Cervix Before Period Low And Hard

Repair actions

Unit VI: Actions Repair

Scope Extracontractual

They hold the action of bringing an action tort, ie, those with standing are

1. direct victims or victim: who suffers an injury is susceptible of valuable consideration in matters of ownership or possession, or on their person, their rights or powers.

2. indirect victim: is any person other than the victim because of the wrongful act suffers damage to a legitimate interest, ie, protected by law. (Case of the beggar).

3. affected by the moral outrage: are the people who receive an injury to her feelings as legitimate by the offense inferred by someone. In terms of moral outrage, they only have to claim damages action relevant direct victims. However, when it comes to homicide, opens the action for compensation for moral outrage for indirect victims if they are heirs of the victim.

4. Victims of the crime of murder: regardless of what was said about the moral outrage, they are the responsible action to enforce the relevant compensation for the material, such as indirect victims.

5. Victims of the crime of insult: action the Code grants the husband for the injuries done a la mujer y a los padres por las injurias inferidas a los hijos. En esos casos se actúa en virtud de un derecho propio, independiente del que corresponde al importunado directo.

6. Damnificados por el delito de daño en las cosas: tienen acción para pretender la respectiva indemnización el propietario, el poseedor, el tenedor, el usuario o usufructuario, el acreedor hipotecario y cualquiera que tenga la cosa con obligación de responder de ella (subordinados que tienen cosas en su poder por cuenta del principal).

Bustamante Alsina agrega a esta enumeración de Llambías los acreedores de la víctima putting the action for damages against the offender or the tort by subrogation action or oblique, and assigns .

may happen that a single wrongful act resulting several victims: each and every one of them has a personal right to obtain compensation for the damage they have suffered there who hold their shares, which are independent .

On the other hand, are liable to an action for compensation for damage caused by a wrongful act, ie passive standing have the following:

1. the perpetrator.

2. advisers or accomplices.

3. The accessory to the crime (is responsible for the harmful consequences of concealment).

4. The beneficiary of the result of the offense, up to the amount that would have benefited.

5. The person liable for the act of another, or the harmful result of the things he owned or guardian.

6. universal successors are former mentioned.

When there are several responsible as authors, directors or co accomplices to a crime of a tort partners are jointly responsible.

The case for moral damages

The victim, as a creditor of the obligation to repair the damage he has suffered can, in principle the right to transmit to others through acts between living or deceased persons, their heirs or legatees.

However, if repair is the moral outrage, to the more widely considered not assignable inter vivos to be a inherent credit to the person of the victim, not being able to conceive the negotiation of the credit, because repugnant to the nature of moral interest of the creditor stipulation. Nor is transmissible to heirs repair action for moral outrage, but that had already been filed by the deceased.

Extinction action

possible forms of termination of the action are as follows:

· Disclaimer: the action born of a crime is extinguished by the resignation of the persons concerned (1110). As compensation for the injury is a credit interest only to the creditor, can they shed it, because it is of particular interest at stake without affecting public order. However, as stated in Article, renunciation of the directly injured party does not affect the course of action that may belong to the husband or parents.

Regarding the influence of the waiver of civil action for criminal action and vice versa, art. 1097 maintains the independence of two actions: it is not deemed waived the civil action the offended have not tried for his life or having criminal action abandoned her, and neither is expected to renounce the criminal action for not having tried civil action or have given up on it. But if you give up civil action or make agreements on the payment of damages, it shall be waived criminal action. This referred to the crimes of private action, as in the case of crimes against public prosecutor's disposal.

· Transaction: the transaction may be about civil action for compensation for damage caused by the crime, but not criminal action, as she is at stake in public policy.

· Prescription: contractual action prescribes after 10 years and the tort at 2. The requirement is suspended when the victim is promoting a criminal complaint (17 711).

· Other cases: are the dismissal of the action or lapsing instance, when the respective action has been extinguished by prescription and the victim can not sue.

Relations between the civil action and criminal action

According to structured system Vélez civil action and criminal prosecution for the same act should be separately ventilated seat (1096). But raised this separation, independence was not absolute: for now, if the criminal action has preceded the civil action pending or is attempted it, art. 1101 provides that conviction does not fall in the civil trial before the sentencing of the accused in the criminal trial, which meant that although the procedures are independent nevertheless makes the sentencing civilian courts before the Committee of the crime. This subordination

As to sentencing is set aside if the defendant has died before being tried, or in the absence of the accused.

on the principle of independence was bitterly contested by the evidence, and the legislature echoing the criticism found in the art. 29 of the Criminal Code that the conviction in a criminal court could order compensation for material and moral damage caused to the victim, his family or a third party, noting the amount prudently by the judge. With this approach was tacitly repealed in part the art. CC 1096, admitting he could be requested by the victim compensation in criminal court, but not Judge ex officio.

