Introduction

Among the grounds for the emergence of civil rights and obligations (obligations) in Civil Code(hereinafter - the Civil Code) named causing harm to another person (Article 8, 307 of the Civil Code) and obligations due to unjust enrichment (Article 1102 of the Civil Code).

Such obligations are called non-contractual, because arise not as a result of execution ( improper execution) the terms of the contract, but as a result of harm caused by one subject to another.

An obligation resulting from causing harm is an obligation by virtue of which the debtor (the causer of harm) is obliged to compensate in full harm caused to the person or property of the creditor (victim), and the creditor has the right to demand compensation for the damage suffered by him.

Due to the fact that the emergence of obligations resulting from causing harm is not based on a contract (agreement) of its participants, they, along with obligations resulting from unjust enrichment, are classified as outside contractual obligations. Practice shows that it is the obligations resulting from causing harm that make up the bulk of non-contractual obligations.

The face that is without established by law, other legal acts or transaction grounds acquired or saved property (acquirer) at the expense of another person (victim), is obliged to return to the latter the unjustifiably acquired or saved property ( unjust enrichment), with the exception of property, sums of money and other property that is not subject to return (Article 1102 of the Civil Code).

In this regard, the goals of writing the work are:

Study of the concept, types and functions of non-contractual (protective) obligations.

Study of the concept of obligations arising from causing harm.

Exploring the concept of liability due to unjust enrichment.

The work has a traditional structure and includes an introduction, a main part consisting of 3 chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

When writing the work, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws of the Russian Federation, Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as teaching aids and textbooks by authors T.E. Abova, A.M. Belyakova, L.Yu. Grudtsina, V.P. Zvekova, V.A. Tarkhova et al.

Concept, types and functions of non-contractual (protective) obligations

The main features of non-contractual (protective) obligations and their difference from contractual obligations

In science civil law There is a widespread division of obligations into two groups: contractual and non-contractual. This division is carried out on the basis of the grounds for the emergence of obligations: contractual obligations arise mainly from contracts, i.e. by agreement of the parties, and non-contractual - on the grounds provided by law Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. Theory and practice. M., 1986. P. 17.. The named groups of obligations have significant similarities, which made it possible to highlight in the law general provisions about obligations that apply to both contractual and non-contractual obligations.

There are differences between contractual and non-contractual obligations that determine their independent meaning and place in the system of the law of obligations. Firstly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual ones in the nature of the property relations underlying them. It is characteristic of contractual obligations that they formalize normal property turnover, i.e. relations based on the agreement of the participants, on their free expression of will, entailing the emergence of rights and obligations Ioffe O.S. Law of obligations. S. 20..

In contrast, non-contractual obligations mediate relationships that are not characteristic of the normal course of life, i.e. abnormal property relations. Most a shining example may serve as relationships related to damage or destruction of someone else’s property by a person with whom the owner is not related to this property contractual relations. It is also not typical for normal relations between subjects of civil law that a person receives property mistakenly sent to him by another person, as a result of which the transferor of this property experiences a legally unjustified loss, and the recipient receives an unjustified increase.

Secondly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual obligations on the basis of their occurrence: they arise not by will, but mainly contrary to the will of their participants, due to legal facts specified in the law. Most often they arise from misconduct, but the basis for their occurrence can also be lawful actions if they were committed erroneously Tarkhov V.A. Civil law. a common part. Ufa, 1998. P. 283. Thus, the Civil Code provides that the person who caused the harm is obliged to compensate it (clause 1 of Article 1064). Likewise, a person who, as a result of a mistake, has increased his property at the expense of another, is obliged to return what was acquired unjustifiably (clause 1 of Article 1102 of the Civil Code). Moreover, such obligations may also arise when intentional commission lawful but harmful actions (for example, a person acting in a state of emergency, as a general rule, must compensate for the harm caused by him to another person by virtue of the rules of paragraph. 1 clause 3 art. 1064 and part 1 of Art. 1067 Civil Code).

In all these cases obligated persons(debtors) become such not by their own will, but by force of law. Non-contractual obligations arise regardless of the will of not only the one who caused harm or unjustly enriched himself, but also from the will of the other party - the victim (creditor). It is another matter that the victim, like any authorized person, may not realize his rights arising from such an obligation, which will correspond to the principle of autonomy of will characteristic of civil law (Article 9 of the Civil Code).

