چکیده:
When an industrial good causes harm to its user, as long as it is established that their physical injury was directly caused by the industrial good, it is sufficient to indicate a defect in the good and, in fact, negligence or error by the manufacturer in its production. Therefore, the products of manufacturers that contribute to the occurrence of a crime, as well as the behavior of distributors who have deceived users into using the product, are attributed to the persons who supplied them without the need to prove fault and prima facie. With consideration of this presumption of fault, which is rebuttable on their part, they will be held liable for physical injuries resulting from the supplied products. If this person proves that the cause of the injury was the unauthorized action of the user or a third party, or resulted from force majeure, they shall be exempt from criminal liability. Otherwise, the mere infliction of injury warrants blood money (Diya), for which they are responsible for payment, and if the supplier's fault is proven, according to Article 616 of the Islamic Penal Code, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment in addition to blood money.
خلاصه ماشینی:
A_ Types of Damage and the Impact of Each on Criminal Liability There is no article in the Islamic Penal Code that explicitly indicates that injury to the body and life of a human being, specifically resulting from an industrial product, is a crime; however, considering a logical relationship and the fact that punishment is contingent upon the occurrence of a crime, and that causing any kind of injury to the body and life of a human, whether intentional or unintentional and by any means, results in the conclusion that any kind of physical or bodily injury resulting from an industrial product is a crime, because its enforcement guarantee is 'Diyah' (blood money), and Diyah, according to Article 12 of the Islamic Penal Code, is one of the punishments.
Regarding this discussion, it is noteworthy that the mere occurrence of an accident and injury resulting from a product indicates malfunction and the existence of a defect in it, and its attribution to the manufacturer is apparent and established without the need for evidence or proof of their negligence; therefore, not only is there no need to prove negligence (malpractice and the existence of a defect in the product), but there is also no opportunity for the manufacturer to resort to the principle of innocence (presumption of innocence), unless, in the eyes of the legislator, the occurrence of a crime and the criminality of the manufacturer is contingent upon proving their negligence or intent in creating the cause, which in these cases leads to an aggravation of the punishment in addition to blood money (diya); however, if the manufacturer claims the contrary, they must provide evidence that, for example, the unauthorized intervention of the consumer or a third party—whether as a repairman or second-tier manufacturers who equip their own goods with his products—or force majeure, had a more decisive effect on the occurrence of the result and was the cause of the accident, in which case they are relieved of liability.
(
, 
, 
)
