ОСНОВ ОДГОВОРНОСТИ ЗА ШТЕТУ КОЈУ ПРИЧИНИ ЖИВОТИЊА
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY ANIMALS

Summary/Abstract: The liability for damages caused by an animal may be baned on a principle of culpability as well as on a principle of risk. An historical survey of the problem of this liability shaws that it appeared firstly as a liability without, culpability. Afterwards matured the conception that for a compensation if or, damages is not sufficient the sole fact damage being caused but was required also the existence of culpability on the part of the owner of the animal. In comparative law there are different principles of liability damages caused by an animal. In the article are exposed the systems, of liability in the French, English, German, Swiss, Austrian, Soviet, Polish, and other laws. The theory of the culpability as an explanation of “the liability for damages caused by an animal is based on" psychological as well as moral postulates. The justification of the culpability as a ground of the liability finds its support in the fact that the men are conscious beings and that they can control their actions as well as survey the animals they have. The idea of a proved culpability as the first aspect of a theory of culpability was soon abandoned in the is phene of damages caused by animals and supsituted by a new formula: by the theory of a presumed culpability having aspect, of a relative sand absolutely presumed culpability. The theory of a presumed culpability denotes a step nearer to an objectivation of the liability. The idea of an absolutely presumed culpability is the final is tag in the evolution of the idea of culpability as a basis of culpability. During the penetration of the idea of risk, took ground, as a reaction, a theory of culpability in keeping. According to the supporters of the idea of culpability in keeping, the keeper is legally-bound to keep the animals. His culpalbility consists in that he left the animal to-tear away from his control. Instead of the reality, this theory affords a juristic construction which in the doctrine and the practice is not expressly accepted. The basic definiciency of the theory of culpability in that the liability for damages caused by an animal is based by a psychological fact, on a fact of consideration of the actions of the person from a subjective position, and not on his relation to the environment, he lives in and in which by keeping animals he creates conditions for rising of damages. By setting off from the (fact that, the liability for damages caused by an animal is a liability for dangerous things, the question of the grounds of this liabillity fits also into the system of an objective liability. The system of the objective liability is based on the theory of risk ensuing from the necessity to make as real as possible the protection of the environment and its safety in regard, to the activity of the animal. The theory of the risk is to-day the unique possible scientific explanation of the liability for dangerous behaviour of the animal. The juristic ground of this explanation is the idea of a created risk. In substance the risk is the danger which obtains by the attitude of the animal. This danger is, not potential but on the contrary, it is real and objective, independent of our will and our violation. Therefore, the criterion of the liability for damages caused by an animal is also objective one. Every owner or holder of an animal suffers the consequences of the possession of the animal, should they be profitable, or harmful for him. Such a strict liability of the owner of the animal answers to the conception that the animals are dangerous things. Beside the idea of a created risk as a juristic explanation of the objective liability, there are even other explanations wherein the author deals with the idea of a moderate risk and with the idea of a risk of profit. The theory of a mode rate risk is the first aspect under which appeared the idea, of risk. This theory is also called the theory of anticipation as it puts the owner of the animal in position of a person who must know all the possible consequence of the holding of the animal. The principal objection to this variant of the theory of risk consists in that it leads to an exaggeration of faculty of a person to foresee all the consequences of the holding of animals. Thereby the anticipation as a conception departs from the compass it has in the life. Therefore the theory of a moderate risk as not based on the facts and dofes not reckon with the reality but bases itself on a fiction of omniscience. The theory of the risk of profit gets off from that the possession of an animal if profitable to the possessor. Therefore the liability of the holder of the animal arises from the fact of drawing out a definite economical profit. This theory, gets off from the existence of an organic connection between the liability and the profit. Besides, other objections, it is objected against, that it cannot explain the cases of the holding of animals having no purpose of an economic exploitation. At the end of the work the author concludes that the theory of created risk tends to the creation of safety so that it should be accepted as the only scientific explanation of the liability for damages caused by an animal.

• Details
• Contents