Thus, the injured party may agree to claim compensation for criminal damage, if it were easy to show damage or might claim compensation for moral damage, which requires no proof. You can, however, prefer the civil jurisdiction, in the case of the claim for damages, the proof is complex because the nature of civil process got rid of the criminal matter provides more security for the full recognition of their right to compensation.

When the civil verdict was handed down for not having reported the crime to the criminal justice system, it is not affected by what would later decide on action criminal were to try: res judicata is . Unless this possibility should study what happens when both actions were processed in parallel, in either jurisdiction.

Influence between criminal conviction and civil

Since both processes coexist can be seen operating the principle of independence laid down in Article 1096. The criminal process is, however, a decisive preponderance over the civil process, because of the influence of res judicata in that the decision to be delivered in the latter.

The principle established in Art. 1101: "If the criminal action has preceded the civil action, or was attempted it yet, there is no condemnation in the civil trial before sentencing the defendant in the criminal trial, except the following cases:

1. If the defendant has died before being tried criminal action, in which case the civil action can be attempted or continued against the respective heirs.

2. In the absence of the accused .... "

3. Art. 76 quater of the Criminal Code also provides the assumption of "Probation."

addition, art. Bis 3982 requires that the victim had just deducted complaint to produce the prescription of the civil action.

also

Effect of criminal conviction on civil

If conviction, Article 1102 states that "After the condemnation of the accused in criminal trial can not be answered in the civil trial the existence of the principal fact which constitutes the crime, or contest the guilt of the condemned. "

Consequently, if the criminal court considers that there has been a crime, not after the renewed civil matter by the claim of lack of it. Nor can it be renewed in a civil proceeding the question of the guilt of the perpetrator that was recognized in the criminal process.

Instead, the criminal sentence does not res judicata as to all other matters relating to existence and amount of damages, which are not proper matter of the decision. That is, the author can plead and prove in a civil contributory negligence of the victim, who can reduce their liability for compensation for damages.

of acquittal shop in criminal court, article 1103 provides that "After the acquittal of the accused can not be either in the civil lawsuit alleging the existence of the principal on which the acquittal had fallen."

Thus, the criminal sentence states that the fact of the crime did not exist, which can not be discussed again in the civil case of its existence. For example, if the trial judge stated in the acquittal that the owner of a thing was not deprived of it, it will definitely true that there was no crime of theft. This led for a time he thought that acquitted the accused in criminal headquarters, could no longer plead guilty in civil proceedings.

But the case law held that the acquittal in the criminal courts, not the effect of res judicata in a civil proceeding with respect to the guilt of the accused. Consequently, after the acquittal of the accused in criminal proceedings, may be discussed in the civil trial of guilty and be sentenced as an author of a tort to pay compensation for damages for that fact. This is so because criminal guilt is judged rigorously and is not supported in case of doubt "in dubio pro reo," which is different from civil fault, which is judged with an open, pro-victim.

Llambías understand that a dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal, the record closes on the ground that no sufficient evidentiary items to pass the case to the next stage of criminal proceedings. However, Bustamante Alsina believes that the dismissal does not res judicata in civil, or even if it were based on the absence of the very fact that underlies the action for damages. That is, the dismissal is not equivalent to acquittal, in terms of their effects on civil action.

Influence of the civil verdict on the criminal

Conversely to what occurs with the criminal sentence on the civil process, the one issued in the latter is not exercised, in principle, influence upon it. In general, solving the judge in a civil proceeding is irrelevant to the resolution of the criminal case, with respect to crime, the intervention of the defendant and his criminal responsibility. Exceptionally

the civil verdict in the criminal influence in so-called " questions." Article 1104 provides that "If the criminal action depended on negative issues whose decision falls exclusively to the civil trial, no conviction in the criminal trial before the sentence has been in jeopardy. The questions are only the following:

1. Versare Those on the validity or nullity of marriage (for example if someone is charged with felony bigamy and the defendant alleges the nullity of previous marriage).

2. Versare Those on the classification of the failures of traders. " This course is repealed by art. 234 of the Bankruptcy Law No. 24,522 established a disqualification of the bankrupt is given from the date of bankruptcy.

Taking Care Of Puppies From Birth Games

Defences

Unit IV: Liability Defences

The defenses of responsibility are all situations that prevent the duty to repair concrete on who appears to be responsible to make eliminate one of the assumptions of liability.

defenses are generally operating at all levels of liability (contract and tort); and special defenses, operating in a particular sector of responsibility, whether in contract or tort. Within

general defenses are, according to which element affecting:

· illegality: here are the causes of justification, which are self-defense, the state of necessity , compliance with a legal obligation and self-help.

· Liability subjective firstly the lack of guilt, and second causes of insanity:

- Lack of insight: minors, insane not in lucid intervals, unconscious.

- Failure intent: ignorance or error.