Lecture No. 16

Liabilities arising from causing harm

Concept, types and functions of non-contractual obligations

1. Main features of non-contractual obligations and their difference from contractual obligations

In the science of civil law, the division of obligations into two groups is widespread: contractual and non-contractual. This division is carried out on the basis of the grounds for the emergence of obligations: contractual obligations arise mainly from contracts, i.e. by agreement of the parties, and non-contractual - on the grounds provided for by law *(358) . The named groups of obligations have significant similarities, which made it possible to identify in the law general provisions on obligations that are applicable, subject to the conditions provided for in them, to both contractual and non-contractual obligations.

At the same time, there are differences between contractual and non-contractual obligations that determine their independent meaning and place in the system of law of obligations. Firstly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual ones in the nature of the property relations underlying them. It is characteristic of contractual obligations that they formalize normal property turnover, i.e. relations based on the agreement of the participants, on their free expression of will, entailing the emergence of rights and obligations.

In contrast, non-contractual obligations mediate relationships that are not characteristic of the normal course of life, i.e. abnormal property relations. The most striking example can be relations associated with damage or destruction of someone else's property by a person with whom the owner does not have a contractual relationship regarding this property. It is also not typical for normal relations between subjects of civil law that a person receives property mistakenly sent to him by another person, as a result of which the transferor of this property experiences a legally unjustified loss, and the recipient receives an unjustified increase.

Secondly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual obligations on the basis of their occurrence: they arise not by will, but mainly against the will of their participants, due to legal facts specified in the law. Most often they arise from illegal actions, but the basis for their occurrence can also be lawful actions if they were committed erroneously. Thus, the Civil Code provides that the person who caused the harm is obliged to compensate it (clause 1 of Article 1064). Likewise, a person who, as a result of a mistake, has increased his property at the expense of another, is obliged to return what was acquired unjustifiably (clause 1 of Article 1102 of the Civil Code). In both cases, they are obliged not of their own free will, but by force of law. Non-contractual obligations arise regardless of the will of not only the one who caused harm or unjustly enriched himself, but also the will of the other party - the victim. It is another matter that the victim may not realize his rights arising from such an obligation, which will correspond to the principle of autonomy of will characteristic of civil law.

2. Types of non-contractual obligations

The concept of “non-contractual obligations” covers two types of these obligations, which will be the subject of further consideration:

a) obligations resulting from causing harm (tort obligations).

These obligations, along with contractual obligations, occupy the main place in the system of civil obligations; they are of primary importance in a number of non-contractual obligations. The content of tortious obligations is the liability of the tortfeasor. Therefore, both in legislation and in the literature, the concepts of “tort obligation” and “liability for harm” (i.e., tort liability) are most often used as unambiguous;

b) obligations due to unjust enrichment, i.e. acquisition or savings of property by one person at the expense of another without the necessary legal grounds.

The concept of “non-contractual obligations” covers two types of these obligations, which will be the subject of further consideration:

a) obligations resulting from causing harm (tort obligations).

These obligations occupy, along with contractual obligations, the main place in the system civil obligations; they are of primary importance in a number of non-contractual obligations. The content of tortious obligations is the liability of the tortfeasor. Therefore, both in legislation and in the literature, the concepts of “tort obligation” and “liability for harm” (i.e., tort liability) are most often used as unambiguous;

b) obligations due to unjust enrichment, i.e. acquisition or savings of property by one person at the expense of another without the necessary legal grounds.

88. Property insurance contract.

89. Property trust management agreement.

90. Liability of a legal entity or citizen for harm caused by its employee (Articles 1068,1069,1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

91. Liability for damage caused by minors and incompetent persons.

General rule tort liability is to impose the obligation to compensate for damage on persons who have full legal capacity(in relation to tortious obligations - full tortious capacity). However, in life, harm is often caused by persons who are partially capable, as well as those who are completely incompetent and by persons who are unable to understand the meaning of their actions. Damage caused in these cases is also recoverable under the principle of general tort. However, a tortious obligation arises here not only on the basis of general provisions (general tort), but mainly in accordance with special rules, relating to each of the named special torts.

Liability for harm caused by minors under 14 years of age. Minors under the age of 14 are not responsible for the harm they cause, i.e. completely incapable of action.

It should be noted that in relation to tortious liability, the law does not divide minors into two groups - under 6 years old and from 6 to 14 years old - and recognizes both as incapable of tort. However, to justify this position it is necessary to take into account this division. The complete incapacity of minors aged 6 to 14 years should be justified by the fact that children at this age have a certain level of intellectual development, but they still do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and deeds due to insufficient life experience and immaturity of will. As for minors under the age of 6, from the point of view of the law, they are completely deprived of the ability to understand the consequences of their actions. Nevertheless, from the point of view of delictual capacity, both minors are equally recognized as incapacitated.

