مطالعه تطبیقی مسئولیت مدنی عامل زیان در برابر تماشاگر حادثه زیانبار در حقوق امریکا و طرح آن در حقوق ایران

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه دنور، امریکا.

3 دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

با پیشرفت حقوق مسئولیت مدنی در امریکا و توسعه خسارات قابل جبران به ویژه طی سال‌های اخیر، یکی از مصادیق خسارات معنوی که به لحاظ عملی در پرونده‌های بسیاری مورد توجه قرار گرفت، قابلیت جبران خسارات روحی ناشی از تماشای حوادث ناگوار بود. فرض کنید الف شاهد وقوع حادثه‌ای بوده که در آن، ب به ج زیانی را از روی عمد یا بی‌احتیاطی وارد می‌کند. دیدن آسیب هم‌نوع، بی‌گمان سخت و دردناک است اما پرسش این است که آیا الف به عنوان تماشاگر می‌تواند به خاطر تماشای این صحنه و ناراحتی که در او ایجاد شده، از عامل زیان مطالبه خسارت کند؟ در نظام حقوقی آمریکا، پس از طرح معیارهای مختلف از جمله قاعده ضربه، محدوده خطر، خسارت روحی تماشاگر و قابلیت پیش‌‌بینی، مشاهده آنی خویشاوندان نزدیک و قاعده آمبولانس، سرانجام، مسئولیت عامل زیان نسبت به تماشاگری که رابطه نزدیک با زیان‌ دیده اصلی داشته، با شرایطی پذیرفته شده است که البته امروزه معیار تشخیص رابطه نزدیک با زیان‌دیده در اکثر ایالات امریکا، عرف است. در نظام حقوقی ایران نیز، به نظر می‌رسد صرف تماشای آسیب دیدن دیگری، زیان نباشد اما آنگاه که با زیان‌دیده اصلی، از پیش، عرفا رابطه‌ای محکم و قابل اعتنا داشته‌ایم، ناراحتی ناشی از تماشای آسیب او، به عنوان زیان قابل تحلیل است. این پاسخ با تاکید بر عرف، به عنوان معیار تحقق زیان قابل تایید است. به هر روی، در مقاله پیش‌رو، تلاش می‌شود پاسخ پرسش یاد شده، در دو نظام حقوقی ایران و آمریکا ارائه شود و استدلال‌هایی در مورد قابلیت پذیرش این نوع خسارات در نظام حقوقی ایران ارائه گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Study of Tortfeasor, s Civil Liability to Bystander in the U.S Legal system and Bringing it up in Iranian Legal System

