Identifying effective factors in determining the scope of the‏ ‏tortfeasor's ‎liability A comparative study of Iran, England and Principles of ‎European Tort Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of Law, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran‎

Abstract

With the realization of the harmful act, the loss and the relationship of causation, civil liability is realized. Regardless of identifying the types of damage and the conditions for its compensability, One of the fundamental issues is how to define and determine the scope of the tortfeasor's liability for damages. Usually, the attention of legal writers is focused on the compensatory aspect of paying damages, and to determine the scope of liability, they only consider the amount of damage caused to the victim. However, this view has some problems, including ignoring other goals of civil liability, such as the goal of deterrence. The purpose of this article, which was written using descriptive and analytical method and library study, is to identify the factors involved in determining the scope of liability. On this basis, the question can be raised that how can the area of liability be determined? What are the effective factors in determining the scope of the tortfeasor's liability? Have the legal systems of Iran, England and the Principles of European Tort Law followed a clear logic in this regard? Unlike the laws of Iran and England, the European principles of civil liability law have clear rules in this regard; However, the study of various examples in the laws of England and Iran indicates that these legal systems pay attention to various factors in determining the area of liability. The research showed that the basis of civil liability, the type of damage caused, the situation of the tortfeasor and the victim, as well as policy-related considerations have an undeniable role in delineating the scope of the liability. Manifestations of paying attention to these factors are clearly visible in the aforementioned legal systems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Aghaei, Kamran & Boroumand Bardeh, Navid (2017). “Legal and Economic Analysis of Punitive Damages”, Encyclopedia of Economic Law Jurnal, 24(11), 132–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22067/le.v24i11.63012 (In Persian).
  2. Al‑Sharif, Mohammad Mehdi & Saeidi, Somayyeh (2013). “Criticizing the Idea of Decreasing Compensation Based on Financial Status of the Person Causing the Loss in Tort Law”, Private Law, 10(1), 5–32. DOI: 10.22059/jolt.2013.50479 (In Persian).
  3. Amini, Azam & Abek, Sediqhe (2015). “Study of the optimal deterrence and the gain elimination theories on punitive damages in tort cases (emphasizing on the United States Jurisprudence)”, Encyclopedia of Economic Law Jurnal, 21(6), 77–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22067/le.v21i6.46545 (In Persian).
  4. Amini, Mansour & Daryaee, Reza (2019). “An Economic Analysis of Pure Economic Loss”, Legal Research Quarterly, 22(86), 169–192. DOI: 29252/lawresearch.22.86.169 (In Persian).
  5. Babaei, Iraj (2016). Tort Law, Tehran: Mizan Publications, First Edition (In Persian).
  6. Babaei, Iraj (2017). Insurance Law, Tehran: Samt, Fourteenth Edition (In Persian).
  7. Babaei, Iraj (2023). “Tort Law in Iran: Tort or Torts”, Private Law Research, 12(44), 97–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22054/jplr.2023.50777.2372 (In Persian).
  8. Babai, Iraj (2005). “A Critique of the Principle of Recoverability of All Damages in Iranian Civil Liability Law”, Legal and Political Research, 7(15–16), 45–83. https://qjpl.atu.ac.ir/article_2918.html (In Persian).
  9. Badini, Hassan (2004). “The Purpose of Civil Liability”, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, 66, 55–113. https://jflps.ut.ac.ir/article_11227.html (In Persian).
  10. Badini, Hassan (2006). Philosophy of Tort Law. Tehran: Enteshar Publication, First Edition (In Persian).
  11. Badini, Hassan (2012). “Comparative Study of Reparability of Economic Loss In Tort Law”, Private Law Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 59–78. https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_29582.html (In Persian).
  12. Bussani, M., & Palmer, V. V. (2009). Seeing Red: The present study. In Pure Economic Loss in Europe New Horizons in Comparative Law. edited by Bussani, M., & Palmer, V. V. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish. 7–67
  13. Cane, P. (1996). Tort Law and Economic Interest, London: Clarendon Press Publication.
  14. Cooke, J. (2011). Law of Tort. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  15. Daryaee, Reza & Karbalaei Aghazadeh, Mostafa (2020). “A deliberation about the relationship between tort law and Non-contractual indebtedness in Iranian law”, Journal Legal Studies, 12(3), 93–125. DOI: 22099/jls.2020.32934.3353 (In Persian).
  16. Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2017). Tort Law. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  17. European Group on Tort Law. (2005). Principles of European Tort Law Text and Commentary. Austria: Springer Wien New
  18. Finch, E., & Fafinski, S. (2011). Tort Law. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  19. Ghamami, Majid (2009). Foreseeability of Damage in Civil Liability, Tehran: Nashr‑e Sahami Company, Second Edition (In Persian).
  20. Ghanavati, Jalil & Alaei, Saber (2019). “The basis for the limitation of liability for financial losses from driving accidents (Paragraph 3 of articles 8 of the Third Compulsory Insurance Act of 1395)”, Journal of Studies in Islamic Law and Jurisprudence, 10(19), 283–306. DOI:22075/feqh.2018.13273.1347 (In Persian).
  21. Gholamloo, Jamshid & Daryaee, Reza (2022). “Defamation Crimes: From Criminalization to Decriminalization and Civil Law Model”, Criminal Law Doctrines, 19(23), 203–240. DOI: 30513/cld.2023.4836.1779 (In Persian).
