نگرشي انتقادي به معيارِ «انسان معقول و متعارف» براي تشخيص تقصير در مسؤوليت مدني

A CRITICAL STUDY OF REASONABLE and ORDINARY PERSON FOR DETERMINING FAULT IN TORT LIABILITY

بر اساس معيار انسان معقول و متعارف، تقصير عبارت است از انجام كاري كه اين انسان فرضي در شرايطي كه ضرر در آن روي داده است، انجام نمي داد و يا ترك كاري كه او در آن شرايط انجام مي داد. اين معيار در گذشته كاملاً جنبة نوعي داشت و حقوقدانان بطور كلي شرايط دروني و فردي را در احراز تقصير ناديده مي گرفتند، اما امروزه بسياري بر اين باورند كه قاضي بايد آن دسته از شرايط دروني را كه بسادگي به گونة عيني قابل ارزيابي است، مانند سن، وضعيت سلامتي و توانايي هاي جسمي و ... در نظر گيرد. اما بايد شرايط دروني از نوع ذهني يا رواني مانند هوشمندي، ميزان آگاهي، شخصيت و انگيزه هاي عمل را ناديده انگارد. در اين مقاله، سعي شده است تا محتواي توصيفي و هنجاري اين ابزار حقوقي بيان شود؛

According to the standard of reasonable and ordinary person, negligence consists in doing something which a reasonable and ordinary person would not have done in that situation or omitting something which a reasonable and ordinary person would have done in that situation. In this article, descriptive and normative content of reasonable and ordinary person has been studied; It's ambiguities have been clarified and regarding relevant aims and foundations, some misunderstanding of it have been reconsidered and finally have offered proposals that is thought to result in convergence and coherence of legal system. According to the standard of reasonable and ordinary person, negligence consists in doing something which a reasonable and ordinary person would not have done in that situation or omitting something which a reasonable and ordinary person would have done in that situation.