Institution of Liability arising due to Causing Harm: Current State and Ways of Improvement

The article is devoted to the institution of obligations arising due to causing harm in the light of the reform of civil legislation and established law enforcement practice. On the basis of the effective legislation analysis, analysis of the doctrine and jurisprudence, the author explores the concept of harm. The paper provides for the classification of characteristic cases of causing harm to participants of relations regulated under civil law. It is concluded that the absence of the legal definition of the concept “harm” widely used in the Russian legislation has led to the confusion of the legal categories of “causing harm” and “causing losses” as grounds for tort liability in public sectors of legislation and jurisprudence. The paper contains the author’s classifications of types of harm caused to property. The article reveals the content of the concept of non-property (reputational) harm caused to a legal entity. A comparative study of the concepts of “harm,” “damages,” “losses” has been carried out. It is concluded that tort liability can be imposed if harm rather than losses has been caused. The author explores the issues of application of recovery if losses are caused. The author analyzes the subinstitution — obligations arising due to harm caused by acts of public authority — in the field of public administration and law enforcement. The paper examines conditions for imposing tort liability for harm caused by state bodies and local self-government bodies, as well as their officials, and features of the subject composition of tort obligations. The author draws attention to the civil law nature of legal relations arising as a result of causing harm in the field of criminal proceedings, focuses on features of tort liability for harm caused in the field of criminal proceedings and subject composition of tort liability for causing harm in the field of governmental power. The author proposes to introduce into the effective civil legislation the rule containing the definition of the concept of harm as a generic concept. It is proposed to supplement the institution of liability arising as the result of causing harm with provisions regarding a public law entity whose property may be damaged and the classification of the harm caused to the participants of legal relation regulated under civil law. It is proposed to make a number of changes and additions to the subinstitution — obligations arising as the result of harm caused by the acts of public authority.

1. Belyakova A. M. Imushchestvennaya otvetstvennost’ za prichinenie vreda. — M. : Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1979. — 110 s.

2. Gutnikov O. V. Deliktnaya otvetstvennost’ za narushenie otnositel’nyh prav: perspektivy razvitiya v rossijskom prave // Zakon. — 2017. — № 1. — S. 24—39.

3. Kommentarij k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii. Chast’ vtoraya (postatejnyj).(pod red. A. P. Sergeeva). — M. : Prospekt, 2017. — 975 s.

4. Kurs ugolovnogo processa : uchebnik / otv. red. L. V. Golovko. — M. : Statut, 2016. — 975 s.

5. Malein N. S. Pravonarushenie: ponyatie, prichiny, otvetstvennost’. — M., 1985. — 192 s.

6. Matveev G. K. Osnovaniya grazhdansko-pravovoj otvetstvennosti. — M., 1970. — 309 s.

7. Ostrikova L. K. Problemy vozmeshcheniya ushcherba, prichinennogo dolzhnostnymi licami pri osushchestvlenii ugolovno-processual’noj deyatel’nosti : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 1994. — 22 s.

8. Sinicyn S. A. Absolyutnaya zashchita otnositel’nyh prav: prichiny, posledstviya i sootnoshenie s prinyatoj klassifikaciej sub"ektivnyh prav // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. — 2015. — № 1. — S. 7—44.

9. Smirnov V. T., Sobchak A. A. Obshchee uchenie o deliktnyh obyazatel’stvah v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave. — L., 1983. — 152 s.

10. Tarhov V. A. Otvetstvennost’ po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu. — Saratov, 1973. — 456 s.

11. Flejshic E. A. Obyazatel’stva iz prichineniya vreda i iz neosnovatel’nogo obogashcheniya. — M., 1951. — 240 s.