پژوهشهای حقوقی

پژوهشهای حقوقی

معیار انسان معقول و متعارف در مسئولیت مدنی (مطالعه‌ای در حقوق انگلستان)

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسنده
استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی و حقوق، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران.
چکیده
معیار انسان معقول و متعارف در مسئولیت مدنی به ما می‌آموزد که برای شناسایی تقصیر و چگونگی انتساب آن به مدعی‌علیه در دعاوی مسئولیت به کدام شاخصه تمسک جوییم. دستیابی به چنین معیاری گسترده، قابل تفسیر و تأویل در گام نخست مستلزم ارائه تعریفی دقیق و روشن از آن است، به نحوی که حدود و ثغور مفهومی آن برای دادرس یا دانش‌پژوه معین و ترسیم شود. این مهم برای استفاده‌ بهینه از آن شاخصه بسی ضرورت دارد. پس از طی طریق پیشین، آنچه پیش روی یک مسئولیت‌پژوه و یا دادور متجلی است، صرفاً قیاس رفتار مدعی‌علیه فرضی و یا واقعی با انسان معقول و متعارف معیار است. در مقاله پیش رو معیار فوق را در حقوق انگلستان مورد بررسی قرار دادیم تا نگاه حقوق آن کشور را که شاخصه نظام حقوق کامن‌لا به شمار می‌رود، تبیین نماییم. در این مسیر از روش تحقیق توصیفی ـ تحلیلی با نگاهی هنجاری بهره جستیم و با استناد به قضایای مطروحه در حقوق انگلستان درصدد دستیابی به مفهومی صحیح از آن معیار برآمدیم.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

The Standard of Reasonable Person in Civil Liability (A Study in English Law)

نویسنده English

Milad Mashayekh
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Law, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran.
چکیده English

