Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Associate Professor in Private law and Law & Economics in Allameh Tabatabaꞌi University, Tehran, Iran
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 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.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)