Responsibility for harm caused to a minor is assigned to his parents (adoptive parents) or guardians or to the relevant institution - a legal entity, if the minor was in it or was under its supervision at the time the harm was caused.

Parents (adoptive parents) and guardians are responsible for harm caused by minors, if any common grounds tort liability. The illegality of their behavior is revealed in the poor upbringing of the child, in the failure to provide proper supervision over him, i.e. in improper performance of duties provided for them by the Insurance Code (Articles 63, 150). In this case, responsibility for harm rests with both parents, since they are equally obliged to raise children, regardless of whether they live with them or separately.

To assign responsibility to parents (adoptive parents) or guardian, it is necessary to establish the presence causation between their unlawful behavior and harm, i.e. determine that it was precisely as a result of poor upbringing and lack of supervision that the child committed an action that resulted in harm.

As for the third condition of tortious liability - guilt, then in this case There is a general provision on the presumption of guilt: parents (adoptive parents), guardians in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 1073 of the Civil Code can be released from liability if they prove that the harm did not arise through their fault, i.e. will prove the absence of even the slightest omissions in the upbringing of the child and in supervising him. It may be noted that it is almost impossible to rebut this presumption.

The Civil Code highlights the case of responsibility of parents deprived parental rights, for harm caused by minors (Article 1075). The court may impose such responsibility on them within three years after the deprivation of their parental rights. In this case, because we're talking about about tortious liability, the existence of its conditions must obviously be established - wrongfulness, causation, fault. This follows from Art. 1075 of the Civil Code, according to which persons deprived of parental rights may be held liable “if the child’s behavior, which resulted in harm, was a consequence of improper performance of parental responsibilities.”

Effect of Art. 1075 of the Civil Code applies not only to cases when the question of compensation for harm caused by minors (under the age of 14 years) arises, but also to cases of harm caused by minors aged 14 to 18 years.

Responsibility for harm caused by minors is often assigned to the relevant institutions - legal entities (clauses 2 and 3 of Article 1073 of the Civil Code). These include, firstly, educational, medical, social protection and other similar institutions that carry out the functions of guardianship over young children in need of guardianship by force of law (clause 4 of article 35 of the Civil Code). As guardians, these institutions bear appropriate responsibilities for the education and supervision of their wards. Their liability for harm caused by their wards occurs in the event of improper performance of these duties, i.e. illegal behavior. The condition for their liability is guilt, and they are considered guilty of causing harm if they cannot prove that the harm did not arise through their fault.

Secondly, educational, training, medical and other institutions are responsible for harm caused to minors if the minor caused harm while he was under their supervision. The condition for holding them responsible is the improper implementation of supervision, i.e. illegality of behavior. In this case, the law does not indicate shortcomings in upbringing as a condition of liability. Responsibility for harm caused by minors is also assigned to persons exercising supervision on the basis of a contract. If a minor causes harm, the institution, as well as the person exercising supervision under the contract, is presumed guilty and can be released from liability if he proves that the harm did not arise through his fault in carrying out supervision.

In the science of civil law, there is a widespread division of obligations into two groups: contractual and non-contractual. This division is carried out based on the grounds for the occurrence of obligations: negotiable arise mainly from contracts, i.e. by agreement of the parties, and non-contractual- on the grounds provided by law.

Between contractual and non-contractual There are differences between obligations that determine their independent meaning and place in the system of the law of obligations. Firstly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual ones in the nature of the property relations underlying them. It is characteristic of contractual obligations that they formalize normal property turnover, i.e. relations based on the agreement of the participants, on their free expression of will, entailing the emergence of rights and obligations.

In contrast to this non-contractual obligations mediate relationships, not typical for the normal course of life, i.e. abnormal property relations. The most striking example can be relations associated with damage or destruction of someone else's property by a person with whom the owner does not have a contractual relationship regarding this property.

Secondly, non-contractual obligations are different from contractual ones on the grounds of their occurrence: they arise not by will, but mainly against the will of their participants, due to the legal facts specified in the law. Most often they arise from illegal actions, but the basis for their occurrence can also be lawful actions if they were committed erroneously. Non-contractual obligations arise regardless of the will of not only the one who caused harm or unjustly enriched himself, but also the will of the other party - the victim.

The concept of “non-contractual obligations” covers two types of these obligations:

a) obligations resulting from causing harm (tort obligations).

