تأثیر عوامل روان‌شناختی در تحقق رابطۀ سببیتِ ناشی از افعال غیرمادی با نگاهی به رویۀ قضایی کشورهای اروپایی

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

چکیده

رابطۀ سببیت به‌عنوان یکی از ارکان مسئولیت مدنی همواره مورد بررسی حقوق‌دانان بوده ‌است. آنچه در بیشتر آثار حقوقی مورد مطالعه قرارگرفته، سببیت به‌عنوان یک پدیدۀ فیزیکی است. مباحث مرتبط با سببیت معمولاً با تأکید بر فعل ظاهری کنش‌گر است. احراز رابطۀ سببیت به‌واسطۀ وجود آثار روانی بر اشخاص، ازجمله مباحثی است که به‌واسطۀ رویۀ قضایی کشورهای اروپایی اخیراً مورد توجه دکترین حقوقی به‌خصوص در آلمان قرار گرفته است. با عنایت به اینکه اشخاص با توجه به ویژگی‌های شخصی و موقعیت‌های گوناگون، واکنش‌های متفاوتی به محرک‌های روانی نشان می‌دهند، احراز رابطۀ سببیت بین عامل تأثیرگذار و وقوع زیان و نیز تعیین معیاری برای آن دشوار است. نگارندگان این پژوهش با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و با استفاده از منابع کتابخانه‌ای درپی پاسخ به این پرسش‌ هستند که چه معیار مشخصی برای احراز سببیت در صورت وجود آثار روانی می‌توان برشمرد؟ در حقوق ایران چگونه می‌توان در صورت وجود عامل تأثیرگذار روانی، رابطۀ سببیت را احراز نمود؟ یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد، رویۀ قضایی کشورهای اروپایی با تفکیک بین عمدی و غیرعمدی بودن اقدام عامل تأثیرگذار، به ارائۀ‌ معیارهای اصلی و تکمیلی پرداخته که تمامی آنان به‌نوعی مسیر احراز رابطۀ سببیت متعارف را هموار می‌کنند. در حقوق ایران، مواردی که مداخله‌گر به‌نحو غیرعمدی و ناشی از تأثیر روانی موجب ورود زیان می‌شود، می‌توان با قواعد کلی ناظر بر احراز رابطۀ سببیت متعارف، قاعدۀ غرور و تقصیر زیان‌دیده، مسئول زیان را تعیین نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Influence of Psychological Factors on the Establishment of Causation Arising from Immaterial Acts With a Look at The Judicial Practice of European Countries

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Daryaee 1
  • Sahand Nejadi Ijadkar 2
1 Associate Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Ph.d. student in Private Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Causation, as one of the elements of tort law, has always been examined by lawyers. What has been studied in most legal writing is causation as a physical phenomenon. The discussion related to causation usually emphasizes the apparent act of the actor. Establishing causation due to the existence of psychological effects on individuals is among the topics that, through the judicial practice of European countries, have recently attracted the attention of legal doctrine, especially in Germany. Considering that individuals exhibit different reactions to psychological stimuli based on their personal characteristics and various situations, establishing the causation between the influencer factor and the occurrence of harm, as well as determining a standard for it, is difficult. This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library resources, seeks to answer the following questions: What specific criteria can be identified for establishing causation in the presence of psychological effects? How can causation be established in Iranian law when a psychological influencer factor exists? The findings show that the judicial practice of European countries distinguishes between intentional and unintentional actions of the influencer factor and provides primary and supplementary criteria, all of which smooth the path to establishing adequate causation. In Iranian law, in cases where an intervener unintentionally causes harm due to psychological influence, the responsible party can be determined through general rules governing adequate causation, the rule of fraud**, and the fault of the victim party.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Causation
  • Influenced
  • Influencer
  • Intervener
  • Psychological Factors

