Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

An Analytical Approach to Quantifying Fault Criterion and ‎Establishing an Incentive System for Preventing Loss in Civil Liability ‎through the Application of the Hand Formula: A Comparative Study in ‎Iranian and US Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Ahmad Usefzadeh
Department of Private Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Shahid Madani university of Azarbijan, Tabriz, Iran
10.22059/jcl.2024.366831.634579
Abstract
The efficiency of law enforcement is greatly influenced by the openness of the laws. Clear laws make it easier for courts to identify at-fault parties and the level of damage while also enabling law-abiding persons to lessen their liability by taking preventative actions. The Doctrine of Care, which enables the determination of the presence or absence of a duty of care by a mathematical formula, is one of the practical rules pertaining to the existence of a duty of care. There are certain circumstances in Iranian law where adopting precautions results in much lower costs than making up for harm. However, due to the absence of a similar doctrine, such a duty is not imposed on individuals. This issue challenges the effectiveness of civil liability rules in Iran. This paper will demonstrate that the application of the Doctrine of Care in Iranian law leads to a reduction in the occurrence of damages through the use of reasonable and customary precautionary methods. It also facilitates the decision-making and review process within the courts. Applying the Doctrine of Care can establish a legal duty of care, incorporating the aforementioned doctrine into civil liability law as a general rule in Iranian law.
Keywords
civil liability
fault
Hand ‎Formula
custom.‎
Subjects
  1. A) Books
  2. American Law Institute, (2010). Restatement of the Law (3d) of Torts Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, ‎ American Law Institute,
  3. Glannon, J. W. (2005). The Law of Torts (3rd ed). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
  4. Ja'fari Langrudi, Mohammad Jafar (1999). Comprehensive Terminology of Law. Tehran: Ganj Danesh (In Persian).
  5. Kaplan, G. E. (2016). Transaction Cost. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/transaction-cost. Accessed 17 May 2022.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Akee, R. (2009). Checkerboards and Coase: The Effect of Property Institutions on Efficiency in Housing Markets. Journal of Law and Economics, 52 (2), 395-410.
  3. Amini, Es'ha, Mohammadi Nejad, Samira (2012). The Role of Negligence in Civil Liability and Its Comparison with Common Law. International Journal of Legal Research, 5(18),1-22 (In Persian).
  4. Badini, Hassan (2008). A Critical View of the Standard of "Reasonable and Ordinary Person" for Determining Negligence in Civil Liability. Studies in Private Law, 40(1), 73-93 (In Persian).
  5. Cardi, J. (2011). The Hidden Legacy of Palsgraf: Modern Duty Law in Microcosm. U.L. Rev. 1873, 91, 1-34.
  6. Farnsworth, W. (1999). Do Parties to Nuisance Cases Bargain after Judgment? A Glimpse inside the Cathedral. The University of Chicago Law Review, 66 (2), 373-436.
  7. Halpin, A. (2007). Disproving the Coase Theorem? Econ. & Phil, 23 (3):321-341.
  8. Keating, Gregory C., Must the Hand Formula Not Be Named? (2015). 163 University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 367 (2015), USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 16-39.
  9. Qasemzadeh, Seyed Morteza (1999). the Concept of Illegality or Abnormality of the Harmful Act in Civil Liability, Legal Views, (13-14), 83-113 (In Persian).
  10. Rahimi, Habibollah, Mohammad Qasem Hajiyan (2014). Economic Analysis of the Elements of Civil Liability Arising from Traffic Accidents. Research in Private Law, 2(7), 89-117 (In Persian).
  11. Sadiqi, Mohsen, Ghaffari, Amir (2020). Critique and Justification of Empirical and Economic Approaches to the Concept of Negligence in Civil Liability and Its Practical Implications in Related Cases. Studies in Comparative Law, 11(2), 613-638 (In Persian).
  12. Schmitz, P. (2001). The Coase Theorem, Private Information, and the Benefits of Not Assigning Property Rights. European Journal of Law and Economics, 11 (1), 23–28.
  13. Shahabi, Mehdi, Masoudipour, Azadeh (2013). Economic Analysis of Law and the Revival of the Concept of Negligence in the Compensation System with Emphasis on American Judicial Practice. Encyclopedia of Economic Law, 20(4), 28-56 (In Persian).
  14. Stephenson, S. P. (2013). How Economists Compute Lost Earnings and Other Economic Damages in Personal Injury Cases (PDF). James Publishing.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 15, Issue 1
Espring & Summer
July 2024
Pages 345-363