These obligations, along with contractual obligations, occupy the main place in the system of civil legal obligations; they are of primary importance in a number of non-contractual obligations. The content of tortious obligations is the liability of the tortfeasor. Therefore, both in legislation and in the literature, the concepts of “tort obligation” and “liability for harm” (i.e., tort liability) are most often used as unambiguous;

b) obligations due to unjust enrichment, i.e. acquisition or savings of property by one person at the expense of another without the necessary legal grounds.

The functions of non-contractual obligations are in the purpose, official role of this legal institution in performing tasks determined by law. The main functions of non-contractual obligations and non-contractual liability are protective, compensatory (restorative) and preventive-educational (preventive).

As is known, the main functions of civil law and, accordingly, its institutions are regulatory and protective.

Non-contractual obligations and non-contractual liability have a primarily protective function. It lies in the fact that non-contractual obligations are intended to serve to ensure the rights and interests of subjects of civil law from various violations and protect these rights and interests in cases where their violation has occurred. Taking into account the indicated purpose of non-contractual obligations in the science of civil law, they are usually classified as protective obligations.

Obligations arising from causing harm: concept, conditions for occurrence, system and content

The law does not define this obligation. However, here there is an obligatory legal relationship, which can be defined as follows: by virtue of an obligation resulting from causing harm, a person who has caused harm to the person or property of another person (individual or legal) is obliged to compensate for the damage caused in full, and the victim has the right to demand that the damage suffered they were compensated for the harm.

In this obligation, the victim is the creditor, and the tortfeasor is the debtor.

Signs of liability for obligations resulting from causing harm: the basis for liability is the action of a person causing harm to the person or property of another person; the causer of harm and the victim are not in a contractual relationship with each other or are, but the harm was caused as a result of actions not related to the fulfillment of contractual obligations; in cases provided for by law, according to the rules on obligations due to harm, damage caused by violation of contractual obligations is compensated (for example, any harm caused to the life or health of a citizen is compensated, even if it was caused as a result of violation of obligations under the contract); the conditions and amount of liability for causing harm are determined only by law and cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. Such an agreement only allows for the establishment of the obligation of the harm-doer to pay the victim additional compensation in addition to compensation for harm.

General grounds for liability for causing harm, the presence of which is necessary to impose liability on a person (in certain cases, it is possible to impose liability in the absence of wrongfulness or guilt):

1. Occurrence of harm. Harm may be caused to the life, health or property of a person as a result of violation of his property or non-property rights. Harm can be property (reduction of property, expenses for treatment, prosthetics, etc.) or non-property (moral), expressed in moral or physical suffering of the victim.

The person who caused property damage must compensate it in full. It must compensate it in kind (repair the item, provide another similar item) or compensate for the losses caused in cash. In this case, the compensation will be as follows: real damage, and lost profits.

Moral harm is moral and physical suffering caused by actions (inactions) that encroach on intangible benefits belonging to a citizen from birth or by force of law (life, health, personal dignity, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secret etc.) or violating his personal non-property rights (the right to use his name, the right of authorship and other non-property rights in accordance with laws on the protection of rights to the results of intellectual activity) or violating the property rights of citizens. Moral damage is assessed by the court and is subject to compensation in full. Moral damage is compensated only in monetary form and is subject to compensation along with compensation for property damage.

2. Wrongfulness of the act causing harm, which means a violation of any legal norm by this action.

As a general rule, damage caused by lawful actions is not subject to compensation. Thus, damage caused in a state of necessary defense is not compensated, that is, in the case of protecting the personality and rights of the defender or other persons, legally protected interests of society or the state from a socially dangerous attack, unless the limits of necessary defense were exceeded.

Actions in a state of extreme necessity are also lawful, that is, when causing harm to another person to eliminate a danger threatening the harm-doer himself or other persons, if this danger under the given circumstances could not be eliminated by other means. Such damage is subject to compensation, however, the court, taking into account the circumstances of the case, may impose the obligation to compensate for damage on a third party in whose interests the harm-doer acted, or exempt both this third party and the harm-doer from compensation for harm in whole or in part.

3. Causal relationship between the actions of the harm-doer and the occurrence of harm.

4.Guilt of the harm-doer which may be intentional or careless. The harm-doer is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. In cases provided for by law, the causer of harm is liable even in the absence of guilt.

3. Taking into account the guilt of the victim.

The causer of harm is released from the obligation to compensate if the intent of the victim contributed to the occurrence of harm. In case of gross negligence of the victim, which contributed to the occurrence of harm, the amount of compensation should be reduced or compensation may be refused. However, if the liability of the harm-doer is based on the principle of guilt or harm to the life or health of a citizen, the gross negligence of the victim can only lead to a reduction in the amount of compensation, but not a denial of it. In addition, the gross negligence of the victim is not taken into account at all when determining the amount additional expenses, which a citizen needs due to damage to health, the amount of compensation due to the loss of a breadwinner, as well as the amount of compensation for funeral expenses.

