Philosophical possibility of omission’s causality on occurring criminal result

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Howzeh of Qom

Abstract

The possibility of criminal omission’s causality in occurring harmful results, is a polemical subject that discussed in scope of debate of causality in criminal law. Aggregately, various viewpoint in the context may be divided to two branch of advocates and opponents. With regard to the fact that choosing of each viewpoint has an important role on distinguishing sole of responsibility of perpetrator of omission or limits of his responsibility, the present study with a descriptive-analytical method and a philosophical attitude, attempts to prove a syllogism –any cause is existence or essence; each nonentity is not existence and nor essence; therefore, any cause is not nonentity- and attempts to distinguish the more correct viewpoint. Study’s result indicates that the syllogism is true and opponents’ viewpoint is prevalent. The criminal omission that is a type of nonentity, therefore, can’t be regarded as cause and can’t produces existential effects and causal relation can’t be rationally proved between omission and criminal results.

Keywords

References

Abraham, Kennth S. (1996). A Theory of Insurance policy Interpreration, Michigan Law Rewiew, Vol. 121, No.4, pp. 531-569.
Burton, Steven J. (2009) Elements of Contract Interpretation, New York: Oxford University Press.
D.k.Srustrova. (1998) Modernization of Inusrance Concepts in China”, Canberra Law Review, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.231-246.
Dudi Shwartez (2008)”Interpretation and Disclosure In Insurance Contracts”, Loyola Consumrt Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.105-154.
Ivamy, Hardy E. (1979) Marine Insurance, London: Butterworths.
Fisher, James M. (1995) ”Why Are Insurance Contract Subject to Specail Rule of Interpretation: Texr Versus Context”, Arizona State Law Journal, No.24, pp.995-1067.
Harof Watson (2006) The Sophiticated Assured Excption To The Doctorine Of Contra Proferentem In Marine Insurance Law, Newsletter, New York,Committee on Marine Insurance and General Averge.
Horton, Divid (2009) ”Flipping The Script Contra Proferentem And Standard Form Contracts”, University of Coloardo Law Review, Vol. 80, pp.1-46.
Miller,David S. (1998) ”Insurance As Contract: The Argument For Aboning The Ambiguty Doctrine”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 8, pp.1849-1872.
Mustill,Sir Michael J. Gilman,Jonathan C.B. (ed) (1981) Arnould’s Law of Marine Insurance And Average, London: Steven & Sons.
Spicer,.Whyle W. (1991) ”CH-CH-CHanges:Stumbling Towards The Reasonable Expection of The Assured in Marine Insurance”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 66, pp. 457-477.
Swisher,Peter N. (1991) ”Judicial Rationales in Insurance Law: Dusting Off the Formal for the Function”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol: 52, No. 4., pp. 1037-1074.
Swisher, Peter N. (1996) ”Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Contract Disputes: Toward a Realistic Middle Ground Approach”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol.57, pp. 543-636.
Torbert,Preston M. (2014) A Study of the Risks of Contract Ambiguty, Master degree, University School of International Law.
Martorana,Vincent R. (2014) A Guide to Contract Interpretation, 1ndEd.London: ReedSmith.
Ware, Tephen J. (1998) ”A Critique of the Resonabble Expectation Doctorine“, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp.1461-1493.
Wilkerson, Jared (2011) ”Adudicating Insurance Policy Disputes: A Critique of Preofessor Randall 's Proposal to Abondon Contract Law”, Loyola Consurmer Law Review, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 294-357.
 
Document and Cases:
Adrian Associates, General Contractors v. National Surety Co. 638 S.W.2d 138 (rex. Ct App. 1982).
Atlantic Ca. Ins. Co. v. Value Waterproofing, Inc. 918 F.Supp.2d 243, S.D.N.Y. 2013. January 15, 201
A/S Ocean v. Black Sea &Baltic General Ins. Co Ltd.[1935]51 LL.L.Rep.305(A.C).
Birrell v. Dryer[1884]9 App.cas.345(H.L.)(appeal taken from Scot).
Gibson v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 208 Cal. Rptr. 511, 516 (Ct. App. 1984).
Garcia v.Exhibition Foods, (1986)184 Cal.App.3d.
Hart v.Standard Mar.Ins.Co.(1889) 22 Q.B.D.499
Marine Trasit Crop v. Nothwestren Fire &Marine Ins. Co, 2F. Supp.489.492(E.D.N.Y.1933).
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1876) (citing I Hargrave Law Tracts 78 (1787).
Olin Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co. 704 F.3d 89 C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2012. December 19, 2012.
Pittson Company Ultrama America v. Allianz Insurance Company, 124F.3d 508(3d Cir.1997).
Senior Housing Capital, LLC v. SHP Senior Housing Fund, LLC Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL1955012 Del.Ch.2013
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics