Casualty as the reason for escaping from civil and legal liability

Civil and legal liability, like any other liability is based on the guilt principle. The innocence of the harm-doer, named as “the casualty (the casus)” in the legal doctrine, is the reason for escaping from liability. The specifics of the casualty category application is associated, firstly, with the existence of the no-fault liability, secondly – with the objectivistic approach to defining the innocence, and non-conformities between the understanding of “the innocence” in the civil law and in other branches of law. First of all, we deem it important to define the civil and legal sphere of the casus application. In all the cases of the no-fault liability of the debtors, this liability incurs on the basis of the lesser form of a crime which does not contain an objective element. So there is no necessity to use the casualty category for these crimes. The civil and legal liability is borne by guilty persons not carrying business activities, as well as the manufacturers of the agricultural production per a contractual agreement and the executors of scientific and research works and technological works per corresponding agreements. In this case, their guilt is presumed, i. e, they can prove their innocence (casualty). The analysis of the current court practice showed that courts have difficulties in evaluating the innocence category through the behavior criteria of “taking all the necessary measures by the debtor” and use subjectivistic categories like “knew”, “should have foreseen”, “could prevent”. With this, it is a high time to raise an issue of approximating the objectivistic and the subjectivistic theories within the civil law when speaking about the guilt and the innocence. The psychological approach sees the guilt connected with the foreknowledge category. Causing harm (including due to the failure to perform obligations) will be innocent in case the person did not foresee it and could not or should not foresee it due to the factual background. The person is also innocent in case he foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences but could not prevent them due to the non-compliance between the necessary and the available measures in an extreme case.