خلاصة:
In the realm of civil procedures, the right to bring a lawsuit traditionally hinges upon the claim of the injured party seeking compensation for harm caused by the actions of the defendant. According to this conventional perspective, the initiation of a lawsuit by a third party, without the consent of the injured party, has been deemed inconceivable and lacking legal rationale. This article challenges the fundamentals of this prevailing approach, demonstrating that in specific cases where the beneficiary faces difficulties or is unwilling to engage in legal proceedings, the involvement of a third party as the instigator of the claim can be legally justifiable and desirable. This alternative perspective calls for a reevaluation of existing laws and regulations regarding third-party claims, ultimately enhancing the societal function of liability law and facilitating access to legal procedures for resolving disputes. In addition to addressing the issues and ambiguities associated with this approach, the article also explores potential challenges and solutions for resolving them. In some legal systems, formalizing third-party claims can enhance the effectiveness of the legal framework, better protect citizens, and establish behavioral norms within society. When determining the responsible party in civil liability claims, legal rules have undergone significant changes, resulting in multiple criteria and interpretations for assessing the scope of an individual's responsibility for harmful actions. Today, causation is not solely based on identifying the closest cause, and individuals may consider themselves defendants if they can demonstrate a more reasonable position in preventing harm. Furthermore, the pursuit of damages against individuals with financial advantages or superior risk management capabilities has been defended. Conversely, the criteria for identifying the plaintiff have been less contentious. Despite minimal legal debate regarding the concept of loss and its sustainable forms, civil procedures universally emphasize the requirement of the injured party to initiate a claim. The only accepted basis for determining the plaintiff is that the individual suffered harm due to the defendant's injurious act. The intersection of civil procedures and civil liability is where third-party lawsuits for compensation come into play. Traditionally, the purpose of civil procedures has been to facilitate the compensation of damages through the law of liability, with the injured party serving as the initiator of the legal process and claimant for compensation. Consequently, the initiation of a claim for compensation by a third party has lacked legal rationale and practical viability. However, a reinterpretation of the essentials acknowledges the victim's desire to file a lawsuit. This approach revitalizes the societal role of law and recognizes that, beyond individual-centered aspects of proceedings, third parties may bring claims if the failure of the injured party to do so disrupts social order. Such an approach can deter reckless behavior and the violation of societal norms. While the criterion for identifying the claimant remains fundamental in litigation, it acquires a broader interpretation. Claimant status is extended to any individual who, by informing the legal framework about the occurrence of harm, requests legal proceedings and the sanctioning of the injuring party. Implementing this approach, which offers numerous advantages, necessitates legislative amendments to regulate its use. Based on the arguments presented, it is recommended that legal reforms clarify that the primary rule for seeking compensation is for the injured party to initiate the action. However, if a third party initiates the action, and after verifying the accuracy of the information provided, the court hears the claim by notifying the injured party. Upon confirming the claim's validity, a portion of the compensation will be awarded to the third party. If the victim declines to accept the remainder, it can be allocated to a fund aimed at reducing similar losses in the future. This article explores the possibility of third-party claims for damages as an exceptional and conditional approach with legal advantages. Key questions addressed in this article include the justification of third-party lawsuits based on general principles and rules, their advantages and disadvantages, their validity within Iran's legal system, and potential solutions for harnessing their benefits while mitigating their drawbacks.
ملخص الجهاز:
What is observed today is that, in line with the flexibility and conceptual development of causation, determining the nearest cause has not been the criterion for establishing the defendant, and perhaps, due to possessing a more suitable position in preventing the occurrence of damage, 1 a person may see themselves in the position of the defendant in damage lawsuits, or a lawsuit may be filed against an individual who possesses economic superiority 2 or has a better ability than others to manage risk leading to danger; however, at the opposite point and in the capacity of determining the plaintiff, significant turbulence and disagreement of opinions are not observed; although minimal doubts and discussions have been raised regarding the concept of damage and its protectable types from a legal perspective, following the principles of civil procedure, no serious ambiguity was formalized regarding the necessity of filing a lawsuit by the interested party, and the only criterion accepted in its identification was being harmed by the defendant's harmful act.
Concurrent with the acceptance of this right and in line with the narrow approach in determining the plaintiff criterion, litigation may only be by a person who has actually suffered harm; 2 whether the damage is existing (actual) 3 or imminent (future) 4; therefore, the personal nature of the interest obtained from litigation 5, meaning the necessity of filing a lawsuit by a person who is considered a true interested party (Mohseni, 2018: 256), has been accepted as the primary principle and rule in the foundations of procedural law (Gerlis, Loughin, 2007: 125; Smith, 2013; Glannon, 2013: 255; 242).
(
, 
, 
)
