The Role of Corrective Justice in Explaining Vicarious Liability in Iranian and European Law

Abstract

Vicarious liability, as one of the most controversial institutions in tort law, has consistently been confronted with the fundamental question of the basis upon which a person other than the direct wrongdoer may be obligated to compensate for damage. The theory of corrective justice, which emphasizes the restoration of the disrupted legal relationship between the injured party and the party responsible for the harm, appears in its traditional interpretation to be incompatible with this form of liability. The present study, adopting an analytical–comparative approach, seeks to examine the possibility of explaining vicarious liability within the framework of contemporary interpretations of corrective justice in Iranian and European law. The findings demonstrate that, in European law, particularly in English judicial practice, vicarious liability has gradually been reinterpreted on the basis of normative attribution criteria, including institutional role, the degree of control over the activity, and the connection between the harm and the organized activity; a development that enables this institution to be reconciled with corrective justice. In contrast, although Iranian law recognizes vicarious liability within the framework of liability arising from the acts of others, it has generally remained without a coherent theoretical explanation grounded in the basis of attribution of liability. This study concludes that a reconsideration of vicarious liability in light of corrective justice and the concept of normative attribution of liability can provide a theoretical foundation for the principled limitation of vicarious liability and enhance its coherence and predictability in Iranian law.