The standard of reasonable person informs the benchmark for establishing fault and attributing it to a defendant in civil liability claims. However, the standard's broad and open-ended nature necessitates a precise definition to delineate its conceptual boundaries for judges and legal scholars, thereby enabling its optimal application. Ultimately, for a judge or researcher, the application of the standard involves comparing the defendant's conduct- whether actual or hypothetical- against this benchmark. This study provides a doctrinal analysis of the reasonable person standard in English law, a foundational common law jurisdiction. Employing a descriptive-analytical method within a normative framework, it examines case law to articulate a coherent and accurate conception of the standard.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Reasonable Person
Fault
Duty of Care
Causation
Foreseeability of Damage
- Gardner, John. “The Many Faces of the Reasonable Person”. 2019, 1-38. Available at: https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/reasonableperson2013.pdf
- Green, Leon. “Tort Law Public Law in Disguise”. Texas Law Review, 38, 1(1959), 1-257.
- Harlow, Carol. Understanding Tort Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell Press, 2005.
- Harpwood, Vivenne. Principles of Tort Law. London: Cavendish Press, 2000.
- Hart, H. L. A. and Tony Honoré. Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
- Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Common Law. Mainz, Germany: Gutenberg Press, 1881.
- Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Path of the Law. London, United Kingdom: Routledge Press, 1897.
- Hylton, Keith N. “Factual Causation”. In: Tort Law: A Modern Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, 195-226. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316408902.012
- Murphy, John. “The Heterogeneity of Tort Law”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39, 3(2019), 455-482. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz008
- Owen, David G. “The Five Elements of Negligence”. Hofstra Law Review, 9, 4(2007), 1671-1686.
- Prosser, William L. Handbook of the Law of Torts. Eagan, Minnesota: West Press, 1941.
- Ripstein, Arthur. “Theories of the Common Law of Torts”. 2022. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/#CiviReco
- Ripstein, Arthur. “Theories of the Common Law of Torts”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University, 2022. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/tort-theories/
- Stevens, Robert. “Chapter 3: Professor Sir Frederick Pollock (1845–1937): Jurist as Mayfly”. In: Scholars of Tort Law, 75-102. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781509910595_A38223210/preview-9781509910595_A38223210.pdf
- Strong, S.I & Liz Williams. Complete Tort Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Zimmermann, Reinhard. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Websites
- “But-for test”. Available at: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-but-for-test
- “Cork V Kirby Maclean”. Available at: https://freebooksummary.com/tort-1
- BAILII. “Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4 (12 May 1977)”. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html
- BAILII. “Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1995] UKHL 4”. 6 July 1995. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/4.html
- Casemine. “Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham”. July 28, 1961. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87860d03e7f57ec1087
- Casemine. “Stone v. Bolton”. May 10, 1951. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87860d03e7f57ec1054
- Griffiths Law. “4 Elements of a Negligence Claim (and more)”. Available at: https://www.griffithslawpc.com/resources/elements-negligence-claim/
- ICLR. “Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee 08 Nov 1967 [1968] 2 WLR 422, QBD”. 1968. Available at: https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/1961000242/casereport_75500/html
- Lawlex. “Case Comment : Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205”. Apr 29, 2018. Available at: https://lawlex.org/case-summary/case-comment-hall-v-brooklands-auto-racing-club-1933-1-kb-205/16155
- LawTeacher. “Caparo v Dickman Case Summary”. 2018. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php
- LawTeacher. “Duty of Care Lecture”. November 2018. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/lectures/tort-law/negligence/duty-of-care/
- LawTeacher. “Marc Rich v Bishop Rock [Internet]. November 2013”. 2018. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/marc-rich-v-bishop-rock-marine.php
- Parliament. “Judgments - White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others”. 1998. Available at:  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd981203/white01.htm
- Shaw, Bernard. “'Maxims for Revolutionists' from Man and Superman (1903)”. Available at: https://www.panarchy.org/shaw/maxims.1903.html
- Specialist Legal Advice. “Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]: Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman: Case Summary”. Available at: https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/breach-of-duty-key-tort-law-judgment-caparo-dickman/
- Specialist Legal Advice. “Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]: Case Analysis: Donoghue v Stevenson: Case Summary”. Available at: https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/duty-of-care-key-tort-law-judgment-donoghue/
- The Guardian. “What is the origin of the expression ‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’?”. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-2012,00.html
- Vlex. “Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw”. 1 March 1956. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/bonnington-castings-ltd-v-793232641
- Vlex. “Saqib Khan and Another v Harrow Council and Another”. 3 September 2013. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/saqib-khan-and-another-793809677
Files & Documents
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310.
- Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC.
- Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428.
- Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy, (1988) 82 N.R. 235 (FCA).
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781.
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583.
- Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] 3 WLR 1151.
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 House of Lords.
- Broom & Another v The Administrator, Natal 1966 (1) C+B 699 (D).
- Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
- Castle v St Augustine’s Links [1922] 38 TLR 615.
- Chester v Afshar [2005] 3 WLR 927.
- Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402.
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333.
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
- Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd.
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] 2 AC 448.
- Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 77.
- Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933] 1 K.B. 205.
- Jones v North West SHA [2010] EWHC 178.
- Khan and Khan v. (1) London Borough of Harrow; and (2) Helen Sheila Kane [2013] EWHC 2687 (TCC).
- Knight v Home Office [1990] 3 All ER 237.
- Latimer v AEC Ltd. [1953] AC 643.
- Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 135.
- Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1996] AC 211.
- McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999]4 All ER 961.
- McQuire v Western Morning News Co Ltd [1903] 2 KB 100.
- Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966.
- Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304.
- Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] UKHL 2 and Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2.
- Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370.
- Newell v Goldenberg [1995] 6 Med LR 371.
- Old Gate Estates Ltd v Toplis & Harding & Russell [1939] 3 All ER 209.
- Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295.
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V. Dock & Engineering Co., LTD(1961).
- Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617.
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).
- Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367.
- Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33.
- Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing & Heating, 130 P.3d 1011, 1015 (Colo. 2006)
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560.
- Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 All ER 131.
- Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
- Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] AC 871.
- Stone v. Bolton [1951] AC 850.
- Ultramares Corporation v Touche 174 N.E. 441 (1932).
- Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 All ER 527.
- Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109.