Defenses based on Limitation of Liability in Civil Liability Lawsuits with Emphasis on Police Civil Liability

Beyranvand, Reza; Mirkamali, Seyed Ali

doi:10.30473/clk.2023.69679.3209

Defenses based on Limitation of Liability in Civil Liability Lawsuits with Emphasis on Police Civil Liability

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

¹ Associate Professor Department of Law, Amin University of Police Sciences., Tehran, Iran.

² M.Sc. in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

10.30473/clk.2023.69679.3209

Abstract

Defense based on civil liability is divided into different categories based on its multiple meanings and diverse functions. One of the important types of defense in civil liability is the defense based on limiting the amount of responsibility, the proof of which without negating the responsibility of the defendant, simply reduces the scope of the defendant's responsibility and the amount of damages payable by him. Despite the importance of defenses based on the limitation of liability in harmonizing the rules of civil liability in terms of compensation and also creating a favorable legal order in civil liability claims, the examination of this type of defense as an independent topic in our legal system has been neglected. The current research, with descriptive analytical methods and with the approach of emphasizing the civil responsibility of the police, seeks to provide a coherent basis for the classification of defense types based on the limitation of responsibility in civil liability lawsuits through a systematic interpretation of domestic laws. In this regard, three general categories of defenses based on liability limitation in civil liability lawsuits can be identified and examined that are respectively based on the defense based on role of the victim in connection with the accident (including the contributory negligence of the victim and also the breach of the duty to mitigate damages), the defense based on intervention of third parties and Multiple Tortfeasors in the occurrence of the accident and in the end, the defense based on good faith of the Tortfeasor is divided.

Keywords

Main Subjects

حقوق مدنی

References

اسماعیلی، محسن؛ نصیری، محمد (1401). «اثر سوءنیت عامل زیان بر شروط قابلیت پیش‌بینی و مستقیم بودن ضرر». دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، 27 (99)، صص 101-126.

بیرانوند، رضا؛ خوئینی، غفور؛ عباسلو؛ بختیار؛ موسوی، سیدصادق (1395). مطالعه عوامل رافع مسئولیت مدنی پلیس در حقوق ایران و حقوق عرفی. دانشگاه خوارزمی. دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی.

جعفرزاده، سیامک (1400). «انطباق مسئولیت مدنی و عدالت اجتماعی: توجه به مؤلفه تقصیر عمدی». فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، دوره 16، شماره 2.

جنیدی، لعیا؛ تخشید، زهرا (1399). «دفاع در برابر مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از خطای بی‌احتیاطی بر مبنای تقصیر زیان‌دیده با تأکید بر حقوق آمریکا». فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، 23 (92)، صص 147-170.

دیلمی، احمد (1397). «ماهیت و مبنای قاعده حسن نیت و راه‌های اثبات آن». پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، 5 (3)، صص 91-118.

دیلمی، احمد (1388). حسن نیت در مسئولیت مدنی. رساله دکتری. دانشگاه تهران. دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی.

رحیمی، حبیباله؛ خیاطی گرگری، ماهدیس (1395). «نقش زیان‌دیده در مسئولیت مدنی پلیس (مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق ایران و انگلیس)». پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 5 (17)، صص 9-40.

صفایی، سیدحسین؛ بادینی، حسن؛ عباسلو، بختیار؛ صالحی، سعیده (1397). «معیار تقسیم مسئولیت در فرض تعدد اسباب و تحول آن در حقوق ایران». دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، 24 (84)، صص 147-164.

کاتوزیان، ناصر (1390). مسئولیت مدنی (قواعد عمومی). جلد 1. چاپ دهم. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

نعمتاللهی اسماعیل (1398). «اصل جبرانی بودن خسارت و کارکردهای آن در کامنلا و حقوق ایران». پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، ۲۳ (۴)، صص ۱۷۵-۲۰۲.

Adar, Y. (2013). "Comparative negligence and mitigation of damages: two sister doctrines in search of reunion". Quinnipiac Law Review, 31(4), pp. 783-842.

Borghetti, J. S. & Whittaker, S. (Eds.). (2019). French civil liability in comparative perspective. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Burrows, A. (2019). Remedies for torts, breach of contract, and equitable wrongs.

Davies, P. S.; Douglas, S. & Goudkamp, J. (Eds.). (2018). Defences in equity. (Vol. 4). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Field, I. (2017). "Good-faith challenge to the taxonomy of tort law defences". University of New South Wales Law Journal, 40(2), pp. 537-565.

Goldberg, J. C. & Zipursky, B. C. (2010). The Oxford introductions to US law: Torts. Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, J. C.; Sebok, A. J.; Zipursky, B. C. & Kendrick, M. (2021). Tort law: Responsibilities and redress. Aspen Publishing.

Goudkamp, J. & Nolan, D. (2016). Contributory Negligence in the Twenty‐First Century. First Edition, Oxford University Press.

Goudkamp, James (2013). Tort law defences. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Harpwood, V. H. (2009). Modern Tort Law 7/e. Routledge.

Harpwood, Vivienne (2000). Principles of tort law. 4th ed. Cardiff Law School

Knobel, J. (2004). "Novus actus interveniens and causation in the law of delict: reappraisal in anticipation of new legislation on the apportionment of loss". Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (Journal for Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law), 67(3), pp. 409-425.

Law Commission. (1993). "Contributory negligence as a defence in contract". Law Com, 219.

McBride, N. J. & Bagshaw, R. (2015). Tort Law PDF eBook. Pearson Higher Ed.

Michaud, A. (1984). "Mitigation of Damage in the Context of Remedies for Breach of Contract". Revue générale de droit, 15(2), pp. 293-340.

Rogers W. V. H. Jolowicz J. A. & Winfield P. H. (2010). Winfield and jolowicz on tort (18th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.

Summers, Andrew (2015). The Relationship Between Contributory Negligence and Mitigation, 1-29.

Schwartz, V. E. (2021). "Rendering justice in key areas of tort law in the next decade". Southwestern Law Review, 49(3), pp. 378-389.

Thimsen, S., McGorty, E. & Bornstein, B. H. (2011). "Putting face on the corporate defendant". Jury Expert, 23(4), pp. 36-43.

Van Dam, C. (2013). European tort law. OUP Oxford.

Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F. 2d 1131 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1986: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/802/1131/180016/

Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code (Part Five: The Code of Obligations) of 30 March 1911 (Status as of 1 January 2021): https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/cc/27/317_321_377/20210101/en/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-cc-27-317_321_377-20210101-en-pdf-a.pdf.