Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(3), No (8), August, 2014. pp.

416-418

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7276

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Investigation of Terms of Liability of Transportation Officers in Legal

System of Iran
Abbasali Baniasadi*
Department of Low, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
*Corresponding author: Baniasadi53@gmail.com

Keywords

Abstract

Responsibility
Operators
Law
Fault

Road Transportation is regarded as one of the most fundamental infrastructures of an economy and an
important communication medium. Road transportation obeys definite rules and distinct executive
organizations like Road and Urban Development Ministry and Road Maintenance and Transportation
Organization are the responsible entities in this field. A transportation contract has some definite conditions
which distinguishes it from other contracts and its legal essence is one of the important discussions among
lawyers. The responsibility of the transportation officer is based on theory of Safety Commitment so that it
is regarded as an objective and absolute liability of the officer unless an exemption condition such as
disruptive events such as intentional acts by the sender or receiver, issuing incorrect liabilities for
transportation officers or innate failure of an item is proved to matter in such cases. The present paper seeks
to elaborate the liabilities of transportation officers based on rules of civil law and legal rules of business in
addition to the terms of exemption or denial of liability. The present paper is a descriptive-analytic one in
which library method and taking notes for used for data collection, so all of the existing scientific sources
such as books, legal papers and Internet was use.

1. Introduction
In an item-transportation contract, some implied and explicit liabilities are defined for the associated parties the most important of which is
transportation of an entity from one location to another. Such liabilities are called common liabilities which directly originate from written
intent of parties of a contract and is rooted in the contract. Although some might regard it as a secondary contract and pay less attention to the
role of intent in it[5]. In the case of Infringement, a new liability of reconciliation of damages made for the sender of an items is imposed on
translation officer[4]. One of the fundamental issues regarding transportation is to whom is the officer liable? Answering this question is
important in defining the nature of officers liability because this contract is between the officer and sender of an item[21]. In domain of civil
liability laws, by liability base we mean that by occurrence of a damage, the subject creating a damage will be liable to reconcile it[21]. What is
the reason and cause of attachment to reconcile? The practical consequence of discussion in this domain necessitates is proving fault which in
definition of base might be proving the fault by the complainant or exemption from fault.

2. Materials
Liability of Transportation Officers
Liability of Internal Transportation Officers
In legal system of Iran, the principles associated with transportation officers is of two types each of which describe the liability of transportation
officer in different aspect. Based on rules of civil law, the responsibility of transportation officer is a subcategory of rules imposed on trustee
liabilities while in principles of business law, we have a different case.
Status-quo in Civil Law System
Article.516 of civil law states that: liabilities of transportation officers, without attention to water, land or air channel of transportation, include
protection and maintenance of objected given to them which are the same for trustees. So in the case of ignorance or infringement of such
liabilities, transportation officer will be responsible for the incurred loss or damage to the item given to him/her. Such a liability initiates from
the date of receiving item.
This perspective in civil law, even with definite and explicit decree in article.386 of business law, has been paid attention to by official judges of
Iran including National Department of Justice. Some lawyers consider such attitude in present courts to be associated with the first decades after
passing civil law and better awareness regarding civil law and lack of liability by the trustee[14].
The Status-quo in Business Law System
In business law of Iran which is based on that of France, the system of liability for transportation officer is fundamentally different from civillaw system. Based on article. 386 of business law, assuming liability for transportation officer is permitted when the following conditions are
held:
- This legal assumption holds the transportation officer as responsible in proving his lack of liability and the owner of an item has to prove the
damage caused by loss, destruction or partial failure. But when the damage is proved, the transportation officer is supposed to be liable
unless he proves to be included in one of the cases of legal exemption.
- This legal assumption is not an absolute and unchangeable evidence and transportation officer van prove his lack of liability within the
framework of legal exemptions.
- This assumption is different from assumption of guilt. In the cases in which a guilt assumption is imposed on any party of the contract, mere
proof for creating damage implies the guilt and fault of that party and it is followed by liability of reconciling damages but the liable person
can prove the opposite case by considering the common points of precaution and vigilance and proves his lack of responsibility in this case
[10].

417

Investigation of Terms of Liability of Transportation Officers in Legal System of Iran

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (8), August, 2014.