- Lack of freedom: coercion

· Causation: are fortuitous, the fact of the victim, and the fact that a third party this would not be answered.

On the other hand, there are specific defenses , which are:

· Contractual Liability: they are waived or restrictive clauses of the blame, the disappearance of basis of the legal business, and the theory of unenforceability.

· contractual liability: here we have the indirect responsibility of the parents, the responsibility with the intervention of things, and responsibility for animals.

I - Case Act of God

regard to his concept there is a doctrinal division, since in the art. 514 is given a concept, but in other arts. (889, 893, 1522) cumulatively speaking of unforeseeable circumstances and force majeure, and other times just to force majeure (1526). Thus there are two positions, with its variants:

1. distinctive posture: generally considered that are not equivalent expressions but refer to different facts, containing two sub-stances:

- conceptual difference: both have the same effects. Thus, for some unforeseeable circumstances are facts of nature and human force majeure events. For others, are fortuitous events and force majeure events unpredictable predictable but irresistible.

- practical difference: for them, force majeure is in discharge, while not a fortuitous event (Exner, Josserand).

2. equalizing Posture: understood that both are conceptually the same, and have the same in discharge of liability. It is followed by the Code and the majority of the doctrine.

Thus, the fortuitous event or force majeure is unforeseeable or unavoidable outside the debtor that absolutely prevents the fulfillment of the obligation. This concept is correct, but it focuses Llambías from the scope of contractual liability.

Thus, we can enumerate the following requirements of accident or force majeure, distinguishing between those general and those belonging to the contractual liability:

1.

General

Done unpredictable: this should beyond the normal ability of foresight that is required of the debtor. Thus the criterion of assessment is objective (in accordance with what society establishes as a duty objectively forecast due to an average debtor) and concrete (taking into account the particular circumstances).

2. inevitable Done: refers to the helplessness of the debtor to avoid the facts. Unpredictability is relevant only to the extent it is unavoidable. The criterion is also goal-specific.

3. events unrelated to the debtor: this should be outside the control of the debtor, that is, beyond its current attitude, even if you set the casualty when the fact is related to an instinctive activity or physiological the debtor (involuntary disease retracted). The debtor is not released if it was your attitude or your fault that causes the impairment.

4. Done occurring after the establishment of the obligation: the obstacle should arise after the establishment of the obligation. Conversely it could be ignored by the parties, annulling the obligation due to the impossibility of the object.

5.

Special Cont Resp

Done now the obstacle must be present at time of completion, does not suffice to be a mere possibility. In addition, the event may have existed at some time during the existence of the obligation, but have ceased at the time of compliance.

6. Incidence of fact: the above items relate to the fact in itself considered while the latter element takes into account the impact of the act, and what consequences occur: an insurmountable obstacle for the fulfillment. This inability is:

- Objective: delivery is impossible without consideration of any extrinsic to it, involved the personal circumstances of the debtor.

- Absolute: must create an obstacle that can not be overcome by human effort. Although it can be exorbitant for the provision unenforceability (criterion of good faith).

examples are fortuitous natural forces, acts of public authorities, strikes, wars, fires, diseases, etc.

Finally, with regard to effects of accident or force majeure, the general principle established in the art. 513 provides that liability of a debtor, which is released. But there are three exceptions:

1. The debtor stipulates that the creditor will bear the accident, either in terms of responsibility or a covenant of warranty.

2. That was fortuitous because of the debtor (that is improper because it would be fortuitous.)

3. The debtor is in default, unless it is irrelevant, that is, if the thing also have perished at the hands of the creditor.

II - Causes of Justification

A wrongful act may not be apparent when the circumstances justify its implementation come from the agent. Among these justifications are self-defense, the state of necessity, obedience and self-help, in which situations, and potential conflicts of duties or legitimate interests, the agent is not responsible po have complied with the duty of pre-eminent rank, or without abuse for having protected a legitimate interest.

Self Defense

when someone is given against an unlawful and unprovoked assault, used a rational and sufficient to prevent or repel it, not accounting for the damage may cause. Thus, the conditions for legitimate defense set are:

1. illegitimate aggression: is unfair attacks brought against the person or property of another.

2. potential rather than actual aggression: the attack produce harmful effectiveness when defending the victim.

3. Aggression against persons or property: also in those of another with which it can be morally identified as your spouse, children, etc.

4. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim: not caused the aggression.

5. Need sound environmental used: is legitimate only when the means used is proportionate to the attack received, and enough to stop it.

