Private Law
Mahmoud Kazemi; Ali Ghesmati Tabrizi
Abstract
What happens if more than one person is blamed for causing an injury? It is clear that the liability must be divided between them, but the problem is the criterion of apportionment. Should the liability be apportioned equally or differently? If the latter is true, how the share of anyone is determined? ...
Read More
What happens if more than one person is blamed for causing an injury? It is clear that the liability must be divided between them, but the problem is the criterion of apportionment. Should the liability be apportioned equally or differently? If the latter is true, how the share of anyone is determined? In foreign legal systems, there are different ideas in this regard, and finally, it is up to the court to apportion the damages fairly. Islamic law has accepted the theory of equality of liability. After the approval of the Islamic Penal Code, this view entered into the law of Iran, but the jurisprudence with the justification that the theory of equality is based on the assumption of the equal effect of each of the tortfeasors accepted the possibility of proving otherwise and accordingly, each share was determined based on the extent of its impact on the occurrence of loss. The Islamic Penal Code in 1992, under the influence of existing doctrine and jurisprudence, accepted this view in Articles 526 and 527, while in Articles 453, 528, and 533, the theory of equality of responsibility has been followed. In this article, we have tried to explain the foundation of the theory of equality in Fiqh and its results in interpreting the Islamic Penal Code.
Ali Ghesmati Tabrizi
Abstract
Compensation, considered as the exclusive consequence of civil responsibility for a long time, has been the subject of independent systems that civil responsibility has been replaced by them with a different logic and basis. Despite the diversity of these alternative systems, all of them can be studied ...
Read More
Compensation, considered as the exclusive consequence of civil responsibility for a long time, has been the subject of independent systems that civil responsibility has been replaced by them with a different logic and basis. Despite the diversity of these alternative systems, all of them can be studied as "social guarantees". This theory, provided in French law, attempts to protect the victims completely with identifying the "social risk" and in the light of the concept of solidarity. The sign of this supportive logic in Iranians law can be seen in victim’s compensation of accidents caused by vehicles. Regardless of the terms mentioned, “The Compulsory Insurance Act for third parties damages as a result of vehicles accidents", has established a different system from civil responsibility. A different perception of the accident and the effort for compensating losses plus difference from civil liability and its requirements are the similar indicators with "social guarantee".
The presentation of this idea and its resemblance in Iranian law, which is the subject of the present article, could provide a ground for extensive coverage of physical damages and support of vehicle victims.
