2018, vol. 56, br. 7-9, str. 473-489
|
Osnov neugovorne odgovornosti poslodavca za štetu koju radnik prouzrokuje trećem licu
The employer's liability for damage caused by an employee to a third party (strict or fault-based)
Univerzitet u Nišu, Pravni fakultet, Srbija
Projekat: Zaštita ljudskih i manjinskih prava u evropskom pravnom prostoru (MPNTR - 179046)
Sažetak
Odgovornost za drugog je složeni trougao odgovornog lica, zavisnog i potčinjenog štetnika i nevine žrtve. Teško je objasniti osnov odgovornosti tako da zadovolji njihove suprotstavljene interese bez protivrečnosti. U francuskom pravu se radi o objektivnoj odgovornosti, ali se krivica zaposlenog traži kao uslov. U germanskim sistemima se polazi od poslodavčeve krivice, ali je sud kreativnom primenom prilagodio neadekvatan propis društvenim potrebama. U domaćem pravu propisi se tumače na četiri različita načina. Autor je pokušao da identifikuje uzroke zabune, oslanjajući se na osnovne pojmove odštetnog prava, krivicu i protivpravnost. Međutim, krivica je određena i kao mentalno stanje i kao ponašanje. Za protivpravnost je nekad dovoljno povrediti pravila struke, drugi put se traži napad na zakonsku zabranu. Uprkos tome, ponuđeno je rešenje problema koji spaja Obligaciono i Radno pravo.
Abstract
Liability for another's act is a complex triangle between person liable, dependent and subordinated tortfeasor and innocent victim. It is difficult to explain the ground of liability which will satisfy their opposing interests without contradiction. In French law, this is a strict liability, but the fault of an employee is required as a condition. In Germanic systems, it starts from the employer's fault, but the court has adapted old written rules to modern social needs by creative application of law. In Serbian law, regulations are interpreted in four different ways. The author tried to identify the origins of confusion, relying on the basic Tort law notions such as fault and wrongfulness. However, fault itself is defined in two ways: as a mental state or as behavior. Regarding wrongfulness, sometimes it is enough to violate professional rules, the second time an attack on a legal prohibition prescribed by the law is required. Nevertheless, there is a solution to the problem that merges Law of Obligations with Labor Law.
|