The Legal Concept of “Source of Increased Danger”

I. I. Algazin, I. A. Koryuchina
{"title":"The Legal Concept of “Source of Increased Danger”","authors":"I. I. Algazin, I. A. Koryuchina","doi":"10.19073/2658-7602-2023-20-3-313-322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The work explores the concept of “source of increased danger”, the approaches to determining which, in the doctrine of civil law, are far from unambiguous. The article summarizes the existing approaches to the definition of the concept of “source of increased danger”. The reasons for the need to develop a definition of the concept under study and fix it at the legislative level are indicated. One of these reasons is the rapid complication of technologies, the introduction of innovations in all spheres of society. Despite the centuries-old discussion of civilist scientists, there is still no established, more or less unambiguous position on this issue. Due to the fact that there are no clear, specific explanations in the acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, we believe that changes in the law are long overdue due to the ambiguity of individual terms (namely, the guilt of the victim, the owner of a source of increased danger, activities that pose an increased danger to others) used in Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The need to consolidate the concept of “source of increased danger” is thought by us as the most important goal of unifying terminology in all branches of Russian legislation. We proceed from subjective – objective conditioning of processes and phenomena, illustrating their interconnectedness due to forced close interaction. The Authors argue the need to adopt a separate federal law establishing the specifics of compensation for harm by activities that pose an increased danger to others. The development of new technologies, the activities of third parties, the behavior of the victim, the quality and characteristics of the causer of harm, conditions and conditions are the prerequisites for the situation itself as a source of increased danger. The generalization of judicial practice on the example of analyzing a specific case is an indicative example of the culprit of the incident avoiding responsibility and injustice of individual court decisions based on judicial discretion. Determining ways to improve the provisions of Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in our opinion, will ensure uniformity of judicial interpretation and, as a result, optimization of law enforcement in the field under consideration. However, our work outlines the common features of research for a number of new scientific problems that require further research work.","PeriodicalId":33294,"journal":{"name":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2023-20-3-313-322","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The work explores the concept of “source of increased danger”, the approaches to determining which, in the doctrine of civil law, are far from unambiguous. The article summarizes the existing approaches to the definition of the concept of “source of increased danger”. The reasons for the need to develop a definition of the concept under study and fix it at the legislative level are indicated. One of these reasons is the rapid complication of technologies, the introduction of innovations in all spheres of society. Despite the centuries-old discussion of civilist scientists, there is still no established, more or less unambiguous position on this issue. Due to the fact that there are no clear, specific explanations in the acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, we believe that changes in the law are long overdue due to the ambiguity of individual terms (namely, the guilt of the victim, the owner of a source of increased danger, activities that pose an increased danger to others) used in Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The need to consolidate the concept of “source of increased danger” is thought by us as the most important goal of unifying terminology in all branches of Russian legislation. We proceed from subjective – objective conditioning of processes and phenomena, illustrating their interconnectedness due to forced close interaction. The Authors argue the need to adopt a separate federal law establishing the specifics of compensation for harm by activities that pose an increased danger to others. The development of new technologies, the activities of third parties, the behavior of the victim, the quality and characteristics of the causer of harm, conditions and conditions are the prerequisites for the situation itself as a source of increased danger. The generalization of judicial practice on the example of analyzing a specific case is an indicative example of the culprit of the incident avoiding responsibility and injustice of individual court decisions based on judicial discretion. Determining ways to improve the provisions of Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in our opinion, will ensure uniformity of judicial interpretation and, as a result, optimization of law enforcement in the field under consideration. However, our work outlines the common features of research for a number of new scientific problems that require further research work.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“危险源”的法律概念
这项工作探讨了“增加危险的来源”的概念,在民法学说中,确定哪些来源的方法远非明确的。本文总结了现有关于“增加危险源”概念界定的方法。报告指出了需要对所研究的概念作出定义并在立法一级加以确定的理由。其中一个原因是技术的迅速复杂化,社会各个领域都在引入创新。尽管民间科学家进行了几个世纪的讨论,但在这个问题上仍然没有一个确定的、或多或少明确的立场。由于俄罗斯联邦最高法院的行为中没有明确、具体的解释,我们认为,由于俄罗斯联邦民法典第1079条中使用的个别术语(即受害者的罪行、增加危险来源的所有者、对他人构成更大危险的活动)的模糊性,早就应该对法律进行修改。我们认为,必须巩固“危险增加的根源”的概念,这是在俄罗斯立法的所有部门统一术语的最重要目标。我们从过程和现象的主客观条件出发,说明它们由于被迫密切互动而相互联系。提交人认为,有必要通过一项单独的联邦法律,确定对对他人构成更大危险的活动造成损害的具体赔偿。新技术的发展、第三方的活动、受害者的行为、造成伤害的人的性质和特征、条件和条件都是局势本身成为增加危险来源的先决条件。以具体案例分析为例对司法实践进行概括,是基于司法自由裁量权的案件肇事者逃避责任和个别法院判决不公的指示性例证。我们认为,确定改进《俄罗斯联邦民法典》第1079条规定的方法将确保司法解释的统一性,从而使所审议领域的执法工作最优化。然而,我们的工作概述了一些需要进一步研究的新科学问题的研究的共同特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3) Some Features of the Criminal Procedural Status of a Witness On the Origins of Administrative and Judicial Discretion in Russian Administrative and Jurisdictional Activities The Legal Concept of “Source of Increased Danger” Exhaustion of Exclusive Rights to Computer Programs Under the Laws of Russia, the USA, the EU, China and India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1