4. Prevention of harm.

The court has the right to oblige a person carrying out activities that may cause harm in the future to suspend or terminate said activities, except in cases where such suspension or termination of activities would harm public interests. A refusal by the court to suspend or terminate such activity does not deprive the victim of the right to compensation for damage already caused by such activity.

In a tortious obligation, the victim, as a creditor, has the right to demand compensation for the harm caused to him, i.e. restoring it property status, which he had before the offense, and the person responsible for causing the harm (debtor) is obliged to satisfy this requirement.

The victim’s demand may be satisfied voluntarily by the harm-cauter. If the tortfeasor refuses or evades fulfilling this requirement, the victim may file a claim in court.

The system of tort obligations is as follows: liability for harm caused by minors and incompetent persons (which in turn is divided into liability for the actions of a minor under 14 years old, from 14 to 18 years old, incompetent), liability for harm caused illegal actions government bodies, bodies local government or officials of these bodies (which includes liability for harm caused to citizens by illegal actions of law enforcement and judicial authorities and the liability of other government bodies, local governments or officials of these bodies).

A special group united on the basis of the presence of a citizen in a tort - liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger, liability for harm caused by defects in goods, works or services, liability for harm caused in connection with the death of a citizen or damage to his health, obligations due to unfounded enrichment.

Liability for damage caused by the source increased danger

Activities that create increased danger include the use of vehicles, machinery, high-voltage electrical energy, nuclear energy, explosives, potent poisons, construction and other (related) activities, etc. In each specific case, the court determines whether the harm was caused by activities that create an increased danger to others.

Responsibility in this case rests with the person who carried out the relevant activity (the owner of the source of increased danger). It could be:

A person who owns a source of increased danger on any civil law basis (ownership, lease, etc.);

A person who uses a source of increased danger not by the will of the owner, but on the basis of an order competent authority about its temporary transfer to another person;

A person who owns a source of increased danger not at the will of the owner and without proper legal grounds (illegal owner). In this case, the legal owner of a source of increased danger may also be held liable if it is proven that the source was removed from his possession not only as a result of the actions of third parties, but also through his fault. Liability for harm caused by activities that create an increased danger for others occurs regardless of the guilt of the harm-cauter.

The basis for exemption from liability in this case is only force majeure or the intent of the victim. To partial or complete liberation Gross negligence of the victim can also lead to liability.

In case of harm to third parties due to the interaction of sources of increased danger, the owners of these sources bear joint liability to the victim for causing harm. If in this case the harm is caused to the owners of the sources of increased danger, then responsibility is assigned to the guilty party.

Liability for damage caused by minors and incompetent persons

Responsibility for harm caused by persons under fourteen years of age (minors) lies with their parents, adoptive parents or guardians, unless they prove that the harm was caused through no fault of theirs.

Parents deprived of parental rights are, for three years thereafter, liable for damage caused by minors in respect of whom they are deprived of parental rights, if a causal connection is established between the actions of minors and the improper performance by persons deprived of parental rights of their responsibilities for raising minors .

Responsibility for the actions of minors under the supervision of educational, educational, medical, etc. institutions, may be imposed on these institutions if it is proven that the harm was caused through their fault in failing to supervise minors.

The obligations of the relevant persons to compensate for harm do not cease when the minor reaches the age of majority or receives property sufficient to compensate for the harm. However, the court has the right to impose the obligation to compensate for harm on a minor harm-cauter who has reached the age of majority and has sufficient funds to compensate for harm in the event that the citizens who are held responsible for the harm caused to minors have died or do not have sufficient funds to compensate for the harm.

Minors aged fourteen to eighteen years are independently responsible for the damage they cause, and if the minor does not have income or other property sufficient to compensate for the damage, the damage must be compensated in full or in the missing part by his parents, adoptive parents or trustees if they are at fault. in the improper education of a minor.

The vicarious liability of these persons ceases when the minor reaches the age of majority or in cases where, before reaching the age of majority, he acquired income or other property sufficient to compensate for damage, or when he acquired full legal capacity before reaching the age of majority.

Responsibility for harm caused by persons recognized by the court as incompetent due to the fact that, due to a mental disorder, they cannot be aware of their actions, is borne by their guardians or institutions supervising them, if the harm was caused as a result of failure to supervise them, and for the relevant institutions - also as a result of failure to establish supervision, if the harm-doer needed it.