State of Necessity There

necessity as a defense to liability because, as someone to avoid a serious and imminent evil which has been strange, cause harm to another. In such case he shall not be liable if the injury is incomparably less than avoided, and there was no other means to prevent the latter. So are their requirements:

1. Que el agente sienta el temor fundado de sufrir un mal inminente y grave.

2. Que el agente no sea culpable del peligro que lo amenaza.

3. Que el daño ajeno sea el único modo de evitar el peligro que amenaza al agente.

4. Que el daño ajeno sea incomparablemente menor al evitado.

5. Que el daño ajeno sea de carácter patrimonial.

Due Obedience

Another reason precluding the agent's responsibility is the obligation to obey a lawful superior. In this case, the agent is faced with a conflict of duties, then, or disobeys and incurs criminal offense, or due and makes the harm to others.

As a general rule, the agent is exempt from responsibility for their subordinate status, which is stated to obey, a minor who is or ought to be aware of the unfairness of the order received. Examples are police officers.

vigilante justice (Self Help)

While in principle one can do justice by their own and must resort to the courts in search of solution, is supported by doctrine and by different codes, in case of emergency, the operator may itself to provide protection of their right and even impose their adherence to violence, provided it is not possible to obtain in a timely intervention by public authority and where any delay can result in loss of or frustration of the right. While

Civil Code contains no express provision in this regard, it follows from the provisions art.2517 empowering the owner of a property to remove without notice things which have put into the same without your consent.

III - Causes of insanity

The causes for which is left to impute the act to the agent, may relate to the subject in itself considered or the subject in relation to the act he has done. Thus we find the failure of discernment, intention, freedom, unable deaf, irresistible force.

Failures Discernment

faults can

Here taken for three reasons:

1. Small Child age: children who have not attained the age of 10 lack discernment and therefore is not voluntary harmful act that will work (921). But these acts are efficient to generate liability reflects its parent, guardian, etc.

2. Insane: are devoid of discernment of the insane acts that were not practiced in lucid intervals, whether declared or not (921). There are also liability reflects. Similarly, the act of the insane can lead to compensation equity of art. 907.

3. accidental unconsciousness: there is an absence of discernment and therefore irresponsible when the agent has acted for any accident without the use of reason (921), such as low toxicity, disorders, hypnosis, drunk, etc. For that to happen, the unconscious must be unintentional, which can be proved by any means

Intent Failure (Error)

The error is a false knowledge that has something and is a cause of exemption from liability when the mistaken belief rests on the substance of the principal fact constituting the wrongful act (critical error). A secondary accidental error or no excuse.

For the error may be invoked as a cause of insanity of the harmful event must be two criteria: the error must be in fact (not law) and excusable (it has been no reason to miss).

Failure Freedom (Violence)

In this case the agent is the author of the measure adopted by him, although he has practiced against their intimate love and only the fear of the evil that was threatened if refused to act that way: here is itself a cause of insanity, because even when coercion is exercised targeted the subject's will not go away, but it is fundamentally flawed by their freedom to be affected.

Both in this case, as in the failure in intention, although the damage does not assume any liability of the agent, it may be required to repair, not by way of responsibility, but on grounds of equity, depending of the provisions of art. 907.

Unable Deaf

responsibility has been controversial declared incapable of deaf-mutes who can not be understood in writing. Llambías believes that his accountability is normatively correct, whether injunctions or not, unless it is proved their lack of discernment at the time to act.

Irresistible Force

According to art. 936 there is a lack of freedom in the agents when they employ, against an irresistible force. In this case the subject of the act is only apparent as the author worked. Do not play here a real cause of insanity sino la ausencia de autoría del agente.

IV - Falta de Culpa

En los supuestos legales en que la culpa se presume es posible eximirse de responsabilidad probando que no hubo culpa de parte del imputado. La prueba de la falta de culpa consiste en la demostración de que se actuó con las diligencias, prudencia, cuidados, pericia, etc. que requería la naturaleza del hecho atendiendo a las circunstancias de las personas, tiempo y lugar. En tal caso, el autor del hecho puede eximirse de responsabilidad.

Puede también excusarse la responsabilidad alegando y probando a circumstance outside the orbit of action of the defendant, where the damage was caused by an accident, or the fault of the victim or a third party to that. Thus we have:

1. Blame the victim:

- exclusive Blame the victim: if the damage has been caused by the sole fault of the victim, there is no liability (art. 1111). Not every victim is made of outside agency: it must be culpable.

- Blame the victim concurrent with defendant's guilt: Code has no explicit solution. The solution is currently the law of most countries is the so-called system of "compensation of sins." As for how to distribute the blame, in general, our courts do in regard to the gravity of the respective faults (and not equal). The intentional tort one absorbs the blame.

- concurrent Blame the victim at risk of the thing the defendant: In case of risk of both, the Supreme Court established the criteria to determine that the risk does not exclude mutual application of Art. 1113.

2. third Blame: causal connection is interrupted if the damage is because the fault of someone else (who does not have any legal relationship of subordination or the victim or the alleged offender). This expresses, in the case of inanimate things, art. 1113: "only fully or partially exempt from liability proving the guilt of the victim or a third party who may not respond," and animals in art. 1125 "if the animal which has caused the damage was excited by a third party, it is responsibility, not the owner of the animal. " There are third among parents of their children, nor dependent on their subordinates.

