.éd, Dalloz.
38. Lévy.Jean- Philippe & André Castaldo (2002). Histoire du droit civil. 1é.éd. Dalloz.
39. Malaurie, Philippe, Laurent Aynes, Philippe Stoffel-Munck (2007). Droit civil, Les obligations, 3 é.éd, Editions juridiques associées,Défrenois.
40. Martin, Louis (1896). Droit civil. 1é.éd. punod et vicq Éditeurs.
41. Mazeaud, Henri & Léon, Jean (1978). Leçons de droit civil, T2, Volume premier, Obligations, 6éd.éd,par François Chabas, Montchrestien.
42. Porchy-Simon, Stéphanie (2006). Droit civil. Les obligations. 4é.éd.Dalloz..
43. Starck, Boris (1972). Droit civil, Obligations, 1é.éd, Librairies technniques.
44. Terré, François; Philippe Simler & Yves Lequette (2005). Droit Civil, Les Obligations, 9é éd,Dalloz.
45. Piret, René (1958). « La responsabilité du fait des choses inanimées en droit français et en droit belge », Les Cahiers de droit, Vol. 3, numéro 6. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cd1/1958-v3-n6-cd5000710/1004122ar/(Accessed 10 October 2022)
46. Viney, Geneviève ; Patrice, Jourdain & Suzanne Carval (2013). Traité de Droit civil, Les conditions de la responsabilité civile, 4 e. éd, Librairie générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.
47. Viney, Geneviève (1995). Traité de droit civil, Introdaction à la responsabilité, 2é.éd, librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
48. Weill, Alex & François Terré (1975). Droit Civil, Les obligations, 2é, ed, Dalloz
)