If harm is caused to the life or health of the victim, then the court has the right to decide to compensate the harm in whole or in part at the expense of the property of the direct causer, if the guardian has died or does not have enough funds to compensate for the harm, and the causer himself has such funds.

Persons whose legal capacity has been limited by a court due to alcohol or drug abuse are independently responsible for the harm they cause.

A citizen who, at the time of causing harm, was not aware of his actions, is released from the obligation to compensate him, except in cases where he himself brought himself into such a state by consuming alcoholic beverages or narcotic substances or in another way.

In addition, if harm is caused to the life or health of the victim, the court has the right to impose on the perpetrator the obligation to compensate it in full or in part.

Liability for harm caused to citizens by illegal actions of law enforcement and judiciary

A special case of liability for harm caused by public authority is liability for harm caused to a citizen as a result of: unlawful conviction; illegal prosecution; illegal use of detention or recognizance not to leave as a preventive measure; illegal imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of arrest or correctional labor.

First of all, such situations can only arise as a result of illegal actions of law enforcement agencies - bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation and the prosecutor's office or court, which led to the above consequences in relation to citizens ( individuals). If harm is caused to a citizen by the named state bodies in other cases that do not fall under specified list, it is reimbursed according to general rules compensation for harm caused to a citizen by acts or actions public authority(Clause 2 of Article 1070 of the Civil Code). The same applies to cases of harm caused to legal entities by law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Officials of the named government agencies in the above situations usually act on behalf of Russian Federation and based on federal laws. Therefore, the Russian Federation also assumes property responsibility for the results of their illegal actions at the expense of its treasury. In cases where officials of law enforcement or judicial bodies, in accordance with the law, act on behalf of a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipal entity, the corresponding public legal entity bears property liability for their illegal actions at the expense of its treasury.

The illegality of actions of law enforcement and judicial authorities in situations provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 1070 of the Civil Code, must be confirmed by an acquittal of the court or the termination of a criminal case on rehabilitating grounds (the absence of a crime, the absence of corpus delicti in an act, the lack of proof of the participation of a citizen in its commission), as well as the termination of a case of an administrative offense. Termination of the case for other reasons (amnesty, change of situation, etc.) excludes the right to demand compensation for damage.

Provides: compensation to the victim for lost earnings or other income, as well as pensions and benefits; return of confiscated, seized or seized property; compensation for fines paid to victims and legal costs, including amounts for the provision of legal assistance; compensation for other damage suffered by the victim (in the form, for example, of lost housing and other property, lost income, etc.).

Liability for damage caused by defects in goods, works or services

Damage caused to the life, health or property of a citizen or the property of a legal entity due to design, prescription or other defects of a product, work or service, as well as due to unreliable or insufficient information about the product (work, service), is subject to compensation by the seller or manufacturer of the product, the person who performed the work or provided the service (performer), regardless of their guilt and whether the victim was in a contractual relationship with them or not.

These rules apply only in cases of purchasing goods (performing work, providing services) for consumer purposes, and not for use in business activities.

Damage caused as a result of defects in the goods is subject to compensation at the choice of the victim by the seller or manufacturer of the goods.

Damage caused as a result of deficiencies in the work or service is subject to compensation by the person who performed the work or provided the service (performer).

Damage caused as a result of defects in a product, work or service is subject to compensation if it occurred during the established shelf life or service life of the product (work, service), and if the shelf life or service life is not established, within ten years from the date of production of the product (works, services).

Regardless of the time of occurrence, damage is subject to compensation if: in violation of the requirements of the law, the shelf life or service life is not established; the person to whom the product was sold, for which the work was performed or to whom the service was provided, was not warned about the necessary actions upon expiration of the expiration date or service life and the possible consequences of failure to perform these actions, or he was not provided with complete and reliable information about the product ( work, service).

The seller or manufacturer of goods, performer of work or service is exempt from liability if he proves that the damage arose as a result of force majeure or violation by the consumer of the established rules for the use of goods, results of work, services or their storage.

Liability for damage caused in connection with the death of a citizen or damage to his health

Compensation for harm caused to the life or health of a citizen is always made according to the rules on obligations to cause harm, regardless of whether the harm was caused in connection with violations of contractual obligations or not related to them.

A person whose health is harmed is compensated for:

Lost earnings or other income that he lost due to damage to his health: all types of remuneration under employment and civil contracts, both at the place of his main job and part-time, income from business activities, royalties, etc. If the victim did not work before the damage to his health, then the average monthly salary is determined based on the usual amount of remuneration for an employee in the given area, but not less than five established by law minimum sizes wages. These payments are made regardless of whether the victim receives a pension, benefit, wages or other income after damage to his health;

Additional expenses, that is, expenses for treatment, additional food, care, prosthetics and all other expenses that the victim incurred in connection with damage to his health (including expenses for training in another profession).