مراجع

  1. Amiri, A., Badini, H., & Mobayyen, H. (2021). Criteria for compensability of damages arising from psychological harm in Iranian and English law. Journal of Private Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 343–370. https://doi.org/10.22059/jolt.2022.331530.1007038 (In Persian).
  2. Babaei, I. (2018). Civil Liability Law Based on Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Precedents (Vol. 2). Tehran: Judiciary Publications and Press Center (In Persian).
  3. Babaei, I. (2022). Civil Liability and Non-Contractual Obligations. Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  4. H. (2005). Philosophy of civil liability. Tehtan: Enteshar Joint Stock Company (In Persian).
  5. Barikloo, A. (2020). Civil Liability. Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  6. Cooke, John. (2015). Law of Tort. London: Pearson.
  7. Cvetković, Mihajlo .S.(2022). Psychological Influence and Causation in Tort Law, Protection of Human and Minority Rights in the European Legal Space, Faculty of Law, University of Nis, Vol. 60, No. 93, pp. 45- 61. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfn1-36818
  8. Daryaee, R. (2025). Identifying effective factors in determining the scope of the‏ ‏tortfeasor's ‎liability A comparative study of Iran, England and Principles of ‎European Tort Law
  9. Comparative Law Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 171–198. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2024.378358.634649 (In Persian).
  10. Daryaee, R & Karbalaee Aghazadeh, M. (2024). The fundamental differences between “Non-contractual Indebtedness” and “Civil Liability” in terms of foundations, pillars and rules. Legal Studies,Vol. 16. No. 2, pp. 229-262. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2023.45191.4851 (In Persian).
  11. Deutsch, Erwin & Ahrens, Hans-Jürgen. (2014). Tort. Munich: Vahlen (In German).
  12. Dressler, Joshua. (2006). Understanding Criminal Law, U.S.A: Lexis Nexis.
  13. European Tort Law. (2002). edited by Helmut Koziol & Barbara C. Steininger. Vienna: Springer.
  14. Ghasemzadeh, S. M. (2021). Non-Contractual Obligations and Civil Liability. Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  15. Ghiyasi, J. (1996). Causation in Criminal Laws. Qom: Madian (In Persian).
  16. Giliker, Paula. (2017). Tort. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  17. Haji Nouri, G. (2010). A comparative study of approaches to causation in civil liability. Journal of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, No. 1, pp. 61–89 (In Persian).
  18. Horsey, K. & Rackley, E. (2017). Tort Law, New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Katouzian, N. (2012). Civil Liability (Non-Contractual Obligations) (Vol. 1). Tehran: University of Tehran Press (In Persian).
  20. Khosravi Salim, M.M. (2017). The Role of Mens-Rea In Causation. Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  21. Lang, Hermann & Schiemann, Gottfried. (2003). Damages. Tubingen: Mohr siebeck (In German).
  22. Markesinis, Basils. (2019). Markesinis's German Law of Tort (edited by Bell, john & Janssen, Andre). London: Hart.
  23. Mc Bride, Nicholas & Bagshaw, Roderick. (2018). Tort Law. London: Pearson.
  24. Mohaghegh Damad, S. M. (2022). Principles of Jurisprudence (Civil Section). Tehran: Center for the Publication of Islamic Sciences (In Persian).
  25. Mousavi Bojnourdi, S. H. (1998). Al-Qawaed al-Fiqhiyyah (Vol. 1). Qom: Nashr al-Hadi (In Arabic).
  26. Oftinger, Karl & Stark. E. (1995). Swiss Tort Law. Vol. 2, Zurich: Schulthess (In German).
  27. Peel, Edwin & Goudkamp, James. (2014). Winfield & Jolowicz on tort. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  28. Rashti, Mirza Habibullah. (2010). The Book of Usurpation. Tehran: Madreseh Aali Shahid Mottahari (In Arabic).
  29. Rostami, H., & Shabani Kandesari, H. (2016). Establishing the causal relationship in cases of multiple contributing factors in crimes and financial damages (with emphasis on the 2013 Islamic Penal Code). Criminal Law Research, Vol. 4, No. 15, pp.143–171. https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2016.4439 (In Persian).
  30. Safaei Maafi, S. H., Imanpour, A., & Daryaee, R. (2022). Criteria for assessing secondary victims’ psychological damages in English law and its application in Iranian law. Comparative Law Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 257–278. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2022.334558.634278 (In Persian).
  31. Safaei, S. H., & Rahimi, H. (2021). Civil Liability (Non-Contractual Obligations). Tehran: SAMT (In Persian).
  32. (2021). German Civil Code (sections 249-254). Berlin: Ottoschmidt (In German).
  33. Simons, Kenneth W. (2015). Victim Fault & Victim Responsibility In Anglo_ American Tort Law. Journal Tort Law, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, pp. 29-66. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2012-0003
  34. Stiegler, Anita Maria. (2009). Compensation for Shock & Grief. Koln: Böhlau (In German).
  35. Taheri Nasab, Y. (2010). Causation in Iranian and English Criminal Law. Tehran: Dadgostar (In Persian).
  36. Winiger, Bénédict, Koziol, Helmut, A. Koch, Bernhard & Zimmermann, Reinhard. (2007). Digest of European Tort Law. Vol. 1, Berlin: Springer.
  37. Young, G. (2008). Causality and causation in law, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology: Progression or regression? Psychological Injury and Law, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 161- 181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24094-7_26
  38. Yousefi Sadeghlou, A., & Sarmast Dargah, Z. (2018). A comparative study of the elements of moral damage in Iranian and French law. Quarterly Journal of Private and Criminal Law Research, Vol. 14, No 37, pp. 115–14 (In Persian).
  39. Zhang, Min. (2016). Active Psychological Causality in Tort Law. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot (In German).
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 تیر 1405

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار