| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Problematika pretrganja vzročne zveze v odškodninskem pravu
Authors:Kapun, Urška (Author)
Samec Berghaus, Nataša (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Kapun_Urska_2017.pdf (1,14 MB)
MD5: 3E22DF64388EA14080267975DD3B176A
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Vzročna zveza je element krivdne in objektivne odškodninske obveznosti. Je vez med protipravnim dejanjem in škodo, čeprav zakon tega posebej ne poudarja in je ne definira. Kadar govorimo o pretrganju vzročne zveze, moramo najprej razjasniti, kdaj je vzročna zveza podana oziroma ni podana. Pri tem si pomagamo s teorijami o vzročni zvezi. Poznamo več teorij, ki se razlikujejo tako glede na zgodovinska obdobja kot glede na avtorje, lahko imajo celo isto bistvo, vendar različno poimenovanje. V praksi sta splošno sprejeti teorija adekvatnosti in teorija o pravno relevantni vzročnosti ali »ratio legis« vzročnosti. Od teorij vzročne zveze, ki se pojavljajo, je odvisno, ali vzročna zveza je ali ni podana. Zaradi raznolikosti primerov se to vprašanje rešuje od primera do primera. V praksi se pojavljajo primeri, ko vzročna zveza sicer je podana, vendar pa odškodninska obveznost ni, ker so se pojavile okoliščine, ki pretrgajo vzročno zvezo. Zakon teh primerov ne našteva taksativno, ampak se presojajo od primera do primera. Te okoliščine so naključja, ko oseba izpolni svoje dolžnostno ravnanje v tolikšni meri, kot ji to narekujejo objektivne okoliščine in kot ji omogočajo individualne lastnosti, pa vseeno nastane prepovedana posledica. Sodna praksa in teorija sta določili, da so lahko naključja neki novi, neodvisni vzroki, ravnanja nekoga tretjega, zdravniške napake ali celo oškodovanca samega. V tem primeru vzročna zveza v naravnem pomenu seveda še obstaja. V pravnem smislu pa je bila vzročna zveza pretrgana in ni več podana kot element odškodninske obveznosti. Spet drugače moramo gledati na morebiten prispevek k škodi, ki jo je povzročil zdravstveni delavec, če pride do zdravniške napake, v primeru zdravljenja poškodbe, ki jo je povzročil nekdo drug, ker moramo zdravstveno napako ločiti od zdravniških komplikacij (zapletov) in primera nesreče (v zvezi z zdravljenjem). V primeru objektivne odškodninske obveznosti vzročne zveze ni treba dokazovati. Posebej je zakonsko urejeno, da je v primeru obveznega cepljenja država objektivno odgovorna za morebitno smrt ali škodo na zdravju, ki se kaže v resnem in trajnem zmanjšanju življenjskih funkcij osebe, ki je bila cepljena.
Keywords:Odškodninsko pravo, vzročna zveza, pretrganje vzročne zveze, naključje, zdravniška napaka, cepljenje
Year of publishing:2017
Publisher:[U. Kapun]
Source:Maribor
UDC:347.511(043.3)
COBISS_ID:5414699 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:K74PTMCN
Views:2679
Downloads:496
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Issues of interruption in causation in tort law
Abstract:Causation is one of the key elements of culpable liability for damages and an element of strict liability. Causation is the relation between cause and effect, unlawful act or omission and the damage allegedly caused by it. However, a strictly technical legal definition of causation is not given in any specific act. In order to discuss the legal nature of interrupted causation, we must first succinctly explain when causation is or is not established. Here we can help ourselves with theories discussing the legal nature and application of causation both in criminal and tort law. They vary regarding the historic period of their inception as well as their authors, and may sometimes have the same meaning but are known under several names. The most widely acknowledged amongst these theories are the theory on the adequacy of causation and the so-called ratio legis theory, that is the theory on the legally relevant causation. These theories aid us in establishing causation on a case-by-case basis. In legal practice it is not uncommon to come across a case in which causation is established but liability cannot be, due to circumstances which have interrupted causation. Such circumstances are coincidences. A coincidence is an occurrence when a person performs his/her obligation in such a measure as is dictated by objective circumstances and his/her individual traits allow, but the proscribed consequence still occurs. Legal practice and theory assume the standpoint that such coincidences may in fact also be the actions of a third person, of a medical error or even the injured party itself. In such a case causation still exists in its natural meaning but has been interrupted in the legal sense and can no longer be considered an element of liability. Yet another consideration must be made in cases where a health care professional contributes to damage caused by medical errors in cases of treatment given by another party, for we must differentiate between cases of medical error, complications during treatment and unsuccessful treatment of a patient. In the case of strict liability, there is no need to prove causation. In the case of Vaccination is a dangerous activity so the state is objectively responsible for death or damage to health in cases of compulsory vaccinations. Damage to health is a serious and permanent diminishment of the vital functions of the person who has been vaccinated.
Keywords:Tort law, causation, interruption of causation, coincidence, medical error, vaccination


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica