چکیده:
The concept of 'intent' in the field of civil liability is used imprecisely. This concept is sometimes used as an equivalent to 'will' and sometimes in the sense of 'motive,' but it is often used in the sense of indifference toward the outcome. In this article, an attempt has been made to clarify the meaning and role of intent in civil liability, as well as the relationship between harmful intent (dolus) and motive. The minimal and symbolic importance of harmful intent is one of the functions of this reality, which is that civil liability, especially with an economic approach, is related to the interests of the harming agent to the same extent that it deals with the interests of the aggrieved party and society. In fact, the normative pluralism of the foundations of civil liability makes the discovery or generalization of a general principle for liability arising from intent impossible or, at the very least, undesirable. Therefore, the concept of liability, which is the foundation of civil liability specifically and civil law generally, is a 'two-way' concept, meaning that this concept should not be summarized in 'emphasizing and focusing on the behavior of the person liable for the harm.' Otherwise, civil liability will only observe the interests of the aggrieved person, and the interests of the harming agent will be forgotten in the analysis of liability.
خلاصه ماشینی:
It seems that the key to explaining the relatively small role of the tortfeasor's bad faith in creating civil liability lies in the fact that civil liability places great emphasis on the rights and interests of the injured parties and social values, and strives to restore the victim's situation to its previous state as much as possible; basing liability on the existence of intent and bad faith contradicts this goal.
Given the aforementioned points and considering that sometimes liability arising from intentional harmful acts can also be justified on the basis of recklessness, it is necessary to explain the difference between recklessness and negligence9 in English law so that, in addition to determining the boundaries of the concept of recklessness, the criteria for distinguishing it from the concept of negligence can also be clarified.
In civil liability overseeing schemes based on legal means, the dominant motive related to increasing a person's financial interests can justify behavior that is also accompanied by the motive of causing harm to another.
The complementary function means providing a substitute or an additional basis in connection with the behavior and its consequences in cases where civil liability may be imposed even without the existence of the intention to cause harm.
For example, it can be noted that intentional behavior, if it causes harmful consequences, reveals that personal independence can impose a heavier legal liability on the actor compared to negligence.
(
, 
, 
)
