trực tiếp bóng đá k+Issues regarding compensation for damage caused by multiple parties in Vietnam

Hello, you can refer to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ article below:

trực tiếp bóng đá k+ practical resolution of cases related to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of "compensation for damage caused by multiple parties" according to Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 has encountered some difficulties in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ application of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ law in specific cases such as: multiple people unintentionally causing damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ same victim; a case involving intentional and unintentional offenders; and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of compensation when an accomplice dies... This raises trực tiếp bóng đá k+ need to improve trực tiếp bóng đá k+ law for consistent and unified application.

1. Legal provisions on compensation for damage caused by multiple parties in Vietnam

trực tiếp bóng đá k+ joint liability for compensation for damage caused by multiple parties is trực tiếp bóng đá k+ joint compensation responsibility of those who caused trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim, arising from illegal acts. Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+Civil Codestipulates compensation for damage caused by multiple parties as follows: "In cases where multiple parties cause damage, they must jointly compensate trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ compensation responsibility of each party is determined based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ degree of fault of each individual; if trực tiếp bóng đá k+ degree of fault cannot be determined, they must compensate equally."

Both trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2005 and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 regulate that those who cause damage together must bear joint liability for compensation, with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ responsibility determined based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ degree of fault of each individual; and they must compensate equally if trực tiếp bóng đá k+ degree of fault cannot be determined. However, according to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2005, this provision is classified as a specific case of compensation for damage. This stems from trực tiếp bóng đá k+ perspective of legislators that this case is one of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ exceptional cases in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ field of non-contractual compensation for damage (similar to cases of compensation for damage caused by justifiable defense, urgent situations, or by persons performing official duties, etc.). Trial practice has shown that considering trực tiếp bóng đá k+ number of entities causing damage and determining trực tiếp bóng đá k+ joint compensation obligation of these entities and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ degree of compensation for each entity is extremely necessary and must be conducted as a general principle for all cases of non-contractual compensation for damage in general, rather than being considered as a special case of compensation for damage. Therefore, lawmakers have transferred this provision to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ general regulations of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ responsibility for non-contractual compensation for damage in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015.

Currently, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of non-contractual compensation for damage is implemented in accordance with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ spirit ofNghị quyết 03/2006/NQ-HĐTP về việcdated July 8, 2006 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Council of Judges of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Supreme People's Court (Resolution No. 03/2006); trực tiếp bóng đá k+ spirit ofCông kết quả bóng đá trực tiếp 121/2003/KHXXdated September 19, 2003 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Supreme People's Court on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ resolution of issues related to property and compensation for damage in criminal cases; and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ responsibility for compensation for damage in criminal cases with accomplices is guided in Section 8, Part I ofOfficial Dispatch No. 212/TANDTC-PCdated September 13, 2019 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Supreme People's Court.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ provisions of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2005 and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ guidance in Resolution No. 03/2006, liability for compensation for damage caused by multiple parties arises when trực tiếp bóng đá k+ following 4 conditions are fulfilled: (1) There must be damage caused by multiple parties; (2) There must be illegal acts in causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage by multiple parties with unity among them; (3) There must be trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault of those who caused trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage; (4) There must be a causal relationship between trực tiếp bóng đá k+ illegal acts of those who caused trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage that occurred.

However, Article 584 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ CivilCode2015 changed trực tiếp bóng đá k+ approach to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault element. Accordingly, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ determination of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ person causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage is not trực tiếp bóng đá k+ basis for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ liability for compensation for damage, but trực tiếp bóng đá k+ focus is on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ act of causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage, with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ requirement to only prove that trực tiếp bóng đá k+ act causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage is an illegal act sufficient; trực tiếp bóng đá k+ liability for compensation for damage of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ responsible person or trực tiếp bóng đá k+ person causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage is excluded in cases of force majeure or when trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damaged person is entirely at fault, except for certain cases agreed upon by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ parties or regulated by other laws (Article 584, paragraph 2 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015).

According to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ above approach is a general approach for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of non-contractual compensation for damage, while trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case of compensation for damage caused by multiple parties arises when these parties have fault, regardless of whether trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault is intentional or unintentional. That means, in addition to cases of unintentional fault that have been separately regulated by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code (compensation for damage caused by high-risk sources, trees, animals, etc.), all other cases that give rise to joint compensation liability must have fault (intentional or unintentional). Therefore, in order to establish liability for compensation for non-contractual damage, it must be based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ aforementioned 4 conditions, as stipulated in trực tiếp bóng đá k+Law No. 33/2005/QH11, which is appropriate.

2. Some difficulties and proposals

2.1. Issues related to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ application of Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 in specific cases

Case 1: Multiple individuals unintentionally cause harm to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ same victim.

