Document Type : Original Research Paper

Author

• A. Sharifi

Department of Law, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

injured party. Thus, by fulfilling the pillars of civil liability (harmful act, loss and causal relationship), the damage caused to the injured party must be compensated. Article 1 of the Civil Liability Law says: "Individuals who cause damage that cause other material or moral damage are responsible for compensating the damage caused by their actions." The primary purpose of the civil liability system is to compensate for the damages suffered by the injured party, and the means must be provided for him/her to compensate for the damages so that his or her condition is restored to the point before the loss. However, following the enactment of the new compulsory insurance law in 2017 in note 3 of article 8 regarding the compensation of motor vehicle accident, the legislator has specified the amount of compensable damages through third party insurance or the culprit of the compensable accident. Therefore, recognizing the basis of the above rule is important. "Financial damages resulting from traffic accidents can only be compensated to the extent of the corresponding damages to the most expensive conventional car through third party insurance or the culprit of the accident." In Note 4, the conventional car is considered to be a car whose price is less than fifty percent of the insurer's physical obligations at the beginning of each year. According to the above rule, if the car belonging to the injured party is expensive and luxurious, all the damages will not be compensated, but the law can only compensate up to half of the bodily damages per year through the injured party and the damaging liability to compensate the damage. It has been restricted in this regard.
METHODS: This issue has been studied by descriptive-analytical method to identify the principles accepted by the legislator. Thus, the principles of civil liability have been studied in legal doctrine, jurisprudential opinions, judicial procedure and also with regard to comparative law. Existing theories about the possible foundations of the rule have been stated and examined to finally identify the basis accepted by the legislature for such a rule. Because all damages to the victim must be compensated, now the question arises that what effect does the high cost of the car have on the amount of liability for the loss? While the liability should have been compensated, regardless of the high cost of damages, all damages to the person.
FINDINGS: Prior to the enactment of the above rule, the injured party should have considered all damages to the car, regardless of the type of vehicle and the amount of damage. However, the new law has created a new rule contrary to the previous rules and thus the need to review the principles of the law and analyze why. The limits of such a rule are all the more necessary. Several theories in this regard, including unpredictability of damage to expensive cars by the injured party, damaged action, human rights intervention in fair compensation and the economic basis of compensation (including directing liability to the body insurance and scrapping the premium and expensive car owner) after compensation can be mentioned to justify such a rule. First, the principle of compensation and its violation by the above rule and finally the principles in this regard, including the ability to predict damages, harmed action, the involvement of human rights standards in achieving fair and equitable compensation and finally the economic foundations of such a rule have been examined.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the limitation of liability in this regard due to the observance of the compensatory status in fair and reasonable compensation, as well as justification based on economic perspective and the loss of the owner of expensive cars more than the amount of compensable damage, are the justifying principles of such a rule. However, these seem to be the basics for luxury cars. In the case of cars dedicated to public services, despite being expensive, such a rule of limitation of liability cannot be justified.

Keywords

• Civil Liability
• Damage
• Expensive Car
• Limitation of Liability
• The Injured Party

Main Subjects

• Insurance rights