In this regard in the cases of legal assumption of guilt, act of proving demands consideration of definite common precaution in order to support
lack of liability or responsibility which is not restricted to disruptive forces. The aim of policy maker is imposing the duty of proving on an
individual against whom there is an assumption of guiltiness.
In the cases in which liability is presumed, which some lawyers call it Guilt Assumption in regard to discussion on transportation officers, and
it has a contractual basis, proving the opposite case is the responsibility of the liable individual and proving the inclusion on the cases regarded
as legal cases of exemption can reject such an assumption[13].
Therefore, in the cases in which the owner of an item claims for damages of loss or defect of transported product, the owner of the product has to
prove the damage without any claim against transportation officers fault in this case but his/her liability and transportation officer can exempt
him/herself only when he/she can prove that damage incurred is due to one of the factors mentioned in article.386 of business law[1].
In analysis of such type of liability for transportation officer, against that of civil law, the concept of Safety Commitment creates the case
especially because this theory in the legal procedure of France, the business law of which has been a major source for business law of Iran, has
been considered as the basis of justification of transportation officer in this regard[17].
Based on the theory of Safety Commitment which is an accepted concept in legal doctrine of Iran- based on traditional requirements especially
business tradition- in transportation system, when transportation officer receives an item from a customer he/she will be committed to get it to its
predefined destination in a presumed duration and agreed-upon conditions so that he/she would be implicitly liable to get an item to its
destination without defect[12].
Cases of Liability of transportation officers
- Through Failure or Loss of the Item
Sometimes, transportation officer cant deliver the item in an intact manner due to its loss during transportation or total failure or loss. For
example, when the item is stolen or it shows symptoms of expiration due to reasons other than innate defect of that item or disruptive forces
making it non-exploitable, transportation officer is liable to reconcile any damage[7].
- Partial Defect (Failure) and Defect in the Item
Here, some important points should be mentioned:
- Evidence of Safety of an Item
The evidence of safety of an item as predicted in article.391 of business law has an intermediate mode. On one hand, it is not an absolute
evidence because its rejection can be done by proof disassembly, transportation officers liability or proving implicit damages. On the other
hand, due to limitation of reasons for denial of such claims to the above three reason, it is distinguishable from relative[3].
Level of Damage
In the cases in which an item is disrupted or defected, the method of evaluation of the damage is not defined in the law but the level of damage is
generally calculated based on a table of value of defected or disrupted items and difference of its price with a working or non-defected item
which makes up the evaluation method. In this method, the evaluated value of damage is always less than the product value when it is totally
irrecoverable. But the last section of article.387 implies partial compliance with method of defining the damages of failure or disruption in the
product[9].
Recompensing Deferment
In order to obtain recompense, two conditions should be considered:
- It should be proved that the item has not been delivered on time so that the mere confirmation of lack of item delivery doesnt mean
infringement of duty by transportation officer and if the following second condition could be applied, the transportation officers liability is
confirmed. Transportation officer is exempted from liability that he/she proves the fact that deferment is due to disruptive forces, receiver or
senders fault[8].
- The owner of an item should prove that deferment has created damage for him. If lack of delivery can be regarded as an example of duty
infringement, deferment in delivery is not an instance of transportation officers liability unless the item owner proves that damage has been
made due to deferment. Basically, one can consider two objectives in defining duration within transportation contracts. Sometimes, insertion
of a date is an essential condition the infringement of which is regarded as significant. For example, if an item doesnt arrive to the
destination in due time, execution of the main liability is denied and for the owner of entity, execution of principal duty would have no
benefits so that item owners can prove the damage caused by deferment against the transportation officer and can ask for recompense [2].
- Cases of Exemption of Transportation Officer from Liability
Here, based on the status quo of legal system of Iran, the following factors can cause legal exemption or denial of liability:
A. Disruptive Forces:
In article.227 of civil law, a characteristic of disruptive force is its irrelevance with intention of the liable individual and in article.229, another
property, namely non-resolvability, has been used in definition of disruptive force as an incident which is:
- External and it cant be associated the fault or liability of an individual (article. 227).
- Unpredictable and the person cant expect its occurrence in a normal manner.
- Unstoppable and the person cant reject it, otherwise he is liable (article.229)[17].
Of the instances of disruptive forces, one can mention natural disaster such as storm, flood, earthquake or events such as capturing the property,
closing the ways, wars and its consequences, quarantine limitations, demonstrations, revolts and chaos [19].
It should be noted disruptive forces might temporarily affect the liability and its suspension which after it ending, fulfilling liability should be
resumed and if transportation officer doesnt resume the implementation of his/her liability after its ending, he/she would be transgressor. But
sometimes, disruptive forces might not lead to total failure of a product such as flood, due to elimination of the subject of contract, the
transportation contract is cancelled and cargo transportation becomes impossible[18].
B. Innate Defect of an Item
Of other factors affecting transportation officers liability are the defects which occur during transportation and due to distinctive nature of an
item creating damage in the item or its elimination[16].
Some items, due to their distinctive nature and characteristics, are vulnerable and they might undergo failure, disruption or loss. Some items,
have distinctive characteristics which demands special way of transportation so that if the liable person adds necessary care, he/she will not be
liable if any failure in such items occurs[6].
Still, in other cases despite the distinctive and disreputable nature of an item, its transportation officer should use a proper vehicle like truck with
refrigerator, otherwise he would be liable for further disruption and corruption[20].