3. Fortuitous Event: has been developed at the beginning of the unit.

V - Disappearance of Legal Business Base

While the impossibility of performance in the case chance is given by the absolute impossibility of that objective and definitive, there are circumstances in which it occurs by a difficulty to pay, since they have changed the circumstances at the time bound, ie the base disappears transaction. The difficulty of payment failure occurs in cases of frustration of purpose and foresight theory.

End Frustration

It occurs when one or both parties, by a change in circumstances, lose interest in fulfilling the contract, which has lost its purpose. It is not regulated in the Code (although the analogy is accepted as to the cause order and the adaptation), and has its roots in common law, in so-called "coronation cases" of 1901: in London were rented balconies to watch the parade coronation of Edward VII, who, sick and canceled it created a conflict.

As shown in the example, the common purpose was to see the parade, which gave substance to the agreements, as well as that tenants had incorporated into the contract. And while the benefit was achievable, it was not the purpose, lack of interest provision for tenants.

requirements to be a frustration of purpose are three:

1. supervening circumstance unrelated to the parties, extraordinary and unpredictable. Must be able to affect any person who has been in the same situation of the parties.

2. should have changed the general state of things, whose existence was necessary for the purpose of the contract be met.

3. The aim should be unattainable even if the benefit is possible by determining the disappearance of the cause of action.

unpredictability

1198: "In the commutative bilateral contracts and the unilateral implementation onerous and Commutative delayed or continuous, whether the provision by one party will turn excessively burdensome for extraordinary and unforeseen events, the aggrieved party may demand the termination of the contract. The same principle applies to contracts random when hardship occurs for reasons extraneous to the contract at your own risk. In contracts for continued implementation of resolution not extend to the effects already served. No resolution shall, if the injured party would have been guilty or were in arrears. The other party may prevent equitable resolution offering to improve the effects of contract. "

We can list the following requirements:

1. The contract is onerous (supply-consideration).

2. The contract is commutative (that is aware of the advantages of both parties.)

3. The contract is for execution in time (delayed or continuous).

4. or unforeseeable extraordinary events (the doctrine requires the first 5 characters of a fortuitous event.)

5. That the provision by one party becomes too costly (unreasonable extraordinary sacrifice.) The doctrine says "... or too cheap."

6. should be no default or negligence on the part of the victim.

The aggrieved party may seek the termination of the contract, retroactive to the day when the obligation was contracted. The parties shall be returned at least the benefits delivered.

	ACTS OF GOD	unpredictability
Incidence of fact:	The fact that sets the casus makes the performance of the obligation impossible in an objective, absolute and permanent.	The fact does not preclude compliance, even if it becomes too expensive (or cheap) to the debtor.
Effects:	The obligation is extinguished due to the inability to pay.	The obligation is extinguished by removal of the cause, the time of adjustment, whether by termination or novation.
Scope:	More broadly, it applies to the fulfillment of obligations and wrongful acts.	More restricted, it only works in the case of certain contracts (listed above).

VI - provision limiting or exonerated of responsibility

This issue is about the guilt waiver, which is when the debtor should be exempt from full or partial responsibility for their negligent breach. Separate issue is the waiver of compensation by the creditor, after the breach.

Our Code does not include a rule to regulate it, so there are three positions:

· Classics: accepts the validity of the exemption clauses of the blame because in principle are prohibited (Salvat). It is based on the autonomy (from 1197 to 1919 CNA).

· Mosset Iturraspe, Wheat Dams can dispense both ordinary negligence as very slight, but is not eligible for immunity from negligence, equating it to fraud.

· Llambías, Alterini: is dominant, differentiating between the disclaimers (total waiver) and extent (partial exemption):

- DISCLAIMERS: is inadmissible because it takes seriously the obligatory link to the extent that the debtor could ignore any proceedings without incurring liability. It is also as if forced to adverse terms of morality and decency.

- Clause limited to: in principle apply, as their operation is limited to exempt the debtor from any particular fault that he may commit, or mark a cap on your liability, such as a limitation on the amount. However

partial waiver of the blame is prohibited in certain cases: first when the law forbids, in the case of responsibility of hoteliers for the effects introduced by the visitors (2232), or the art. 37 of the consumer law. Second, cases in which clauses are contrary higher principles, such as public order or good faith. Finally, it can not be biased in contracts or accession, which are those that the conditions of the contract are established by a party, and the other is limited to accepting or not.

In regard to the waiver of intent , as a related topic, is expressly prohibited by art. 507: "The intent of the debtor may not be required to contract the obligation."

