خلاصة:
Where a person has caused damage, he or she has a civil liability. According to the waste rule, which is manifested in Article 328 of the Civil Code, the guarantor of the loss has the intention of a definite act, whether it has the intention of the result or not. The question is whether a person who does not intend to act like a baby or a sleeping person or a person who has a vibrating hand and who causes financial or physical harm without the intention of the act is also a guarantor or not. In this article, rejecting the theory of those who believe that just attributing the loss to the cause of the loss is sufficient to guarantee; Physically, he has been exempted from civil liability, but bail, which is a conditional sentence, according to narrations such as "the tail of the Muslim is the religion of the head," if there is a cause, and if there is no cause, it is due to distributive justice and social participation. The treasury is placed.
ملخص الجهاز:
Intent of action, Taklifi rule (obligatory rule), Wadh'i rule (positive rule), Will, Civil liability, Intent of result Assistant Professor of the Law Department, Research Institute of Hawza and University, Qom, Iran (Corresponding Author) h.
A precise answer to the question of whether someone like a sleeping person, who has no obligatory rule, can have a positive law rule of guarantee or not, returns to the influence of obligatory rules on positive law rules and vice versa, the investigation of which requires more extensive research and another opportunity; however, in this article, we intend to examine, without distinguishing between minors and adults, the impact of the lack of intent of action on the element of negligence (as the accepted basis of civil liability by most legal professors) and on the pillar of the causal relationship.
In Imami jurisprudence, the general rule is that liability (daman) is a declaratory (wad'i) ruling, not an obligatory (taklifi) one; therefore, it is not exclusive to adult and sane persons, and being under interdiction or not acting intentionally is not a barrier to liability, and anyone who destroys another's property is liable, even if they are a non-discerning minor; ultimately, the payment of the compensation for the damage caused by the interdicted person will be through their guardian (Borujerdi, 1383: 188); however, whether it can be said that the damage caused by a person lacking intent of action cannot be attributed or ascribed to them, we will follow up on in the continuation.
(
, 
, 
)
