ПСИХИЧКИ УТИЦАЈ И КАУЗАЛНОСТ У ОДШТЕТНОМ ПРАВУ
Abstract
Causation is the prerequisite for establishing tort liability and the presumption for damage attribution to a particular defendant. Physical causation is often indisputable but psychological influence is largely problematic because people respond differently to the same stimuli, thus making causal uncertainty inevitable. Induction, incitement, intimidation, persuasion, provocation or seduction are all different, and they need to be valued accordingly. Damage caused by psychological influence is challenging because it sparks a key question: who is to blame – the person who succumbed to influence, or the “influencer” who exerts his psychological impact on another. The issue of causation is here intertwined with other elements of liability, such as culpa and wrongfulness. After providing an overview of Roman law on this matter, the article describes various relations in which the influencer, the tortfeasor and the plaintiff can find themselves regarding mutual psychological stimuli. The major forms and intensity of psychological influence are illustrated by cases from comparative judicial practice. Due to its immaterial nature, psychological influence calls for tailor-made evaluation criteria aimed at determining the legally relevant cause of specific damage (provocation formula). Moreover, the over-extensive concept of psychological influence may lead to unjustified burden for the influencer.
References
Von Bar, C., Clive, E., Schulte-Nölke, H. & Study group on a European Civil Code et al. (2009). Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: draft common frame of reference (DCFR), Volume 4. Munich: Sellier. European Law Publishers.
Bogunović, M. (2013). Problemi kauzaliteta u akvilijanskoj kazuistici. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu. 47(4). 437–447; https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns47-4147
Cvetković, M. (2017). Nepredvidivost štete kod ugovorne odgovornosti. Pravo i privreda. 55(7/9). 109–124
Cvetković, M. (2020). Uzročna veza u odštetnom pravu. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta
Dubarry, J. (2012). French Perspective on OGH 4 Ob 8/11x–Compensation for Emotional Distress? Human Sentiments Challenging Tort Law Principles. European Review of Private Law. 20(2)
Durant, I. (2007). Belgium. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Graziadei, M., Migliasso, D. (2007). Italy. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Greger, R., Zwickel, M. (2014). Haftungsrecht des Straßenverkehrs. de Gruyter
Jansen, N. (2007). Roman Law. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Kadner Graziano, T. (2007). The Principles of European Tort Law. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer.
Koziol, H. (2012). Basic questions of tort law from a Germanic perspective. Jan Sramek Verlag
Lukić, R. (1958). Determinizam društvenih pojava. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 4. 403–420
Manić, S. (2019). Uzročna veza kao uslov odgovornosti medicinskih poslenika. Zbornik radova pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 84. 209–226.
Markesinis, B. S., Unberath, H. (2002). The German law of torts: a comparative treatise. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Menyhárd, A. (2007). Hungary. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer.
Mojašević, A., Nikolić, Lj. (2018). Kognitivne pristrasnosti u pravnoj oblasti: mesto susreta pravne i biheviorističke nauke. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, (79). 253-273
Mojašević, A., Radulović, B. (2020). Значај ината у економској анализи парнице. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, (87). 145-164
Radišić, J. (2004). Obligaciono pravo. Beograd: Nomos.
Ribot, J., Ruda, A. (2007). Spain. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Vuković, I. (2015a). Kauzalnost radnje pomagača u odnosu na delo izvršioca. Crimen. 1. 46–60.
Vuković, I. (2015b). Vreme i kauzalnost bitnog saizvršilačkog doprinosa. NBP: Nauka, bezbednost, policija: časopis Policijske akademije, 2. 127–143.
Winiger, B. (2007). Comparative report. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Winiger, B., Krell, K. (2007). Switzerland. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
Young, G. (2008). Causality and causation in law, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology: Progression or regression?. Psychological Injury and Law, 1(3). 161-181.
Zimmermann, R., Kleinschmidt, J. (2007). Germany. In: Winiger, B., Koziol, H., Koch, B. A., & Zimmermann, R. (2007). Essential Cases on Natural Causation. Vienna: Springer
BGB: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch BGBl. I S. 42, 2909; (2003) I S. 738. 31. Januar BGBl. I S. 54 (2019). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/
PETL: Principles of European Tort Law (2005), The European Group on Tort Law, http://www.egtl.org/index.html
Zakon o obligacionim odnosima (Civil Obligations Act). Sl. list SFRJ, 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 - odluka USJ i 57/89, Sl. list SRJ, 31/93, Sl. list SCG, 1/2003 - Ustavna povelјa i Sl. glasnik RS, 18/2020)
Presuda Apelacionog Suda u Beogradu (Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade), Gž. 1. 877/2014 dated 16 April 2014, Paragraf database.