What Kind Of Pan Can I Use For A Tart Pan

Species Accountability Responsibility

Unit V: Accountability Species

I - Self-Made Liability for

are responsible for the fact itself when running the acts done willfully or negligently.

Extracontractual Scope: Crimes and Torts There

crime when we are facing an illegal act performed knowingly and with intent to injure the person or rights of others. While l civil tort is a wrongful act been guilty of harmful elements are:

· legal transgression (illegality).

· allocation factor (mens rea in the crime, blame the tort)

· Damage.

· Causation.

Thus, with the influence of the Law 17,711, the offense is different from the tort in:

1. Solidarity in the crime but there is solidarity between the subjects back no action (1081, 1082). In the tort, but also solidarity action is back (1109), showing two derogations solidarity, giving a simple pooling: a condominium hotel, a ship or parents because of the thing or children (1121), and the tenant or usufructuary in action against the owners of the ruined building.

2. compensation Extension: in tort is answered in the field of contract by the immediate consequences and mediate, and the contractual field for the immediate and necessary. In crimes in the orbit is answered by the immediate consequences tort, mediate and casual, and contractual environment for the immediate and necessary, and mediate.

3. Mitigation of responsibility: in tort can be mitigated based on equity, not crimes.

Regarding the differences between civil offense and criminal offense, we can enumerate:

1. Scope: civil offenses are on the Civil Code, and penalties in the Penal Code.

2. harmful intent: in tort is necessary (intentional tort), whereas in criminal matters may be manslaughter.

3. Damage: in tort damage is always required, in the criminal laws, but it is established.

4. Purpose: in tort compensation is sought, while that the criminal punishment.

5. Sentence: in tort for damages is, in the punitive criminal. Moreover, in civil measured in relation to damage while in prison is measured according to the seriousness of the offense and the danger of the author.

6. Extinction of action: in tort, the action is not extinguished by the death of the person, in the criminal act itself is extinguished by the death of the accused. Subject

passive responsibility: in tort pueden serlo las personas físicas y las de existencia ideal; mientras que en el delito penal sólo pueden serlo las personas físicas.

Los delitos contra las personas , relacionados fuertemente con el derecho penal, son los más graves, y con lo cual haremos una enumeración de ellos con su explicación y forma de reparación:

1. Homicidio: el delincuente debe pagar todos los gastos hechos en la asistencia del muerto, en el funeral, los necesarios para la subsistencia de la viuda y de los hilos del muerto, más el agravio moral, todo lo cual será fijado by the judge. They are entitled to demand compensation for funeral expenses that whoever has paid, while the other spouse and the heirs necessary, if not the author or accomplice of homicide or could not have been avoided.

2. Injuries: injuries or offenses are physical, psychological or aesthetic, must be compensated for the payment of all medical expenses and convalescence of the injured (damages) and all profits that failed to do so day of full recovery (profit). In addition to this the moral outrage.

3. Crimes against individual freedom: should be compensated the full amount of the total gains for the victim ceased until the day it was fully restored to his freedom, more compensation for moral outrage.

4. Crimes against decency: are cases of abduction, rape and rape, the victim should be compensated the moral outrage (which ceases if married then) and material damage.

5. libel: must repair if the victim proves that the crime caused him harm, and should cover the damages, lost profits and moral outrage. The indemnity does not apply when the defendant proves the truth of the accusation.

6. slanderous accusation: is the false accusation of a crime through legal action, requiring that they acted with knowledge of the falsity must be compensated what was paid as compensation for libel or slander in addition to all that the victim has spent on his defense and all proceeds stopped sense because of the slanderous accusation, without prejudice to any penalties or fines Penal Code.

In regard to the crimes against property , apply the terms of the obligations to restore the thing to its owner, being the following:

1. Theft: if the thing is not destroyed, is returned with all accessories, in addition to compensation for all damage was caused even by accident. If the thing is completely destroyed it compensates the value of the thing, plus the civil and natural fruits that might have had in the hands of the owner.

2. Misused Money: money is restored, interest is paid in place since the day of the crime, plus compensation for any other damage had been caused to the victim for the deprivation of capital.

3. destruction of another's property: if total destruction is paid the value of the thing destroyed more to repair all the damage. However, if the destruction is partial, the compensation is made by paying the difference between the current and original value, plus the repair for any damage.

Contract Scope: Guilt and Dolo (Middle-Result)

The obligations of result, the typical final interest sought for by the creditor falls within the legal relationship with which the debtor is required to provide the lender that interest.

other hand, the obligations of medium, the final typical interest does not fall within the required bond, and the debtor is not obligated to provide that interest, but must provide the means that lead to such interest (physician-patient .)

This classification is attributed to the French author demog. The classical doctrine (Llambías, Borda) believes that this distinction affects the rules of evidence of guilt, the outcome for the creditor must prove the breach, or cause source (title) and that the debtor's fault is assumed, while in the media, the creditor also must prove the guilt.