For example: A is trực tiếp bóng đá k+ driver of a motorcycle traveling on National Highway 1A with B as trực tiếp bóng đá k+ passenger; due to speeding and reckless overtaking, A drives towards trực tiếp bóng đá k+ middle of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ road and collides with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ left side of a car driven by C, causing an accident that results in B's death. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ investigation results and other evidence show that C did not reduce speed when avoiding trực tiếp bóng đá k+ oncoming vehicle, and veered 15 cm to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ left side of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ road. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court concludes that both A and C are at fault for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ loss of B's life, and therefore, both A and C are responsible for compensating for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages. However, there are two different opinions on how trực tiếp bóng đá k+ law should be applied to resolve trực tiếp bóng đá k+ compensation in this case:

First opinion: Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 should be applied to hold A and C jointly liable for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages because both A and C are at fault for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ harm suffered by B. In other words, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ illegal actions of A and C are trực tiếp bóng đá k+ causes of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fatal consequences. Furthermore, Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 only provides a general provision of "jointly causing harm" without specifying whether it was intentional or unintentional, so joint liability for compensation still applies in this case. Article 288 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 also raises trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of joint obligations without mentioning intentional or unintentional faults.

Second opinion: Joint liability for compensation only arises when individuals with illegal actions "intentionally" cause harm, or in other cases prescribed by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ law. In this case, although objectively speaking, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ actions of A and C occurred simultaneously and both caused harm to B, there is no "intentional" collusion between A and C, and there is no joint liability between them. Therefore, Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 cannot be applied to hold A and C jointly liable for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages.

trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author agrees with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first opinion. This is because "unintentional" refers to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ situation where trực tiếp bóng đá k+ subject causing harm lacks unity of will in causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ harm; they are not aware of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ illegality of their actions and trực tiếp bóng đá k+ actions of others carried out with them, thus there is no relationship between them. However, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of compensation arises from their shared fault, which caused harm to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim, and they must compensate according to their respective faults, leading to joint liability for compensation (if determined) or equal liability. This means that trực tiếp bóng đá k+ liability for compensating trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages caused by jointly causing harm has already arisen, so it is appropriate to apply Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 to hold A and C jointly liable for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages.

Case 2: A case where one person commits an intentional offense and another person commits an unintentional offense.

For example: HNC Company is a state-owned company. During trực tiếp bóng đá k+ construction of its office building, Nguyen Van A is trực tiếp bóng đá k+ General Director responsible for overall management, while Doan Van H and Nguyen Huy C are directly in charge of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ construction project. During trực tiếp bóng đá k+ construction process, H and C violated trực tiếp bóng đá k+ regulations on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ management and use of public investment capital, causing damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ company's assets worth 250 million VND. H and C were charged with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ offense of violating trực tiếp bóng đá k+ regulations on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ management and use of public investment capital, causing serious consequences. A, as trực tiếp bóng đá k+ General Director, failed to inspect, supervise, and approve trực tiếp bóng đá k+ use of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ company's funds for investment in accordance with regulations, and also caused damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ company's assets along with H and C, so A was charged with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ offense of negligence causing serious consequences. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ question is how to resolve trực tiếp bóng đá k+ compensation for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages.

First opinion: Although A, H, and C committed different offenses, they all caused damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ company's assets worth 250 million VND, so Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 should be applied to determine trực tiếp bóng đá k+ level of fault of each individual and hold A, H, and C jointly liable for compensating trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damages to HNC Company.

Second opinion: Despite causing harm together, A committed an offense unintentionally, while H and C committed trực tiếp bóng đá k+ offense intentionally and were trực tiếp bóng đá k+ main persons responsible in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case. Therefore, joint liability for compensation should only be imposed on H and C. Thus, Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 should only be applied to H and C to hold them jointly liable for compensation. Although A still bears trực tiếp bóng đá k+ responsibility for compensation, since A did not commit trực tiếp bóng đá k+ offense intentionally along with H and C, there is no joint liability for compensation, and Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 should not be applied to A.

trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author agrees with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first opinion, because, similar to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first example, in this case, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ subjects causing trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage is different, there is no unity in terms of intention to cause damage, there are subjects who commit offenses with unintentional and intentional faults, so there is no relevance. However, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ issue of compensation arises from trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fact that they both have faults and therefore cause damage to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim and must compensate for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ part of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ fault they have caused. This means that liability for compensation for damage caused by jointly causing damage has arisen, so applying Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 to force A, H, and C to jointly compensate for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ damage is appropriate.