Abbasali Baniasadi *

418

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (8), August, 2014.

3. Conclusion
Surveillance and matching of item properties in delivery time with conditions written in the contract and bill of loading should be done by its
receiver. Therefore, if the receiver gets an item from transportation officer without any damage or disruption, he/she announces this fact to
transportation officer so that an assumption and legal evidence regarding the safety of the item in favor of the transportation officer is provided
based on which when the receiver of an item receives it and pays its fees, it is supposed that the product is safely received. Legal evidences are
of two types of absolute and relative, the latter does not orient towards any definite principle and it can be supplied by any reason. In majority of
legal systems, including Iran, the absolute liability of transportation officer based on a legal assumption is accepted so that loss or failure of an
item would make transportation officer liable and only if the transportation officer proves to be included in one of the cases of exemption, he
would be free of any liability. So, due to the effect of disruptive events on exemption of the liable individual, if the loss, partial or total
disruption of an items occurs and it can be attributed to disruptive forces, the transportation officer will not be liable.

References
[1] Amini, Isa, Consensus on Transportation Officers Liability with Guilt Evidence Against the Owner of an Item, Legal and Judiciary Magazine, no.33,
Dec,2001.
[2] Amiri, GholanmHossein, Awareness of Organizations Associated with International Transportation, 1st Edition, 2004, National Transportation and Terminals
Organization,
[3] AzamiZangane, Abdolhamid, Business Rights, 4nd Edition, 1971, anonymous, Tehran
[4] Bacache, Gibeili, Droit Civil. les obligations. La responsabilitcivileextracontractuelle. Economica, 1.d, 2007.
[5] Cabrillac, Remy, Droit des obligations, Dalloz, 5.d, 2005.
[6] Chitty, A.G.Guest, Chitty on contracts, V.2
[7] Emami, Sayed Hassan, Civil Rights, 2ndVol, 15th Edition, Islamieh Bookstore, 1996
[8] Eskini, Rabiaa, Business Companies, Vol.1, 2nd Edition, 1998, Samt Press
[9] Erfani, Tofigh, Civil Liability of Land Transportation (Road-Rail), 1st Edition, 2006, AsarAndishe Press.
[10] Jafari, Langrodi, Mohammad Jafar, Encyclopedia of Civil Rights and Business, 1st Volume, 1st Edition, RstadInsitute, 1978
[11] Jousrand, Patrice, Les Principes de la ResponsabilitCivile, dalloz, 2007.
[12] Habibi, Hassan, Liability of Land Transportation, Lawyers Club Legal Magazine, 1972
[13] Hassani, Hassan, Business Rights, 5th Edition, Mizan Press, 2006.
[14] Katoozian, Naser, General Terms of Contracts, 4thvol, 1st Edition, Behnashr Press, 1989
[15] Katozian, Naser, Definite Contracts, no.410
[16] Katozian, Naser, Civil Liability (Absolute Evidence), vol.1, 1st edition, Tehran University Press.
[17] Salehrad, Mohammad, Safety Commitment and Its Evolution in Transportation Contract in French Law, Legal Perspective Seasonal Publication, no.12, 1998
[18] Shahidi, Mahdi, Collection of Legal Essays, 2nd Edition, 1999, Hoghoghdabab Press
[19] SotoodeTehrani, Hassan, Business Rights, 1stVol,17th Edition, 2008, Dadgostar Press
[20] SotoodeTehrani, Hassan, Business Rights, 4stVol, 1th Edition, 1997, Dadgostar Press
[21] Yazdanian, Alireza, 2011, Principles of Civil Liability of Transportation Officer in Transportation Contract within Iran and France Laws, Judicial Rights
Magazine, 1996, pp.9-35.