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Mirshekari 1
  • Zahra Takhshid 2
  • Mona Abdi 3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of Law, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver, U.S.A.
3 Ph. D in private law, Faculty of law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Imagine that A has witnessed an incident in which B injures or kills C. It is undoubtedly painful to witness, but does it also follow that one can recover damages for suffering emotional distress as the result of witnessing the accident? The recognition of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional harm, also known as NIED, has been one of the ways that tort law has attempted to provide a remedy for the emotionally injured. Nevertheless, the relatively new tort has raised many questions. In the U.S. legal system, different criteria have been proposed over the years to allow for NIED liability. For example, the impact rule and the zone of danger have been amongst the most popular. This Article focuses on the latest exception which is the bystander liability and its evolution. It is the liability to a person who witnesses a person being injured or killed due to the carelessness of another person. This Article compares the U.S. common law precedent with Iran’s civil liability regime and concludes that bystander emotional harm can also be recognized as a valid cause of action for redressing this type of emotional harm in the Iranian legal system. Bystander liability comes with the caveat of close relationship between the bystander and the injured individual. As such, this requirement should be based on the norms of the community that may differ from one another. 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Damages
  • Civil Liability
  • Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Bystanders Liability
  • Foreseeability
  • Methods of valuation and calculation
Abdi, Mona, (1401 Solar Year), Uncertain Damages in the Unites States Legal System and Rethinking in Iranian Legal System, Tehran: Entesharco, 1st edition.
Akhoundi, Mahmoud, (1382 solar year) Criminal procedural code, Vol: 1, Tehran, Samt pub. (in Persian)
Bell, Peter A, (1984), The Bell Tolls: Toward Full Tort Recovery for Psychic Injury, University of Florida Law Review, 36(32).
Bojnourdi, Mirza Hassan, (1377 Lunar year), Vol: 1, Alghavaed-ol-feghhiyeh, Hadi pub (in Arabic)
Clark, Andy, (2001), “Interested Adults” with Conflicts of Interest at Juvenile Interrogations: Applying the Close Relationship Standard of Emotional Distress, University of Chicago Law Review, vol: 68.
Fahimi, Aziz-allah, Foreseeability of loss in Civil Responsibility, (1384 Solar year), Law Views Quarterly, Vol: 34,35.
Flora, Colin E, (2011-2012), Special Relationship Bystander Test: A Ratinal Alternative to the Closely Related Requirement of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress for Bystanders, Rutgers Law Record, The Internet Journal of Rutgers School of Law, 39.
Ghamami, Majid, (1401 Solar year), Foreseeability of loss in Civil Responsibility, Enteshar co. (in Persian)
Ghasemi, Mohsen, (1389 Solar year), The Role of Foreseeability of Loss in Contractual and non-contractual liability, International Legal Research Journal, Vol: 7.
Givelber, Daniel, (1982), The Right to Minimum Social Decency and the Limits of Evenhandedness: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Outrageous Conduct, Columbia Law Review, vol: 82.
Goldberg, John and Anthony Sebok, and Benjamin Zipursky, (2016) Tort Law Responsibilities and Redress, Wolters Kluwer; 4th edition.
Goldberg, John c. p. & Benjamin C. Zipursky, (2012), The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law Torts, Oxfords University Press.
Helli, Ebn-e- Edris, Alsaraer, (1410 Lunar year), Vol: 2, Islamic publication institute. (in Arabic)
Herring, Terri Krivosha, Note, (1983), Administering the Tort of Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress: A Synthesis, 4 Cardozo Law Review, vol: 4.
Katouzian, Nasser, (1387 Solar year), Non- contractual liability (civil liability), Tehran publication institute, 8th edition. (in Persian)
Keefe, Lauren, (2002), Tort Law - New Mexico Limits Recovery of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress to Sudden, Traumatic Accidents - Fernandez v. Walgreen Hastings Co., New Mexico Law Review, 30(2).
Keeton, W. Page, (1984), Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, West pub, 5th ed.
Kestin, Howard H. (1996), The Bystander's Cause of Action for Emotional Injury: Reflections on the Relational Eligibility Standard, Seton Hall Law Review, vol: 26.
Khoee, Abolghasem, (without date), Menhaj-ol-salehin, Vol: 2, Khoee-ol-Eslamiyeh Institute. (in Arabic)
Khomeini, Seyed Ruhollah, (1392 Solar year), Tahrir-ol-vasileh, Vol: 2, Imam Khomeini Editing and Publishing Institute. (in Persian)
Kircher, John J, (2007), The Four Faces of Tort Law: Liability for Emotional Harm, Marquette Law Review, 90(4).
Krejci, Stephan, (2015), Is General Negligence the New Exception to the Florida Impact Rule? Florida A& M University Law Review, 10(2).
Lawson, F.H, (1980), Remedies of English Law, London: Butterworth, 2nd edition.
Liarena, Zharama, (2018), The Implemention of moral Damages Based on Calculation Exponential Injury Severity Score for Procedural Torts, U.s-China Law Review, 15 (2).
Magruder, Calvert, (1936), Mental and Emotional Disturbance in the Law of Torts, Harvard Law Review, vol: 49.
Marlowe, Douglas B, (1988), Comment, Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress: A Jurisdictional Survey of Existing Limitation Devices and Proposal Based on an Analysis of Objective Versus Subjective Indices of Distress, Villanova Law Review, 33(5).
Mir Shekari, Abbas, (1399 Solar year), A practical treatise on civil responsibility, Entesharco, 3rd edition. (in Persian)
Mohaghegh Helli, (1408 Lunar year), Sharaye-ol-eslam, Vol: 4,  Esmaeelian pub. (in Arabic)
Najafi Khansari, Mousa, (1418 Lunar year), Maniat-ol-taleb, Vol: 2 & 3, Islamic publication institute. (in Arabic)
Nolan, Virginia E. & Edmund Ursin, (1982), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Coherence Emerging from Chaos, Hastings Law Journal, 33(3).
Parvin, Farhad, (1382 Solar year), Moral Damages in Iranian Legal system, Ghoghnous pub. (in Persian)
Prosser, William L, (1939), Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort Law, Michigan Law Review, 37(6).
Shahid Sani, (1412 Lunar year), Sharh-e-lomee, Vol: 10, The Islamic Publication Office of Qom Seminary. (in Arabic)
Sampedro, David, (1996), When Living as Husband and Wife Isn’t Enoughf: Reevaluating Dillon's Close Rekationship Test in Light of Dunphy v. Gregor, Stetson Law Review, Vol. XXV.
Segal, Lester E., (1995), Recovery for Direct Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The Impact Rule, or a Better Idea? Florida Bar Journal, vol: 69.
Tousi, Sheikh Mohammad Hasan, (1387 Lunar year), Al-mabsout, Vol: 3, Maktabat-ol-mortazavieh publication. (in Arabic).
دوره 8، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 13
در حال صفحه آرایی و بارگزاری فایل اصل مقالات
فروردین 1403
  • تاریخ دریافت: 15 اردیبهشت 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 13 تیر 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 27 آبان 1402