The modern doctrine is understood that this classification affects the foundation of contractual liability. Thus, the obligations are the only medium in which responsibility is subjective, while the outcome the basis of liability is objective (Must show accident, ie, a break in the chain of causation).

II - Responsibility reflects, indirect or vicarious the

There

the vicarious liability when someone is committed by another person act work, so having to deal with repairing the damage caused.

The basis, according Llambías is the idea of \u200b\u200bguilt. It is a fault in the monitoring of the other person placed under the authority of, or is it a fault in the choice of the other person to perform certain tasks and the development of which the damage occurs outside. For other authors is based on the objective factor is the guarantee.

Responsibility for dependents fact

Art. 1113 provides that the obligation of which has caused damage extends to any damage caused by those under his authority. For this to be of, these requirements must be met:

1. Whether it be a wrongful act.

2. That harmful event is implemented by a dependent, that is, who has been placed by another for the execution of a task under the orders or directions of the person on whose behalf it work. It is not necessary to have the contract involved.

3. the clerk has acted within the framework of concern it deserves:

- In exercise of the function when the dependent work the harmful act practicing the order received.

be answered - On the occasion of the function: when means-end relationship between the function and damage, ie, if the performance of the role is what has become a necessary condition for the injury, so that if there had been that charge the damage had not occurred. Be answered.

- occasion of the function: where that function has not given an opportunity for the occurrence of the harmful event. The principal must respond.

4. That harmful event is attributable to the clerk.

5. That the victim justifies the harm.

6. What is the relation of causality between the dependent and the damage caused.

The victim can sue both the perpetrator (1109) as its principal (1113). You can also sue them, and if you just pay for the obligation is extinguished.

He who pays the damage caused by their dependents, may be repeated, since the main has vicarious liability against the victim, but he in turn is an indirect victim because of his dependent. This action will not play back if the author is not responsible for the consequences the same, as if he lacked the insight to act.

Responsibility for the fact of unable

To Llambías, the foundation of such responsibility lies with the guilt of those who have neglected the performance of an incapacitated person that he was confident. For other authors is the security factor. Regarding the

responsibility of parents, father and mother are jointly liable for damages caused by their minor children subject to parental authority, and living with them, that is, if parents do not live that is responsible exercising the ownership, unless at the time the damage was in the care of another parent. Thus

are required:

1. That the children are minors.

2. who are under the custody of the alleged charge.

3. That the minor children live with their parents.

no responsibility if the child was placed in a facility of any kind, and is on a permanent basis under the supervision and authority of another person. Nor do they prove that if parents were unable to prevent harmful acts.

If voluntary or legal emancipation, does not govern this liability reflected. Regarding the so-called emancipation of trade, although some say that only liable for acts arising from that activity, Bustamante Alsina believes that custody disputes.

This responsibility is sometimes indirect staff and other subsidiary or reflected. It's personal from the parents when the child who caused the damage is less than 10 years of age, in this case being the perpetrator responsible for lack of discernment, and parents are responsible for their guilt, and no action against recursoria son for the amount of compensation paid to the victim, except that with the fact it had enriched the author (907). In contrast, vicarious liability parent is a subsidiary or reflected if the child commits a wrongful act is more than 10 years and is responsible for its own act, in this case, parents have recourse.

The responsibility guardians and conservators is in the art. 1114 which states that the provisions on the parents exists in respect of guardians and conservators for the acts of people who are dependent. This scheme does not apply to the zoning of property of persons absent or disqualified persons curators, and the latter are capable.

If the damage is caused by a deranged injunction, it is estimated that there is no return action, but in case of unjust enrichment cause, equating to less than 10 years for his lack of discernment. Not so with the deaf who can not be understood in writing.

Responsibility of owners of educational establishments

Art. Vélez 1117 of the Code, following the French, laid the presumption of guilt of the principals and teachers for breach of duty of care.

For a long time, the justice of the solution adopted by Velez was not put into question, but then the school moved its dynamic nature: of that teaching personal, domestic, there was almost nothing. The teaching-learning process happened to develop in very different circumstances from which the massive stands. The doctrine began to claim that evaluates to "humanely" proof of the absence of the director's fault.

The entitled person is the owner of the educational establishment for the iniquity involved to assume responsibility to school principals and teachers in the current conditions of school life. Neither satisfied to charge the victim with evidence of the teacher's fault, because it would lead, in most cases, to leave the injured without compensation to which entitled.

The nature of the responsibility that the new law (24 830) has been established headed by the owner of the educational establishment will be tort for damages caused by the younger students and in the case of damages suffered by students, will contract, because breach of safety requirement. Should not respond by over 21 years.

