Private Law
iraj babaei
Abstract
Despite the existence of many rules regarding liability for causing damage to another in Islamic law and the extensive fiqh doctrine in this regard, it has not developed into an independent branch of legal studies and laws within Islamic law. However, the law of Torts is recognized as an original branch ...
Read More
Despite the existence of many rules regarding liability for causing damage to another in Islamic law and the extensive fiqh doctrine in this regard, it has not developed into an independent branch of legal studies and laws within Islamic law. However, the law of Torts is recognized as an original branch of law in modern Iranian law. Influenced by modern French and Roman-German tort law doctrine, Iranian legal doctrine has established general rules and theories of tort law that can be applied to all aspects of causing harm to others. This approach differs from the approach taken by faqihs (Islamic jurists) towards torts, which form the basis of modern Iranian law. According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all rules of Iranian law should be in accordance with Shiite fiqh. Shiite fiqh applies different principles to different torts, and there is no general rule or principle applicable to all torts. Due to the influence and supreme position of fiqh in modern Iranian law, these differing approaches have led to significant misunderstandings in modern Iranian Tort law. It seems that the most suitable and efficient approach for Iranian tort doctrine is to move away from the idea of unified tort law and consider this area of law as diverse, where different general rules are applied based on the nature of the specific tort.In fact, according to modern Iranian doctrine, all torts are based on three elements: Damage, Act of harm to another, and Causation. The doctrine discusses each element independently. Regarding Damage, the doctrine presents different types of damages: physical damage to property, financial and economic losses, personal injury, moral damage, etc. If the damage suffered by the claimant is recognized as reparable under tort law, the element of damage is satisfied. The doctrine then considers different ways in which civil liability can be established, such as negligence, personal acts, vicarious liability, traffic accidents, malpractice, and more. Finally, the doctrine addresses causation as a necessary condition for civil liability. When all three elements and their respective conditions discussed in separate parts are met, there will be a liability to compensate the victim by making payment for the damages. The doctrine then proceeds to explain how damages should be compensated. Generally, the compensation principle is presented as a golden rule applicable to all forms and types of damages: the tortfeasor is liable to fully compensate for the damage suffered by the victim without making any profit.Considering tort law as a unified concept, the argument about the foundation of tort law (Negligence or Strict liability) has been presented as a unique principle applicable to all kinds of torts, damages, and acts that engage civil liability. However, this approach does not align with actual Iranian law based on Shiite fiqh rules. The conditions and effects of tort law differ depending on the nature of the damage, and the compensation rules vary accordingly. For instance, in cases of damage to properties, civil liability is established when physical damage to property is caused by a tortfeasor, regardless of whether negligence was involved or not. In this area, there is no distinction between intentional and unintentional harmful acts, and strict liability is recognized as the foundation of tort law. On the other hand, the conditions for pure economic or financial loss are different. These damages are not considered as engaging civil liability unless they are caused by a criminal act (intentional malicious act). The compensation principle applies to all kinds of property damages.The conditions for engaging civil liability for personal injury differ from those for property damage. Civil liability to compensate the victim with monetary payment is primarily established for unintentional acts. In cases of intentional harm, there is no civil liability, and the tortfeasor is subject to retaliation as a crime. When civil liability is recognized, similar to property damages, torts are based on strict liability. The amount of damages for any bodily injury is determined by law, and the compensation principle does not apply in this field.Regarding moral damages, the conditions for civil liability are different from other types of damages. Traditional law did not anticipate civil liability for moral damages, considering harmful acts as crimes punishable by appropriate punishment. However, in recent criminal procedure laws, civil liability alongside criminal punishment has been recognized in relation to moral damages. Although civil liability for moral damages is provided for by law, it appears that the nature of liability remains punitive for the tortfeasor. The deterrence aspect of civil liability is essential in determining damages, with the amount of money determined primarily based on the intention and malice of the harmful act and its impact on the victim. Consequently, the compensation principle does not apply in cases of moral damages, and damages are determined more by considering the circumstances of the harmful act rather than solely focusing on the harm itself.The conditions, elements, and effects of other areas of tort law such as Nuisance and Trespass differ significantly from those mentioned above, as discussed in both Fiqh's (Islamic jurisprudence) and legal Iranian doctrine.Considering all these differing conditions, elements, and remedies in governing Iranian Tort law, it becomes evident that there is no singular logic of tort in Iran; instead, there are multiple torts. The modern doctrine that follows a unified logic and approach to torts makes a significant mistake in understanding the rule of law and often leads to uncomfortable suggestions for its development. A better way to understand the applicable rules and propose new ones is to study Iranian tort law according to a multiple theory that aligns more with traditional Iranian law and Shiite fiqh rather than following the logic of tort law in French civil law or Roman-German approaches.
