Ograničenja odgovornosti za štetu u srpskom pravu

Abstract

U savremenim evropskim pravnim sistemima širi se krug pravom priznatih osnova odgovornosti za prouzrokovanu štetu. Sudovi dosuđuju naknade u većim iznosima nego ranije, a oštećenici su spremniji da naknadu štete zahtevaju sudskim putem. Evropska prava poznaju različite instrumente kojima se rastući domašaj i obim ustanove odgovornosti drži u razumnim granicama. Tim instrumentima vrši se fina korekcija efekata primene načela potpune naknade, s idejom da se interesi oštećenika i štetnika odnosno odgovornog lica dovedu u pravičan balans. Pod pravičnom ravnotežom interesa ne misli se na redistribuciju dobara s ciljem ispravljanja društvenih nejednakosti, nego na to da, kada se uzmu u obzir sve okolnosti konkretnog slučaja, treba ostvariti potpunu naknadu štete koju trpi oštećenik, ali ne po cenu da se pređe granica opravdanog i da se odgovorno lice neosnovano optereti. Najteže pitanje koje se u tom kontekstu postavlja jeste gde je ta granica opravdanog odnosno kako prepoznati da su interesi oštećenika i odgovornog lica u ravnoteži. Predmet ovoga rada su različiti mehanizmi kojima se u srpskom pravu može ograničiti, ili čak isključiti, odgovornost za pričinjenu štetu. Reč je o slučajevima kada su ispunjeni svi uslovi da se odgovornost zasnuje, pa nje ipak nema ili je nema u obimu u kojem bi redovno trebalo da je bude. Razmatraju se pravom priznati razlozi na kojima se u srpskom pravu zasnivaju različita ograničenja odgovornosti za štetu. U tom smislu autor ispituje: 1. voljno, sudsko i zakonsko ograničenje odgovornosti, 2. vremensko ograničenje, a potom ograničenja u pogledu 3. osnova odgovornosti, 4. identiteta oštećenika i odgovornog lica, 5. vrste štete i 6. iznosa dugovane naknade, kao i 7. posebne slučajeve isključenja odgovornosti i 8. povredu dužnosti obaveštavanja, koja se sankcioniše gubitkom prava na naknadu štete.

Modern European tort law systems are marked by multiplication of the heads of damages, increase in the possibilities for the injured parties to pass on the damage they incurred, raise in the amount of the awarded damages, and an increasing claim-consciousness of possible plaintiffs. These systems have developed different mechanisms of keeping liability in torts within reasonable limits. They provide tools for fine corrections of the effects of the principle of full compensation, the purpose of such tools being to ensure fair balance of the interests of injured party and tortfeasor. This means that, when all circumstances of the case are taken into consideration, the tortfeasor’s burden of liability should be reduced in the event that the principle of full compensation fails to produce fair and reasonable results in the case at hand. The purpose of these instruments is not to rectify social or economic differences, but to make certain that, taking all circumstances into account, liability is not unjustifiably burdensome for the tortfeasor. What is justified with respect to the limits of liability for damage is one of the most tasking questions of tort law. The main concern of this paper are different instruments of Serbian law intended for keeping tortuous liability within reasonable limits, that is, the mechanisms which limit, or exclude liability under Serbian tort law, though the general conditions of liability are satisfied. These include 1. statutory, judicial and voluntary limitations of liability, 2. limitations in time, 3. limitations with respect to the grounds of liability, 4. limitations concerning the identities of injured party and tortfeasor, 5. limitations regarding the heads of damages, as well as 6. those in respect of the amounts of compensation, 7. special instances of the exclusion of liability, and 8. breach of information duties which may lead to a loss of right to compensation.