Priroda noksalnih tužbi i noksalne odgovornosti

Abstract

Pokušaj da se noksalna odgovornost i noksalne tužbe objasne putem konvencionalnih kategorija odgovornosti stvara teškoće. Iako se podižu protiv vlasnika odnosno nosioca vlasti, ove tužbe su u osnovi zadržale ideju o osveti koja treba da pogodi delikventa i koja će se realizovati putem noksalnog izručenja. Na ovakav cilj noksalnih tužbi i ovakvu prirodu noksalne odgovornosti upućuju tri glavne specifičnosti pravnog režima: pravilo noxa caput sequitur, oslobađajući efekat noksalnog izručenja i zahtev za odsustvom krivice vlasnika odnosno pater familiasa za počinjeni delikt. Noksalna odgovornost je posebna vrsta odgovornosti koja je bliska institutu odgovornosti za drugoga, ima elemente zastupništva, ali se ne može svesti niti na jednu od navedenih kategorija. Po osnovu to jeste objektivna odgovornost, ali stroža od uobičajene, jer se zahteva odsustvo krivice tuženog vlasnika odnosno šefa porodice.

The legal system of noxal charges is specific in three respects: First of all, the characteristic of these charges is the application of rules of noxa caput sequitur. Taking into consideration that the delinquent responsibility follows the performer of the illegal act, the person accused with the noxal charge is the present holder of authority over the delinquent, and not person having that authority at the moment of the performance of the act. The aim of the rule is to enable the responsibility of the delinquent by noxal surrender. Should such a surrender not be possible due to the death of the delinquent before litis contestation, the noxal charge is withdrawn. The main aim of noxal charges is not to make the holder of authority, i.e. pater familias responsible for the act, instead of the delinquent himself, but the sense of noxal responsibility is for the authority in power to surrender the delinquent, thus enabling his direct responsibility, or in case of his refusal, to take over his defense. In case he should choose the last alternative, the accused person is obliged by the process contract to pay litis aestimation if he loses the trial, leaving him still the possibility to surrender the delinquent instead of paying the compensation.