  22. Giliker, P. (2017). Tort. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  23. Green, B. (2017). Tort Law. New York: Routledge.
  24. Harpwood, V. (2011). Modern Tort Law. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
  25. Hedley, S .& Padfield, N. (2011). Tort. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Hekmatniya, Mahmoud (2007). The Civil Responsibility in the Imamiyah Jurisprudence, Qom: Research Center for Law and Islamic Jurisprudence, First Edition (In Persian).
  27. Kadner Graziano, Thomas (2023). “The Purposes of Tort Law”, Journal of European Tort Law. 14 (1), 23-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2023-0003
  28. Katouzian, Nasser (2006). Extra‑Contractual Obligations, Vol. 1, Tehran: University of Tehran, Fifth Edition (In Persian).
  29. Katouzian, Nasser & Izanloo, Mohsen (2018). Extra‑Contractual Obligations, Vol. 3, Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications, First Edition (In Persian).
  30. Khadem Sarbakhsh, Mehdi (2010). “The Effect of the Injured Party’s Condition on The Agent’s Responsibility”, The Judiciarys Law Journal, 74(70), 111–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2010.11177 (In Persian).
  31. Law Commission (1995). Liability for Psychiatric Illness (Consultation Paper No 137)
  32. Markesinis, B. S., & Deakin, S. (1999). Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. McBride, N. J. & Bagshaw, R. (2018). Tort Law. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  34. Mirshekari, Abbas (2022). A Practical Thesis on Civil Liability, Tehran: Enteshar Publication, Fourth Edition (In Persian).
  35. Mirshekari, Abbas & Abdi, Mona (2023). “The Role of Gender in Moral Damages”, Private Law Quarterly, 53(1), 163–183. DOI: 22059/jlq.2022.337784.1007641 (In Persian).
  36. Mirshekari, Abbas; Takhshid, Zahra & Abdi, Mona (2024). “Comparative Study of Tortfeasor, s Civil Liability to Bystander in the U.S Legal system and Bringing it up in Iranian Legal System”, Comparative Law Research Quarterly, 8(1), 175–195. DOI: 22080/lps.2023.25403.1508 (In Persian).
  37. Mohagheghe Dammad, Mostafa; Shahbazinia, Morteza & Rezaei nejad, Homayoon (2018). “Punitive Damages in Contractual Liability”, Private Law Quarterly, 47(1), 173–191. DOI: 10.22059/jlq.2018.231252.1006878 (In Persian).
  38. Neematollahi, Esmail (2021). “A Comparative Study of the Purpose of Awarding Damages for Breach of Contract”, Comparative Law Review, 12(1), 369–396. DOI: 10.22059/jcl.2020.306369.634042 (In Persian).
  39. Neematollahi, Esmail & Seyed Ali Rouhteh, Maryam Sadat (2020). “A Study of Disgorgement of Profit in Civil Liability in Common Law and Iranian Law”, Private Law, 17(1), 31–55. DOI: 10.22059/jolt.2020.299525.1006832 (In Persian).
  40. Nelson, P. N. (1983). “Punishment for Profit: An Examination of the Punitive Damage. Award in Strict Liability”. The Forum (American Bar Association. Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law), vol. 18. No. 3. pp. 377-394.
  41. Quinn, F. (2012). Tort Law. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  42. Sadeqi Moghaddam, Hossein & Noury Youshanloey, Jafar (2013). “Evolution of Civil Liability in French and Iranian Law With Emphasis on Recognition of Non Compensatory Damages”, Law Quarterly, 41(4), 239–256. https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_29770.html (In Persian).
  43. Safaei Moafi, Seyyed Hussein; Imanpour, Akbar & Daryaee, Reza (2022). “Criteria for claiming compensation for secondary psychiatric victims in English law and its application in Iranian law”, Comparative Law Review, 13(1), 257–278. DOI: 10.22059/jcl.2022.334558.634278 (In Persian).
  44. Safaei Moafi, Seyyed Hussein; Imanpour, Akbar & Daryaee, Reza (2023). “Identification of compensable psychiatric injuries in English and Iranian law.”, Journal of Comparative Law, 10(1), 267–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22096/ law.2022.546135.1994 (In Persian).
  45. Safai, Seyyed Hossein (1996). Articles on Civil Law and Comparative Law, Tehran: Mizan Publications, First Edition (In Persian).
  46. Safai, Seyyed Hossein; Rahimi, Habibollah (2011). Civil Liability, Tehran: Samt Publications, Twelfth Edition (In Persian).
  47. Safari, Mohsen & Safarian, Mehdi (2017).“The Rule of Egg Shell Skull in England and Iran”, Private Law, 14(1), 77–93. DOI: 10.22059/jolt.2017.129574.1006009 (In Persian).
  48. Shahmalekpour, Hassan & Daryaee, Reza (2021). “A Critical Study about the Worthiness of the Object of Contract from the Viewpoint of Jurisprudence of Islamic Denominations”, Fighe Mogaran, 8(16), 149–175. https://fiqhemoqaran.mazaheb.ac.ir /article_138427.html?lang=fa (In Persian).
  49. Shooshi Nasab, Nafiseh & Mirshekari, Abbas (2013). “The Impact of Victim’s Predisposition on Civil Liability of Tortfeasor”, The Judiciarys Law Journal, 77(84), 124–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2013.10815 (In Persian).
  50. Stephenson, G. (2009). Source Book on Torts. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
  51. Taqizadeh, Ebrahim; Khosravi Farsani, Ali & Mousaipour, Meysam (2012). “The Nature and Effects of ‘Punitive Damages’ in Common Law (A Comparative Study)”, Civil Law Knowledge, 1(1), 49–60. https://clk.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_186.html?lang=fa (In Persian).
  52. Van Dam, C. (2013). European Tort Law. England: Oxford University Press.
  53. Yazdanian, Alireza (2007). General Rules of Civil Liability, Vol. 1, Tehran: Mizan Publications, First Edition (In Persian).
Comparative Law Review
Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 31
Spring & Summer 2025
June 2025
Pages 171-198

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics