Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Associate Professor, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran
2
MA, Private Law, University of Qom
3
PhD Student, Criminal Law and Criminology, Islamic Azad Uuniversity, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abstract
One of the most important and complex discussions in civil liability law is the discussion of causation and determining the responsible cause. Determining the cause of loss in civil liability law is very difficult in some cases, including when multiple causes have caused the loss. The main purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the relationship between causation and civil liability of the cause and the agent in Iranian law with the cause of loss in French law. The present study, using the descriptive-analytical method, has found that if two or more causes are combined in the assumption of damage, different theories have been proposed in Iranian and French law, and their examination shows that none of the theories can alone justify civil liability in all instances. Rather, since the basis of civil liability in Iranian law is the customary citation of loss to the harmful act, in the case of the combination of several causes in the occurrence of damage, the basis of liability is also the customary citation of loss. Accordingly, if the loss is conventionally attributed to one of those causes, that cause, and in the case where damage is documented to all causes, all are recognized as responsible. In French law, no theory can be decisively governing the various issues of the relationship of causation and can only assist the judge in distinguishing causes as guiding principles. Therefore, it can be concluded that accepting the division of responsibility in the case of the participation of multiple incidental causes, which is consistent with the theory of the separability of the causal relationship, is considered a positive thing, but not considering the extent of the impact of each cause on the loss and ruling on equal responsibility can be considered inconsistent with justice.
Keywords