In the event of the death of the victim, the right to compensation for harm is received by all minors and disabled persons who were dependent on the deceased or had the right to receive maintenance from him: a child of the deceased born after his death; one of his parents, spouse or other family member who does not work and is busy caring for the children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters of the deceased who have not reached fourteen years of age or have reached this age, but for health reasons need constant care (if such a person has become incapacitated during the period of care, then it retains the right to receive compensation after the end of care), as well as persons who were dependent on the deceased, but were able to work at the time of his death, if they become disabled within five years after his death.

Pensions granted to persons both before and after the death of the breadwinner, wage received by them after his death do not affect the amount of compensation.

In the event of a reorganization of a legal entity paying amounts to compensate for damage to life or health, these obligations are transferred to its legal successor, and in the event of liquidation, the legal entity is obliged to capitalize the relevant payments and pay the entire amount to the relevant authorities in the manner established by law or other legal acts.

In addition to compensation for property damage, these persons have the right to compensation for moral damage.

Liabilities due to unjust enrichment

A person who, without the grounds established by law, other legal acts or transaction, acquired or saved property (acquirer) at the expense of another person (victim), is obliged to return to the latter the unjustly acquired or saved property (unjust enrichment).

The rules provided for in Chapter 59 of the Civil Code are also subject to application to the requirements: 1) for the return of what was executed under an invalid transaction; 2) on the reclaiming of property by the owner from someone else’s illegal possession; 3) one party to an obligation to another to return what has been performed in connection with this obligation; 4) for compensation for damage, including damage caused by the dishonest behavior of the person who became rich.

Property constituting unjust enrichment of the acquirer must be returned to the victim in kind.

If it is impossible to return in kind unjustifiably acquired or saved property, the acquirer must compensate the victim for the actual value of this property at the time of its acquisition, as well as losses caused by subsequent changes in the value of the property.

A person who has unjustifiably temporarily used someone else's property without the intention of acquiring it or using someone else's services must compensate the victim for what he saved as a result of such use, at the price that existed at the time when the use ended and in the place where it took place.

A person who has transferred by assignment of a claim or otherwise a right belonging to him to another person on the basis of a non-existent or invalid obligation has the right to demand restoration of the previous position, including the return to him of documents certifying the transferred right. A person who has unjustifiably received or saved property is obliged to return or compensate to the victim all the income that he has derived or should have derived from this property from the time he learned or should have known about the unjustified enrichment.

Interest is subject to accrual on the amount of unjust monetary enrichment for the use of someone else's funds from the time when the acquirer learned or should have learned about the unjustification of receiving or saving money.

When returning unjustifiably received or saved property (Article 1104) or reimbursement of its value (Article 1105), the acquirer has the right to demand from the victim compensation for the necessary expenses incurred for the maintenance and preservation of the property from the time from which he is obliged to return the income (Article 1106) with an offset to the received they benefit. The right to reimbursement of costs is lost in the case where the acquirer intentionally withheld the property to be returned.

The following are not subject to return as unjust enrichment: 1) property transferred in fulfillment of an obligation before the due date, unless the obligation provides otherwise; 2) property transferred in fulfillment of an obligation after the expiration of the limitation period; 3) wages and payments equivalent to it, pensions, benefits, scholarships, compensation for harm caused to life or health, alimony and other sums of money provided to a citizen as a means of subsistence, in the absence of dishonesty on his part and counting error; 4) sums of money and other property provided in fulfillment of a non-existent obligation, if the acquirer proves that the person demanding the return of the property knew about the absence of an obligation or provided the property for charitable purposes.

Property liability for damage caused by illegal actions of state bodies, local governments or officials of these bodies

In accordance with Art. 1069 Civil Code harm caused to a citizen or legal entity as a result of illegal actions (inaction) of state bodies, local government bodies or officials of these bodies, including as a result of publications that do not comply with the law or other legal act act of a state body or local government body is subject to compensation. The damage is compensated at the expense of the treasury of the Russian Federation, the treasury of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, or the treasury of a municipal entity, respectively.

In this case, an official is recognized as a person who permanently, temporarily or by special authority exercises the functions of a government representative or performs organizational, administrative, administrative and economic functions in government agencies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

A local government official is an elected person or a person working under a contract (employment agreement) who performs organizational and administrative functions in local government bodies and is not classified as a civil servant.

