تحول مبنای مسئولیت اشخاص فاقد تمییز و تاثیر آن بر قواعد ‏عمومی مسئولیت مدنی در حقوق فرانسه و ایران

یکی از مسائل بحث‌برانگیز تعهدات، مسئولیت اشخاص فاقد تمییز است. سوال است که آیا غیرممیز مسئولیت دارد و در فرض مسئولیت، مبنای آن تقصیر است؟ زیرا با تعیین تکلیف این موضوع، مبنای مسئولیت در فرانسه و دیگر رژیم‌های رومی ژرمنی از جمله ایران روشن می‌شود؛ بحثی که در دکترین و رویۀ مسئله پرحاشیه بوده، چنانکه قانونگذار فرانسه مجبور به مداخله شده است. اما با وجود مداخلۀ قانونگذار نه‌تنها ابهام‌ها کمتر نشده، ابهام‌های دیگری افزون شده است. از سویی بحث مزبور و تعیین تکلیف دربارۀ آن بر مبنا و قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی بی‌تاثیر نیست، زیرا با بیان مبنای مسئولیت غیرممیز، تکلیف پذیرش مفهوم سنتی یا عینی تقصیر روشن و تکلیف نظام حقوقی در انتخاب بین مفهوم عینی و شخصی تقصیر مشخص می‌شود. در حقوق ایران نیز تعیین مبنای ضمان در مادۀ 1216 ق.م بر بازخوانی مفهوم تقصیر در قواعد عمومی بی‌تاثیر نیست. چنانکه در اتلاف نیازی به تقصیر نیست، اما در تسبیب با فرض اعتقاد به لزوم تقصیر، اگر تقصیر به مفهوم شخصی بوده و تمییز در تقصیر نقش داشته باشد، مبنای مسئولیت صغیر در تسبیب یا مبنایی به‌غیر از تقصیر است یا باید اعتقاد به عدم مسئولیت وی داشت. اما اگر تمییز نقشی در تقصیر نداشته باشد و مفهوم نوعی پذیرفته شود، شخص غیرممیز می‌تواند به‌صورت تسبیب نیز مسئول باشد. به‌عبارتی اگر مبنای مسئولیت شخص غیرممیز، تقصیر نباشد، می‌تواند بیانگر پذیرش تقصیر شخصی باشد و در این صورت تمییز شرط ارتکاب تقصیر است. اما اگر مسئولیت غیرممیز در مادۀ 1216 مبتنی بر تقصیر باشد، نشان از پذیرش نظریۀ نوعی تقصیر دارد و در ارتکاب تقصیر نیازی به تمییز و شرایط عامۀ تکلیف نیست. از سویی مطالعۀ سیر تحولی حقوق فرانسه می‌تواند در شیوۀ تفکر دکترین و رویۀ ایران در تفسیر مادۀ 1216 ق.م موثر واقع شود که در این مقاله با روش توصیفی و تجزیه‌وتحلیل کتابخانه‌ای با مطالعۀ تطبیقی انجام خواهد گرفت.

evolution of the basis of liability of non-‎discriminating persons and its eeffects on the ‎general rules of civil liability in french and ‎iranian law

abstractone of the most controversial issues in the law of obligations in any legal system is the liability of non-discriminating persons. the question is whether the non-discriminating persons are responsible and if they are, whether the basis is fault or it should be sought in other theories presented. by resolving this issue, the basis of civil liability in french law and many roman-germanic regimes, including iran, becomes clear. in other words, if it is determined whether the non-discriminating persons are responsible or not and whether the basis of this responsibility is fault or not, it can be better concluded in the general rules that if the basis of civil liability is fault, which of the two concepts of fault, personal and specific, is accepted as the basis of responsibility. this has been a controversial issue not only in doctrine but also in jurisprudence, to the point that the french legislature has been forced to intervene. however, despite the intervention of the french legislature, the ambiguities have not diminished but have been added. on the other hand, as it was said, this discussion and the solution of the problem has an effect on the basis of civil liability and the general rules of civil liability. because by solving the basis of the responsibility of non-discriminating persons, the traditional or objective concept of fault becomes clear. in iranian law, nonetheless, unlike the french, the responsibility of a non-discriminating person is specified from the beginning in article 1216 of the civil code, but determining the basis of obligation in article 1216 civil code has some effect on the concept of fault in the general rules, which in this article will be done with a comparative study. the main question of this article is whether or not in french law, non-discriminating persons are responsible and whether it is based on the theory of fault or not. in iran, too, with regard to specifying the responsibility of a non-discriminating person , the main question is whetherthe meaning of this responsibility is both based on loss and causation or only on the meaning of loss, and if it means causation, whether the non-discriminating person can be guilty or not. in this article, it is assumed that the main basis of civil liability should still be sought in the theory of fault, because the theory of fault has a fundamental value. it has also been hypothesized that one of the differences between loss and causation is that, given some of the examples in civil law, the liability based on causation requires the proof of guilt. in this article, the method of library analysis has been used and by referring to authoritative french sources and focusing more on the developments of the french legal regime, materials have been collected and analyzed. in french law, despite the problems that remain after the intervention of the legislature, the doctrine seems to be inclined to accept the objective theory of fault, and to be less inclined to the personal concept of fault. it seems that in iranian law, according to the specification of the responsibility of a non-discriminating person and in terms of the words of article 1216, which appears to be based on causation more than on loss, article 1216 can be applied not only in cases where both loss and causation exist, but also that the basis of liability, in the causation, is fault, and that by eliminating the subjective element of fault, iranian law has taken a step towards accepting the objective concept of fault. on the other hand, studying the evolution of french law can be effective in the way of thinking of iranian doctrine and practice in interpreting article 1216, which in this article will be done by descriptive method and library analysis with comparative study.