The legislation of the Russian Federation provides for such a thing as an incident or otherwise - innocent harm. Its meaning is disclosed in Article 28 of the Criminal Code, according to which a person’s action (inaction) is considered to be committed innocently if he did not and could not, in the circumstances, realize the public danger of the committed act or did not foresee the possible occurrence of socially dangerous consequences (PLO) and could not circumstances of the case foresee them.
This rule also applies to persons who, although they had foreseen that the PLO could come about from an act committed by them, but could not prevent them due to a mismatch of their own psychophysiological qualities with overloads of a neuropsychic nature and the requirements of extreme conditions.
Responsibility, due to lack of guilt, for innocent harm, is not provided for in the criminal code. For this reason, it must be distinguished from intentional harm. They differ from each other in strong-willed and intellectual moments. In case of intentional harm, a person is aware of the social danger of his own deed, but if he is careless, he does not realize it, because of the circumstances of the case he cannot be aware of it. A person, unlike intent, with an incident does not foresee the possibility of OOP. He has no desire for the onset of consequences, including no conscious assumption, indifferent attitude.
Innocent harm, example: the owner of the apartment, in order to poison the cockroaches in the food in the pan, added poisonous substances, after which he suddenly had a need, and he left. At this time, a thief entered the apartment and, as he was hungry, poisoned and died. The landlord did not anticipate and could not foresee the onset of the PLO - death, which occurred as a result of an incident, and did not want the onset of such consequences. The actions of the landlord are not criminal and do not entail criminal liability. But if he purposefully left such a surprise for thieves, then in that case he would be liable in accordance with the law.
Innocent harm must be distinguished from negligence, since the person not only does not anticipate the possible onset of the PLO, but due to the circumstances of the case he could not foresee them either.
Innocent harm is a special mental state of a person who acts (or vice versa, is inactive) in an environment that excludes social danger.
A special kind of incident is if the person who caused the harm foresaw the possibility of an OOP, but due to the inadequacy of their own psychophysiological qualities to the existing requirements of extreme conditions, and overloads of a neuropsychic nature, they were allowed. This rule is spelled out in the criminal law in connection with severe neuropsychic stress on persons associated with driving equipment (for example, truckers) or emergency conditions (for example, test pilots). Such people often foresee the possibility of the onset of consequences, but cannot, by virtue of their qualities and capabilities, prevent them. At the same time, the persons responsible for the occurrence of PLO are subject to criminal liability, for example, concealment of deficiencies that impede the performance of a certain activity or putting oneself in a condition that precludes the possibility of preventing PLO due to the use of alcohol, psychotropic or narcotic drugs.
Unintentional harm to health does not entail legal consequences such as harm in the presence of intent. For this reason, it is necessary to clearly distinguish them and correctly qualify the actions (inaction) of a person.