Civil liability is a specific type of liability. Its features are determined by the specifics of the legal relations themselves, within which it arises. The essence of civil liability is the application of certain property measures to the violator, which are a kind of punishment for his illegal behavior. The reason for this is wine. In the civil law of the Russian Federation, however, it is not considered as an integral element of the offense. The legislation provides for cases of bringing the subject to responsibility without his fault. Further in the article we consider the definition of guilt, the features of its proof, as well as the specifics of its forms.
General information
First of all, it should be noted that many lawyers tried to uncover the concept of guilt. In civil law, its exact definition is missing. Therefore, for characterization, signs used by criminal law are used. Of course, in this case the question arises of the relationship of guilt in criminal and civil law. As the analysis of legislation and law enforcement practice shows, this approach cannot be considered correct.
Guilt problem
In civil law, it is impossible to apply a criminal law approach to the determination of guilt. The fact is that according to the Criminal Code it is recognized as an exclusively subjective awareness or mental attitude of the subject to the deed. The concept of guilt in civil law covers a wider range of people. Indeed, the subjects of civil law relations include not only individuals, but also legal entities. Of course, talking about the mental attitude to the deeds of the latter is quite difficult.
It is also important that in civil law relations forms of guilt are not as important as in criminal law. As a rule, proof of its existence is necessary. It is extremely rare to resolve a dispute that it is necessary to establish a specific form of guilt - intent, negligence, etc.
History reference
In Roman law, the definition of guilt by the rules was not disclosed. But there were certain signs by which this or that form was characterized.
Before the revolution, the concept of civil law in Russia was not formally fixed. A similar situation was noted in other countries.
In the Soviet period, the concept of guilt was not analyzed at all. This was due to the fact that its characterization by indicating signs of a deliberate and careless form was considered quite sufficient at that time.
Meanwhile, guilt in civil law is one of the central concepts. It is of great importance for the study of issues related to holding accountable both in theory and in practice.
Wines in civil law is a collective concept. At present, it is disclosed in Article 401 of the Civil Code through forms, and not by indicating specific characteristics inherent in each of them.
Objectivist concept
Its occurrence is considered as the initial stage of cardinal changes in the direction of the study of types of guilt in civil law, previously focused on the criminal law approach. In civil law, the understanding of her as the psychic attitude of the offender to his illegal actions / inaction and their consequences still prevails. From the criminal legal point of view, legal liability is recognized as personal responsibility of citizens. In this regard, the main attention was paid to the issues of psychological attitude to the act.
The idea of ​​an "objectivistic" ("behavioral") concept is that guilt in civil law should be determined through its objective features. Supporters of this theory are M. I. Braginsky, E. A. Sukhanov, V. V. Vitryansky, etc. According to the objectivist concept, guilt is a measure aimed at preventing the negative consequences of the behavior of a subject of civil law relations.
Signs of Guilt
If we consider it as a psychological phenomenon, then we can distinguish the following distinctive features:
- Conscious attitude of a person to an act. Consciousness in this case is a common property of the manifestations of the human psyche. Simply put, the subject must and is fully capable of adequately treating everything that is happening around him. If we talk about a person’s awareness of his actions, here we are talking about understanding specific behavioral acts. Awareness is considered a common feature that is inherent in all forms of guilt, with the exception of negligence (in this case, the consequences of an unlawful action are not recognized).
- Expression of the feelings and emotions of the offender, usually having a negative color. The subject who commits an unlawful act expresses his negative, neglectful, and in some cases completely indifferent attitude to the order operating in society. Many experts believe that this feature allows you to distinguish between guilt and other forms of subjective attitude of a person to his behavior and its consequences.
- The danger of the act reflects the degree of negative attitude of the offender to state and public values. Many experts call this phenomenon a "vice of will."
- Assessment of the violation is expressed in the reaction of society to the act and the subject who committed it. In this case, the existing and approved by the majority of the rules are the criteria.
It must be said that not only will acts as a determining factor in guilt. In many cases, on the contrary, the will is recognized as a consequence of a negative attitude to the interests of others.
Guilt is a complex of mental processes occurring in a person, including volitional ones. A negative attitude to values ​​largely depends on feelings and emotions that influence the will and determine the adoption of certain decisions.
