УДК 347.94:347.47 PDF
DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2021-1(34)-7
Dmytro SVOIAK,
Judge of Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky City District Court of Kyiv Region,
coach, the National School of Judges of Ukraine
THE VALUE OF THE GENERAL TORT IN THE PROCESS OF PROVING THE DISPUTE
In this article an author determines the composition of the general tort, which in modern domestic legal doctrine consists of harm, wrongful conduct of the perpetrator, the causal link between the actions of the perpetrator and the consequences of harm, and the fault of the perpetrator on the examples of scientific works and law enforcement practice,.
It is pointed out that the court must establish all the elements of a general tort as a necessary condition for the occurrence of civil liability for damage caused by actions or omissions.
Given the principle of adversarial proceedings, it is justified to clearly distinguish between the parties to the tort dispute the obligation to prove the presence or absence of a particular element of the general tort.
There have been cases of incorrect borrowing from the decisions of the Supreme Court by the courts of lower instances of the citation on the distribution of such a duty and its use as mandatory to consider the conclusion when choosing and applying the rule of law to the disputed relationship.
Meanwhile, the use of a separate phrase taken out of the context of a court decision in a particular case with the relevant parties, as mandatory to consider the conclusion, leads to the substitution of causation and affects the distribution of responsibilities for proving elements of a general tort between the parties.
In this connection, the defendant is unreasonably obliged to prove not only his absence of guilt, but also his non-involvement in the damage.
Although, according to scientific research, as well as a long-standing law enforcement tradition of proving the existence of damage, its size, illegal behavior of the perpetrator, the causal link between the damage and the wrongful acts of the perpetrator is the responsibility of the person who appropriately claims and asks to protect his/her violated right.
Keywords: general tort, damage, reparation, obligation to prove, composition of the tort, causation, guilt.
References
Hryn'ko S. D. Kontseptual'ni zasady vyznachennia pidstavy ta umovy vynyknennia deliktnykh zobov'iazan' za pravom Starodavn'oho Rymu. Yurydychnyj naukovyj elektronnyj zhurnal. 2015. № 4. p. 66–69. URL: http://lsej.org.ua/4_2015/17.pdf (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Matveev H. K. Vyna v sovetskom hrazhdanskom prave. Kyev: Yzd-vo KHU. 1955. 380 p. [ukr.]
Yuzheka R.S. Yurydychnyj sklad tsyvil'noho pravoporushennia. Aktual'ni doslidzhennia pravovykh ta ekonomichnykh protsesiv u konteksti ievrointehratsii: materialy Vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf. zdob.vysch.osvity (m. Dnipro, 28 trav. 2019r.). Dnipro: Dniprop. derzh. un-t vnutr. sprav. 2019. p. 177–179. [ukr.]
Kivalova T. S. Klasyfikatsiia zobov'iazan' vidshkoduvannia shkody. Yurydychnyj visnyk. 2011. № 1. p. 40–46. [ukr.]
Hryn'ko S. D. Znachennia vyny v deliktnykh zobov'iazanniakh. Universytets'ki naukovi zapysky. 2009. № 2. p. 51–57. [ukr.]
Mischuk V. V. Delikt iak pidstava tsyvil'no-pravovoi vidpovidal'nosti za shkodu, zavdanu dzherelom pidvyschenoi nebezpeky. Universytets'ki naukovi zapysky. 2013. № 3. pS. 146–151. [ukr.]
Karnaukh B. P. Heneral'nyj delikt vs. delikt neoberezhnosti: my ne taki rizni, iak zavedeno vvazhaty. Ukrains'ko hrets'kyj mizhnarodnyj naukovyj iurydychnyj zhurnal «Porivnial'no pravovi doslidzhennia». 2012. № 1–2. p. 229– 236. [ukr.]
Pro praktyku rozghliadu sudamy tsyvil'nykh sprav za pozovamy pro vidshkoduvannia shkody: Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy № 6 vid 27.03.1992. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0006700-92#Text (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Pro sudovu praktyku v spravakh pro vidshkoduvannia moral'noi (nemajnovoi) shkody: Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy № 4 vid 31.03.1995. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0004700-95#Text (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
1Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 06.11.2013 № 6-108tss13. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/35667389 (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 12.02.2014 № 6-168tss13. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/37908431 (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 03.06.2015 № 6-305tss15. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/45360025 (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 03.12.2014 № 6-183tsc14. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/41849921 (data zvernennia: 26.10.2020). [ukr.]
Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 23.08.2017 № 676/4719/15-ts. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/68742290. [ukr.]
Postanova Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 05.06.2019 № 461/8496/15-ts. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/82424027. [ukr.]
Postanova Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 23.05.2018 № 629/4628/16-ts. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/75296547. [ukr.]
Postanova Kasatsijnoho tsyvil'noho Sudu Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 03.06.2020 № 554/10836/16-ts. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89732757. [ukr.]
Kofman V. Y. Osnovnye voprosy prychynnoj sviazy. Vestnyk Lenynhradskoho unyversyteta. 1950. № 10. p. 115–116. [ukr.]
Hryn'ko S. D. Prychynno-naslidkovyj zv'iazok iak ob'iektyvna umova vynyknennia deliktnykh zobov'iazan' v Ukraini. Universytets'ki naukovi zapysky. 2010. № 2. p. 66–79. [ukr.]