Actions of authorities and officials have the form of administrative acts and must be carried out within the limits of their competence or official powers, respectively. Actions beyond these limits are considered illegal. Illegal action also means inaction, i.e. failure to implement (or refusal to implement) a body of state power or local self-government, as well as their officials their responsibilities. At the same time, harm caused during the economic or technical activities of these entities, i.e. not directly related to the exercise of their powers, is subject to compensation on a general basis. The burden of proof in court of the unlawfulness of an action rests with the victim himself. Each person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis for his claims and objections.

If, as a result of these actions, harm is caused to a person, it is subject to compensation from the property of the relevant public legal entity. However, not any property (property) of such an entity is intended for these purposes, but only funds from the treasury, which is formed from budget funds and also includes property owned by this public legal entity by right of ownership, but is not temporarily assigned to legal entities on law economic management or operational management and not transferred to trust management under contract.

Compensation moral damage

Compensation for moral damage is an independent method of protecting civil rights. The obligations of the tortfeasor are non-contractual.

If a citizen has suffered moral harm (physical or moral suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights or encroach on other intangible benefits belonging to a citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for the specified damage.

When determining the amount of compensation for moral damage, the court takes into account the degree of guilt of the offender and other circumstances worthy of attention. The court must also take into account the degree of physical and mental suffering associated with the individual characteristics of the person who suffered harm.

Harm caused by the action or inaction of one person to another and causing the latter moral and physical suffering is defined as moral. Moral damage affects intangible benefits that belong to a citizen from birth or by force of law (life, health, personal dignity, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets, etc.). As a result of moral harm, the personal non-property or property rights of a citizen may be violated (the right to use one’s name, the right of authorship to a created work, etc.). Moral harm can be expressed in moral feelings generated by the loss of relatives, physical suffering, the inability to continue an active social life, loss of a job, the dissemination of information discrediting the honor, dignity, business reputation of a citizen, etc.

The statute of limitations does not apply to claims for compensation for moral damage, since they arise from personal non-property rights and other intangible benefits.

In the science of civil law, there is a widespread division of obligations into two groups: contractual and non-contractual. This division is carried out based on the grounds for the occurrence of obligations: contractual arise mainly from contracts, i.e. by agreement of the parties, and non-contractual - on the grounds provided by law. The named groups of obligations have significant similarities, which made it possible to identify in the law general provisions on obligations that are applicable, subject to the conditions provided for in them, to both contractual and non-contractual obligations.

Non-contractual obligations – These are obligations that arise not on the basis of an agreement of the parties, but in connection with the occurrence of facts provided for by law, namely:

a) causing harm by one subject to another;

b) acquiring or saving property at the expense of another person without sufficient grounds(unjust enrichment);

c) performing certain actions in the interests of others without instructions.

However, between contractual and non-contractual obligations there are differences that determine their independent meaning and place in the system of liability law.

1. First, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual ones. by the nature of the property relations underlying them. It is characteristic of contractual obligations that they formalize normal property turnover, that is, relations based on the agreement of the participants, on their free expression of will, entailing the emergence of rights and obligations.

In contrast, non-contractual obligations mediate relations that are not characteristic of the normal course of life, i.e. abnormal property relations. The most striking example is the relationship associated with damage or destruction of someone else's property a person with whom the owner does not have a contractual relationship regarding this property. The case when a person receives property mistakenly sent to him by another person will also not be typical for normal relations between subjects of civil law, as a result of which the transferor of this property experiences a legally unjustified loss, and the recipient – unjust increase .

2. Secondly, non-contractual obligations differ from contractual ones Byreasons for their occurrence : they arise not by will, but mainly against the will of their participants, due to legal facts specified in the law . Most often they arise from illegal actions, but the basis for their occurrence can also be lawful actions if they were committed erroneously. Thus, the Civil Code provides that the person who caused the harm is obliged to compensate it (clause 1 of Article 1064). Likewise, a person who, as a result of a mistake, has increased his property at the expense of another, is obliged to return what was acquired unjustifiably (clause 1 of Article 1102 of the Civil Code). In both cases, they are obliged not of their own free will, but by force of law. Non-contractual obligations arise regardless of the will of not only the one who caused harm or unjustly enriched himself, but also the will of the other party - the victim. It is another matter that the victim may not realize his rights arising from such an obligation, which will correspond to the principle of autonomy of will characteristic of civil law.

3. The peculiarity of non-contractual obligations is inherent in all of them restorative function .

Actually, the legislator introduced these norms in order to eliminate injustice and compensate the person for his losses.