Features of the choice of model of behavior
It seems that a deliberate illegal act cannot be regarded as a manifestation of a vice of will. In this situation, the subject had a choice of behavior model. The person consciously chose illegal behavior, respectively, there is no defect in will.
As some lawyers note, the mechanisms of illegal and lawful acts in their form consist of the same psychological components that are filled with different ideological and social content. In all cases, they reflect the external environment within which the personality of the subject is manifested. Of course, the behavior of the violator can be considered inadequate, bearing in mind the fact that he violates the law by his actions. At the same time, one cannot help but see that his behavior corresponds to the subjective value that the person attaches to this event in the context of a limited outlook, the specifics of social orientation, interests, views of the guilty person, etc.
Nuances
Any theory of liability for guilt in civil law has a right to exist. But if you do not take into account the attitude of the person to his act, there is a risk of returning to the principle of objective imputation. Scientists have been trying to move away from this principle for quite a long time. The first step in this direction is to equate the concepts of “guilt” and “illegal behavior”. These two terms cannot be identified, despite the fact that the first has a direct connection with the second.
Guilty and innocent
Adherents of the objectivist theory believe that the definition disclosed in article 401 of the Civil Code contains precisely an objective approach. Moreover, the authors refer to para. 2 1 points of this norm. It enshrines the concept of the innocence of the subject. According to the provisions of the article, the absence of guilt in civil law is proved by confirmation of the adoption of all measures required of the person depending on the obligations imposed on him and the conditions of the turnover in which he is located. This point of view, however, is highly controversial for a number of specialists.
It should be noted that the objectivist approach contains some subjective elements. So, caring and attentiveness, acting as psychological categories, indicate a certain level of activity of mental processes occurring in a person. Therefore, they must be recognized as subjective elements.
O. V. Dmitrieva believes that caring and attentiveness reflect the degree of volitional and intellectual activity that is inherent in each subject.
Presumption of guilt
For imputing criminal liability, the key action is to establish guilt. In civil law, the situation is just the opposite. According to general rules, the presumption of guilt applies. This means that the subject is considered guilty by default until proven otherwise. In this case, the burden of refutation rests with the offender himself.
It is also worth mentioning that the degree of guilt is of great importance in criminal law. In civil law, liability measures are applied when there is a proven fact of an offense.
Intentional and careless forms
Intent in the actions of the subject takes place when the violator foresaw the danger of his actions, wished or consciously allowed the onset of negative consequences. As you can see, the concept is similar to that given in criminal law. However, it should be agreed with a number of specialists that transferring the subject from the criminal to the civil sphere of psychological relations of the subject when sharing guilt with negligence and intent is unacceptable without taking into account civilistic traditional constructions.
The famous civilist M. M. Agarkov put forward the following position regarding negligence and intent. As the latter, one should consider foresight as the subject of such a result, which makes his behavior illegal. Intent is recognized as direct when a person anticipates and pursues the goal of achieving such consequences. It will be considered possible if the subject foresees and admits this negative result, but does not directly pursue the goal of achieving it.
Negligence recognizes the lack of forethought required of a person in the circumstances. It will take place if the subject does not anticipate what consequences his behavior might entail, although he had to assume that he anticipates a negative result, but frivolously admits that it will be prevented.
At the same time, according to A.K. Konshin, intent is intentional action / inaction aimed at non-fulfillment / improper fulfillment of obligations or creating conditions under which its fulfillment is impossible. As you can see, the author, although he tries to avoid the psychological approach, nevertheless cannot but use the concept of “intentional”, which shows precisely the personal attitude of the offender to his behavior.
Motive
In proving guilt, he does not really matter. The main thing is the property consequences that specific actions / inaction of the person led to. Equally important is the magnitude of the damage that has occurred. The fault of the inflicter of harm in civil law is not dependent on the motives that guided the subject. Regardless of whether he committed an offense out of self-interest or other considerations, he will have to compensate for the damage incurred in whole or in a certain part of it.
