Moskva, Russian Federation
As an element of tort, the classical legal category of fault evolved together with other legal concepts. Each of these concepts finds increasing validation through the dialogue and debate among representatives of different scientific approaches. Followers of the subjective concept draw inspiration from natural law, while proponents of the objective concept seek justification in positivist theory. Therefore, choosing one concept of fault from different legal paradigms is as challenging as declaring either the natural or positivist school of law as the sole correct approach. Each concept of fault helps achieve fair resolutions within its own category of cases, yet a single overarching concept of fault cannot exist in the post-classical period, characterized by its communicative theory of truth and relativism. All attempts to frame law within the binary either/or formula come from classical rationality. Considering the subjective-objective fault (both/and), such an approach may deprive the law of its multidimensional nature. Additionally, the presumption of fault in tort law relieves courts from the need to conduct a thorough examination of fault when determining liability. As a result, the lack of empirical data on fault fosters a sense of incompleteness and leaves room for further legal discourse. In this article, the author explores the concept of fault from the perspective of judges, interpreting it as an objective-subjective category. This approach is rooted in post-classical legal theory. It describes fault as the verbal articulation of a specific action embedded in the legal norm and reflected in the text of judicial decisions. The offender’s perception exists within their consciousness. It is analyzed based on the evaluator’s involvement in the context of the offense and all objective circumstances. Like other legal elements, fault is a construct, i.e., its understanding is possible only as part of social relations, not in the mirror of nature (as per R. Rorty). Courts, in this sense, do not regard fault as a necessary condition for tort liability.
fault, negligence, intent, tort, tort liability, civil liability, legal construct
1. Krasavchikov O. A. Soviet civil law. Moscow: Vyscs. shk., 1969, vol. 2, 533. (In Russ.)
2. Baibak V. V. General conditions of liability for breach of obligationsas of Article 401 of Russian civil code: Old rulesin the new context. Law, 2016, (10): 132–143. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wymwoz
3. Matveev G. K. Fault in soviet civil law. Kyiv: Kyiv University, 1955, 308. (In Russ.)
4. Plotnikov V. A. Negligence as a form of fault in civil law. Cand. Law Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 1994, 26. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zlhzub
5. Golubtsova Yu. A. Legal construction of fault in Russian civil law. Cand. Law Sci. Diss. Abstr. Kazan, 2015, 30. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zprvqf
6. Tsitovich P. P. Obligations: Lecture notes on Russian civil law, delivered at St. Vladimir University by P. P. Tsitovich (spring semester 1887). Kiev: Tipo-lit. I. N. Kushnereva i K, 1887, 104. (In Russ.)
7. Bogdanov E. V. Separate methodological problems of the evolution of guilt in civil law. Lex Russica, 2023, 76(4): 75–85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2023.197.4.075-085
8. Ivanenko V. V. The content of fault in civil law: In search of an optimal solution. Civil Law Review, 2023, 23(1): 7–70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-1-7-70
9. Fleishits E. A. Obligations arising from harm and unjust enrichment. Moscow: Gos. izd-vo iurid. lit., 1951, 239. (In Russ.)
10. Sevostianova A. A. Fault in the sense attributed to it by the courts. Law and Authority, 2024, (5): 54–60. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/exwrkc
11. Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2000, 377. (In Russ.)
12. Krylov V. G., Romanov A. K. Tort obligations and tort liability in the English, German and French law. Moscow: Iustitsinform, 2017, 376. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yfkwej
13. Chestnov I. L. Methodology and methods of scientific research. St. Petersburg: SPbLI (b) UP RF, 2018, 124. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ypwgxb
14. Dworkin R. Justice of robes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006, 320.
15. Dworkin R. Hart’s Postscript and the Character of political philosophy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2004, 24(1): 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/24.1.1
16. Dworkin R. Law’s empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986, 470.
17. Zvercharovskiy I. E. Exemption from liability and punishment in Russian criminal law. Courier of the university named after O. E. Kutafin, 2018, (12): 81–87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2018.52.12.081-087
18. Zikun I. I. On the professional standard of trustee conduct. Law, 2024, (2): 26–36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2024-21-2-26-36
19. Kharlamov A. N., Pristenskiy V. N. Blame, responsibility, law in the context of the relationship between an individual and the society (social-philosophical aspect). Vestnik of Voronezh institute of the Ministry of the interior of Russia, 2014, (1): 253–261. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rzvhvx
20. Mulheron R. Principles of tort law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020, 1204.
21. Robbennolt J. K., Hans V. P. The psychology of tort law. NY: New York University Press, 2016, 320.
22. Pirvits E. E. Fault, chance, and force majeure in civil law. Civil Law Review, 2010, (5): 171–215. (In Russ.)
23. Chestnov I. L. Constructivist paradigm in law. Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Jurisprudence, 2016, (2): 62–93. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wjujxv
24. Duff R. A. Answering for crime: Responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Oxford-Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007, 342.
25. Dyson M. Explaining tort and crime: Legal development across laws and legal systems, 1850–2020. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, 448. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316534861
26. Dozhdev D. V. Flaudulent intent (dolus) and "Human Nature" in the system of contractual liability. Civil Law Review, 2023, 23(5): 9–54. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-5-9-54
27. Basic questions of tort law from a comparative perspective, comp. Askeland B., Cardi W. J., Green M. D., Koziol H., Ludwichowska-Redo K., Menyhárd A., Moréteau O., Oliphant K., Yamamoto K. Vienna: Jan Sramek Verlag, 2015, 912.
28. Dagel P. S. Problems of fault in Soviet criminal law. Vladivostok: Dalnevostochnoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo, 1968, 188. (In Russ.)
29. Robbennolt J. K., Hans V. P. The psychology of tort law. NY: New York University Press, 2016, 320.
30. Idrisov H. V. Guilt as a condition of tort liability: Doctrine and legal regulation. Science and youth: Proc. All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf. of Students, Postgraduates and Young Scientists, Grozny, 22 Oct 2021. Grozny: CSU, 2021, 409–413. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36684/52-2021-1-409-413
31. Shevchenko A. S., Shevchenko G. N. Delictual obligations in Russian civil law. Moscow: Statut, 2013, 133. (In Russ.)
32. Alexandrov G. A. Delay of the customer in the contract. Problems of construction law, ed. and comp. Shcherbakov N. B. Moscow: Statut, 2022, iss. 1, 30–74. (In Russ.)
33. Duvernois N. L. Lecture notes on civil law. St. Petersburg: Tipo-lit. B. M. Volfa, 1894, 402. (In Russ.)
34. Scott H. The history of foreseeability. Current Legal Problems, 2019, 72(1): 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuz009
35. Belov V. A. Foreseeability? Law, 2019, (3): 33–46. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zawbhv
36. Lukhmanov M. I. Model of delictual liability in situations of alternative causal uncertainty. Cand. Law Sci. Diss. Moscow, 2022, 222. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/cqvgoh
