The 'Restrictive' Nature of Civil Liability for the Acts of Minors or those under Judicial Interdiction

Author:Mirela Costache
Legal Sciences in the New Millennium
The “Restrictive” Nature of Civil Liability for the Acts of Minors or those
under Judicial Interdiction
Mirela Costache1
Abstract: In this study we propose a rigorous analysis of article 1372 of the Civil Code, concerning the nature
of vicarious tort liability, focusing on the limited situations of implementing those provisions of civil law.
Also, we will relate to previous regulation, subjecting the analysis accuracy with which the current legislator
has accurately regulated only two of the three ph ases of the vicarious tort liability, being current until October
2011. The review will only regard the first o f the two forms, and namely, the liability for the prejudice caused
by the act of a minor or a person under judicial interdiction. From th e analysis and interpretation of th e three
paragraphs of article 1372 we will identify the restrictive nature in applying this form of liability, in the strict
interpretation of the described situations.
Keywords: tort; minor; parent; academic staff; student
1. Introduction
Everyone, as subject of civil law enjoys, under the law, the plenitude of its civil subjective rights, with
the correlative obligation of not causing harm to his fellow men that would justly indebted to an
adequate reparation, attracting the activation of tort liability.
The experience of social life has imposed in civil law matter the diversification of liability hypothesis:
the one for his own act and liability for the acts of another person, both cases having as declared
purpose protecting the interests of victims and repairing the prejudice (Stătescu, 2009, p. 2). So, the
tort can be committed not only in the task of the one causing the prejudice, but also the responsibility
of others, the current Civil Code establishing, increasingly restrictive, two such forms within the
articles 1372-1374 of the Civil Code, compared to the three existing ones, until recently. At first
glance, from reading these texts it is easy to perceive that the two forms have principled and
restrictive feature, from the nature of their writing. It is about the liability for the prejudice caused to
another person by the act of a minor or a person under judicial interdiction and principals liability for
the infringements caused by the agents, renouncing to the liability of the teachers and artisans for the
acts of students and apprentices under their supervision.
Why only on these two situations? We identify in this study the following theoretical trajectory and
legislative interpretation:
1 Senior Lecturer, PhD, Faculty of Law, “Danubius” University of Galati, Romania, Address: 3 Galati Boulevard, 800654
Galati, Romania, Tel.: +40.372.361.102, fax: +40.372.361.290, Corresponding author:

To continue reading

Request your trial