2.2. Compensation issue if one of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ accomplices passes away

Example: Two individuals, H and V, jointly commit trực tiếp bóng đá k+ act of stealing Anh K's motorcycle. They spend all trực tiếp bóng đá k+ money from selling trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle and are unable to recover it. Based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ purchase records and Anh K's statement, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle is valued at 30 million VND. During trực tiếp bóng đá k+ period of temporary detention, H commits suicide by hanging. In trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first-instance trial, in terms of civil liability, Anh K demands that V compensate for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ entire assessed value of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle, but V only agrees to compensate for half of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ value, arguing that both H and V participated in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ theft and shared trực tiếp bóng đá k+ money equally. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first-instance judgment also orders V to compensate for half of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ value of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle to Anh K, considering H's death. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ trial panel only considers trực tiếp bóng đá k+ compensation for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim to be half of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ value of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle, based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ portion of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ benefit that defendant V received from selling trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle. In relation to this case, there are two situations to consider:

Case 1: Through verification at trực tiếp bóng đá k+ local level, it is found that H has a house that is jointly owned with his wife and did not leave a will before his death. trực tiếp bóng đá k+ property has been divided through an inheritance settlement.

First opinion: trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court should require trực tiếp bóng đá k+ inheritors of H's property to compensate for H's obligation in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case.

Second opinion: H has died, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court will suspend trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case against H, and H's responsibility in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case no longer exists. Moreover, H's property has been divided through inheritance, so it is determined that H no longer has any property, and therefore, H has no obligation to compensate.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ inheritors of H's property should be held responsible for compensating on behalf of H, as this is an obligation left by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ deceased person according to Article 615 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015, even though trực tiếp bóng đá k+ inherited property has been divided. Therefore, to ensure trực tiếp bóng đá k+ rights of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ first opinion is appropriate. However, specific guidance on this case is needed according to Article 615 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ implementation of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ obligation of property left by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ deceased.

Case 2: H has passed away, and through verification at trực tiếp bóng đá k+ local level, it is found that H did not have any separate property left before his death. There are two opinions, as follows:

First opinion: I agree with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court's judgment because, through verification at trực tiếp bóng đá k+ local level, it was found that H did not have any separate property left before his death. According to Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015, in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case of multiple individuals causing damage, those individuals must jointly compensate trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim. Both H and V committed theft together and benefited equally, so it is reasonable to determine that V should compensate for half of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ value of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ motorcycle.

Second opinion: trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court's judgment is not justified and causes harm to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ rights of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim. In this case, H has died and does not have any property left, so V should compensate for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ entire damage.

trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author agrees with trực tiếp bóng đá k+ second opinion because V is at fault for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ entire damage caused to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ victim. Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 does not specify that trực tiếp bóng đá k+ offender must be responsible for a proportional share of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ benefit obtained from trực tiếp bóng đá k+ stolen vehicle, as determined by trực tiếp bóng đá k+ court. In fact, V did not steal half of Anh K's motorcycle, but trực tiếp bóng đá k+ entire motorcycle. Furthermore, in this case, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ prosecuting agencies based their proceedings on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ total value of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ assets involved in trực tiếp bóng đá k+ theft, which was 30 million VND, not dividing it in half to pursue criminal responsibility against V.

Based on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ above difficulties and shortcomings, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ author proposes trực tiếp bóng đá k+ following improvements to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ law:

First, amend and supplement trực tiếp bóng đá k+ provisions of Article 587 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 to be more in line with practicality in determining liability in cases of "compensation for damage caused by multiple individuals." Specifically, add: "In trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case of multiple individuals causing damage due to intentional or unintentional faults..."

Second, supplement trực tiếp bóng đá k+ content of Article 288 of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015 on trực tiếp bóng đá k+ implementation of joint obligations. Specifically: "In trực tiếp bóng đá k+ case where one of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ individuals with joint obligations has died, trực tiếp bóng đá k+ other individuals with joint obligations must fulfill trực tiếp bóng đá k+ joint obligations of trực tiếp bóng đá k+ deceased individual..."

Third, there is a need for a replacement document for Resolution No. 03/2006 guiding trực tiếp bóng đá k+ application of non-contractual compensation according to trực tiếp bóng đá k+ Civil Code 2015, which specifically regulates trực tiếp bóng đá k+ basis for trực tiếp bóng đá k+ emergence of joint liability for compensation for damage caused by multiple individuals; specifies specific cases of compensation for non-contractual damage caused by multiple individuals that have encountered trực tiếp bóng đá k+ aforementioned difficulties, in order to have a basis for applying in a consistent and unified manner.

Nguyen Xuan Ky

Source: Kiemsat.vn

Key word: Compensation | accomplices | in Vietnam | Vietnam | Civil Code |

PleaseLoginto be able to download