A motive is a combination of factors that determine the choice of a behavior model that contradicts the law and a specific pattern of action / inaction during the commission of a violation. If intent, he will recognize a set of circumstances that prompted a person to inaction / action. However, they usually do not in any way affect the civil liability of the entity. This distinguishes civil law from criminal law. The motive often acts as a qualifying attribute of a crime.
If it is established by a civil court that intent was based on certain motives, that is, a person desired and strove for a specific result, then he would be found guilty. Accordingly, he will be assigned measures of property liability.
Features careless form
This type of guilt takes place when the debtor does not show discretion and care to the extent that is required for the proper performance of the obligation in terms of turnover. Gross negligence is considered to be a person’s failure to show the minimum degree of prudence and care that could be expected from any participant in civil turnover, and his failure to take measures to ensure proper performance of obligations.
Legal relations regulated by the Criminal Code are imperative. This is their difference from civil law turnover, in the framework of which all interactions are carried out on the basis of the principle of disparity. In a situation where most of the issues can be resolved by agreement of the parties, recklessness is easier to show, since one can hope for the consent of the other side of a tacit expression of will.
The specificity of negligence is that it can act as a consequence of the complexity of regulatory regulation. Among the large number of rules governing a certain category of public relations, conditions for negligence can always arise.
Wines of a legal entity in civil law
The subjects of civil turnover are not only individuals, but also organizations, as well as public law entities. Consideration of issues related to establishing the guilt of a legal entity requires special attention. The fact is that there are many obvious differences from the guilt of an individual. That is why these two legal categories can neither be compared nor identified.
A legal entity cannot directly negatively relate to the rights and interests of other participants in the turnover and, of course, is not able to realize the degree of wrongfulness and the nature of behavior. Meanwhile, domestic legal science speaks of the special will of a legal entity, the content of which is formed by the whole team as a whole.
Speaking about the fault of legal entities, G.E. Avilov points to the guilt of his officials and other employees, that is, persons who, in specific circumstances, act on behalf of the organization.
According to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the Civil Code, a legal entity is an entity that has separate property in economic jurisdiction, operational management or ownership, with which it is liable for its debts, capable of acquiring and exercising rights (non-property including), bear obligations, act in court as defendant or plaintiff.
The legal entity’s violation indicates the poor work of its internal structure, personnel, organizational, technological and other mechanisms. For example, if furniture is produced at the enterprise, then the products must be of proper quality and meet established norms and standards. If one of the collectors allows marriage, then the legal person is responsible, not a specific employee. In this case, it should be said that the fault of the enterprise consists in unfair selection of personnel, inadequate control over the work of employees, etc.
It must be said that the legal entity is held liable for actions / inaction of employees committed during the performance of their labor duties. Sanctions to the organization apply even if the damage arose due to the fault of a freelance employee.
From the foregoing, we can conclude the following. Causing damage by an entity exercising its labor duties constitutes a civil offense. A legal entity is recognized as its subject - the enterprise where the corresponding citizen works. The fault of the organization will consist in internal production omissions committed by the personnel service.
Distinctive features of the guilt of a legal entity
The organization represents is considered as an independent subject of civil law relations. A legal entity implements legal capacity with the help of its own internal structure, organizational unity. Unlike the guilt of an individual, the guilt of an organization does not reflect a mental attitude to the act and its results. This is an independent legal category, which should rather be considered as failure to take the necessary measures to prevent or suppress illegal actions / inaction.
Conclusion
Taking into account all the above, several conclusions can be formulated.
Guilt is one of the grounds for which civil liability arises.
Today, in legal science, two key theories dominate regarding the nature of guilt: psychological and objectivist. The first is borrowed from the criminal law sphere. Adherents of this concept consider guilt to be the psychic attitude of the subject to his behavior and consequences. Proponents of the second theory define guilt as failure to take the measures necessary within the framework of these legal relations.
, , , . , . , . , .
However, it is worth noting that guilt in the framework of civil law relations does not perform such essential functions as in other legal sectors (for example, in administrative, criminal law). The fact is that in certain cases, measures of civil liability can be applied without the absence of fault. The concept of "legal entity" is an exclusively legal construction in which the word "person" is used rather conditionally. In this regard, if the enterprise is guilty in the framework of civil law relations, then it is impossible to assign blame to a specific official or ordinary employee.