Notes on the notion of indirect responsability in tort

Abstract

Before starting off on a close analysis of the provisions in our Civil Code regarding Indirect Responsilbility in Tort and Quasi Tort, a short introduction to the concept of Tort in general would not be inopportune. All persons, excluding Minors and the Insane, are responsible for their actions and are thus liable for the damage that ensues from their actions whether their actions caused the damage or contributed thereto. However, certain groups of individuals are not only responsible for the damage they directly produce by their own actions but are also responsible for the damage which other groups of persons produce by their acts - hence the Indirect Responsibility. Our code has been influenced by Post Classical Tendencies in as much as our has always been reluctant to accept the notion of liability without fault. This is in line with Justinian's ideology since in those days liability without fault was not considered to be compatible with the notions of Fairness and Justice. Thus one may rightly ask, "Since our provisions regarding Civil reponsibility are so very much based on the notion of "FAULT" why is it that certain groups of persons are held liable for damage produced by others?'' The correct answer to this question is that although at a first glance, such liability seems to be and absolute and objective liability independent from and irrespective of fault, on closer examination of the relevant provisions one finds that persons are answerable for the acts of others because these same persons, have been negligent in one way or another as far as the individuals for whom they have to answer are concerned. Thus the liability incurred by parents for the acts of their minor children arises because they do not exercise the care of a '' Bonus Paterfamilias". Liability is also incurred by the employer because he is not careful enough to employe competent persons whom he has reason to consider competent.