The Judiciarys Law Journal

The Judiciarys Law Journal

Explaining & criticizing the Theory of "Symmetrical Approach" in Determining the Extent of Blame Attached to Plaintiff & Defendant in Fault-based Civil Liability

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Author
sajjad shahbaz ghahfarrokhi
Instructor, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
10.22106/jlj.2020.119696.3137
Abstract
After adopting the theory of contributory negligence and dismissing the All-or-Nothing Rule, the issue of how to determine the extent of loss and victim fault was raised in fault-based civil liability. The key question is whether there is a difference between the defendant's fault and the plaintiff's. If the same act has been done by both sides and the other essential elements are the same, should the responsibility be equally shared by the two perpetrators, regardless of whether they are plaintiff or defendant? The European principles of civic responsibility and the prevailing theory of common law have adopted a "symmetrical approach to victim and defendant's behavior in determining each one's fault" and equally, have considered the standard of reasonable care in evaluating their behavior. This view has been tempered in various ways and certain exceptions have been made to it in the Common law legal system. Similarly, from the point of view of economic analysis and moral criticism, there are some objections to this theory. This view, despite its popularity, seems to have left much criticism unanswered. In depicting an apt theory to address this issue, it will count as a step forward to explain and criticize the mainstream theory.
Keywords
Tort Law
Victim fault
Contributory negligence
Symmetry approach

Subjects

  • فارسی

    • بادینی، حسن (1389). «نگرشی نقادانه به معیار «انسان معقول و متعارف» برای تشخیص تقصیر در مسوولیت مدنی»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی (فصلنامه حقوق سابق)، دوره 40، شماره 1.
    • بادینی، حسن (1394). فلسفه مسئولیت مدنی، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
    • صفایی، سیدحسین و حبیب‌الله رحیمی(1395)، مسئولیت مدنی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
    • صفایی، سیدحسین، حسن بادینی، بختیار عباسلو و سعیده صالحی (1397)، «معیار تقسیم مسئولیت در فرض تعدد اسباب و تحول آن در حقوق ایران»، مجله دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، شماره 84.
    • قاسمی، محسن (1396)، «دفاع نامشروع بودن رفتار زیان‌دیده در مسئولیت مدنی-بررسی تطبیقی در حقوق کامن‌لا، ایران و فقه امامیه»، نشریه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، سال هشتم، شماره پانزدهم.
    • قسمتی‌تبریزی، علی (1398)، «مبنایی متفاوت برای جبران خسارات ناشی از وسایل نقلیه»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، سال هشتاد و سوم، شماره 105.
    • کاتوزیان، ناصر (1386)، الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد(ضمان قهری)، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
    • محقق‌داماد، مصطفی(1390)، قواعد فقه، بخش مدنی، تهران: مرکز نشر علوم انسانی.
    • محقق‌داماد، مصطفی و نصرالله جعفری خسروآبادی (1389)، «بررسی قاعده ی مقابله با خسارت بر اساس فقه اسلامی و حقوق موضوعه‌ی ایران»، مجلۀ فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، شمارۀ دوم، سال چهل و سوم.

    انگلیسی

    • Condon v Condon (1978) RTR 483. Available at:

    https://www.guildhallchambers.co.uk/files/Contributory_Negligence_Workshop2_Julian_Benson_Scenarios_PI_Def_Seminar_June_2013.pdf

    • Deakin, Simon& Johnston, Angus & Markesinis, Basil (2001), Tort Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Dobbs, Dan B (2001), The Tort of Law, West Group Publishing: New York.
    • Murray, Jackson v, Fordham, Margaret (2016), “Contributory Negligence and Apportionment”, singapore Journal of Legal Studies, p.183–193.
    • Robert V. Vitanza (1988), Victim Fault and Comparative Fault in Strict Liability, Available at:

    https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol48/iss5/10

    • Simons, Kenneth W (2015), “Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law”, Journul Tort Law; 8(1-2):29–66.
    • Simons, Kenneth W. (2002), Reflections on Assumption of Risk, UCLA LAW REVIEW, VOL. 50, NO. 2:451-529. Available at:

    https://www.uclalawreview.org/reflections-on-assumption-of-risk/

    • Stuart v. Walsh [2012] NSWCA 186. Available at:

    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7997397b-a6a5-49cc-83a0-744930a8e8c5

    • The Group of Authours (2005), Principles of European Tort Law Text and Commentary, Springer Wien: NewYork.
    • The Group of Authors (1993), “Contributory Negligence as a Defence in Contract”, The Law Commission, No. 219.
    • The Group of Authors (2001), “The Illegality Defence in Tort”, The Law Commission Consultation Paper, No. 160.
    • The Group of Authors (2009), Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.
    • The Group of Authors (2002), Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report. available at:
    • https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/R2002-001_Law_Neg_Final.pdf
    • Wood, Allen (2009), Duties to Oneself, Duties of Respect to Others. Avilable at:

    https://web.stanford.edu/~allenw/webpapers/DutiesOneself.doc.

    • Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, Section 4. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/8-9/28/section/4

  • Receive Date 24 January 2020
  • Revise Date 16 April 2020
  • Accept Date 14 April 2020
  • First Publish Date 22 September 2020
  • Publish Date 22 September 2020