Sied Mohammad Tabatabaei Neghad
Abstract
Many arguments have been raised to support or reject the idea of unification of law in relation to civil liability. Amongst others, it is claimed that it is impossible to establishment binding principles across different countries. However, in relation to some aspects of tort, the need for unification ...
Read More
Many arguments have been raised to support or reject the idea of unification of law in relation to civil liability. Amongst others, it is claimed that it is impossible to establishment binding principles across different countries. However, in relation to some aspects of tort, the need for unification is necessary due to the process of globalization. Within the European Union, arguments for supporting a unified European civil liability law relate to the emergence of the European Union and an increasingly globalized economy. This issue envisaged in the Treaty of the Union, and the harmonization of tort law is the process of creating common standards across the internal market in relation to tort elements. It is a part of the unified Europe project and a reduction in the significance of national borders. Diversities in national laws may create problem of efficacy in the ever more globalized economy. This article analyzes the importance of harmonization of tort law in the EU, and examines barrier to the harmonization. It concludes that even if this process is of crucial importance, the aim is not to achieve it in all aspects of tort law.
RASOL MALAKOTTI; Parviz Savarayi
Abstract
in the cyber space tow group players are acting. one of them are internet intermediates such as internet service provider and site mangers and data producer also second group of them are users that are end consumers of internet service. the resource of making tort in the cyber space is same with others ...
Read More
in the cyber space tow group players are acting. one of them are internet intermediates such as internet service provider and site mangers and data producer also second group of them are users that are end consumers of internet service. the resource of making tort in the cyber space is same with others resource in the actual world because of nature difference between cyber space and actual world we can not performance total rules of basic tort in cyber space all so we can not performance same and one doctrine about this world. in this paper we try to reconnaissance the players who are present in the cyber space. and we could comparison resource of making tort in actual world white cyber space. at end we try to comparison important doctrine about base of tort in cyber space. finally we can not performance all rules of tort that there is in actual world in the cyber space but we should be more inventor
Seyed Mohammad Tabatabaee nechad
Volume 3, Issue 11 , June 2015, , Pages 101-119
Abstract
The trend of globalization causes an increase in the rapid and convenientmovement of persons, goods and products resulting in legal challenges thatinvolve foreign elements. One of the legal relations is concerned with productliability derived mainly from tort. An increase in the movement of persons andgoods ...
Read More
The trend of globalization causes an increase in the rapid and convenientmovement of persons, goods and products resulting in legal challenges thatinvolve foreign elements. One of the legal relations is concerned with productliability derived mainly from tort. An increase in the movement of persons andgoods lead to an increase in product liability claims, and the frequent shipmentof goods to distant points makes an increase in claims against foreign suppliersinevitable. The choice of law rule applied by courts with respect to claimsarising from a tort committed abroad has remained static for about threequartersof a century. Attempts have been made to find a connecting factor thatwould better fit the circumstances giving rise to such damage claims. The aim ofthis paper is to analyze the surrounding issues and policies that govern productliability action.
Zohreh Nikfarjam
Volume 1, Issue 3 , March 2013, , Pages 151-177
Abstract
Where required elements of liability are established, the agent for theinjurious action shall be held liable. Nonetheless, the injurious agent may notalways be the wrongdoer; in other words there may be other causes whichmay contribute in infliction of damages. Proof of an external force may severthe ...
Read More
Where required elements of liability are established, the agent for theinjurious action shall be held liable. Nonetheless, the injurious agent may notalways be the wrongdoer; in other words there may be other causes whichmay contribute in infliction of damages. Proof of an external force may severthe chain of causation and thereby free the defendant from attribution of anyfault. The foremost example of external force is the “Force Majeure”,prescribed either expressly or otherwise in some Laws of Iran. ForceMajeure may contribute in damages in two ways: It is either the sole causeof the damage or one among several others.Either way, its existence shall considerably affect the liability regime.The grounds on which Force Majeure is based in Islamic jurisprudence areprinciples such as “Prohibition of damages” [La Zarar], “Prohibition ofhardship”[Osr va Haraj] and “Limited-liability of trustees”[Estiman]