The safety requirement of the owners of the establishments of learning is based on the security factor, leaving as the only defense the law enunciated by the fortuitous event.

should be noted two significant aspects of the new 1117: one related to the scope or extent of liability of owners of educational establishments, where it should be pointed out that the law makes schools responsible for damages incurred when students are "under the control of the education authority." The other regards the duty of establishing an insurance liability, under penalty of sanction.

regard to the liability of teachers, it can be implemented in two ways:

· When the educational institution has paid the injured party can bring action back, because you answered by the act of another, against the principal or teacher, proving that they have breached the duty of care.

· The victim can sue directly to teachers, in terms of 1109 because of his own act, demonstrating the guilt incurred by the teaching professional.

NOT FORGET THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOTEL FOR THE EFFECTS INTRODUCED BY TRAVELERS!

Debtor's liability for its subsidiary (indirect)

Liability for auxiliaries is when a breach of the obligation is due to the fault of third parties that have been made by the debtor in the obligation. The Code brings no general regulation on non-contractual liability, but only refers to special cases in which charges the borrower for the fault of the auxiliary.

Arguably third helper is anyone not under obligation to the creditor who acts as assistant or substitute of the debtor, or will this initiative, in activities related to compliance with the obligation. This vicarious liability can be:

· Para algunos, el deudor es responsable por una cuestión de garantía.

· Para otros, el deudor es responsable por la teoría del riesgo.

· Otros consideran que el deudor es responsable por la representación.

· Para Giovini y la mayoría de la doctrina, el deudor es responsable por la teoría de la estructura del vínculo obligatorio.

La Teoría de la Estructura del Vínculo Obligatorio está basada en dos principios: primero la legal irrelevance of substitution between the debtor and the third, and second the equivalence of the behavior of the debtor and the third. Thus, the first principle, the debtor is free to develop their duty as they see fit (except intuition personae), and often choose the representation as a means to comply. What is not acceptable is that the debtor can be granted unilaterally as a debtor to another person. This determines that it is irrelevant to the legal system that a third party which has been breached. Regarding the second principle, taking into account what has been said and by the structure of obligational relationship, the damage being caused to the creditor by the failure the third is as good as if it has provoked an act of the debtor. The only means to free the debtor is fortuitous.

To speak of the responsibility of the debtor by the act of a third party, you need the following four conditions:

1. A pre-existing obligation between the creditor and debtor.

2. A third party that is totally alien to link obligational.

3. That same third party was introduced by the debtor in the obligation, ruling that acts voluntarily and the relationship between them. Will not be legitimate the obligations intuito personae, and it is wrong to say that between the debtor and third there is a relationship of dependence, since the relationship can be both fact and law.

4. The damage resulting to the creditor for breach of the third would be as long as it is related to the fulfillment of the obligation, given the contractual obligation due under the contract is given, which leads two distinctions:

- must distinguish the actions of the subsidiary's obligations, the mere factual circumstances of default (as if the power goes out ) by which the debtor must answer.

- Distinguishing intrinsic damage related to the enforcement activity, and extrinsic, unrelated to that activity. The debtor responds only by the former.

The creditor has a concurrent action against aides who have incurred guilt against the debtor, but its action is not contractual in nature, but tort, and that the creditor must be able to exercise all elements of the acts illegal.

The debtor has a right of recourse against his assistants, to recover the compensation that has to pay to the creditor because of them, except the law of contract of employment when there is negligence.

Liability for Damage Caused Things to Intervention

The man has things to its many activities, and here we are interested in the event that harm taking the thing active involvement in it (Alterini). If damage occurs without active intervention of things (no things or there but they do not cause damage), we are governed by art. 1109, while if the damage occurs with active intervention of things (whether damage to things or things) we are governed by art. 1113, paragraphs 2 and 3.

damage "with" thing "for" the thing

damage with the thing is the "made man": the thing is used as an instrument of human action. Damage the thing is the "fact of the thing": The damage is caused by the risk or defect of the thing. It is assumed that if a traffic accident is due to a defect or fault of the driver there is damage to the thing, and if the same accident is because of a brake failure, no harm for the thing. The system

Code Velez basis of liability was the fault of either the owner for not having used its legal powers on the thing in order to eliminate this potentially harmful condition, or guardian, of the blame on the guard this thing.

Art. 1113 refers to the owner or custodian of the thing. The owner is the owner, who has the real right of ownership of the thing. The guardian is, as Llambias, who in fact and on his behalf has the handling and use of the thing, we say "in fact" because we ignore the title or right that is available on the deal: the robber, which lacks all right, is the custodian of the thing he has the power on her, and say "their own" because if he uses anything he does as a slave of another, the guardian shall be the principal and not dependent.

Guardians are, for example, legitimate holders of the thing with the right to use and enjoy (tenant, borrower), which lack this ability (trustee, repository), and even illegitimate holders (robber, usurper). Alterini add is this burden on the owner a "presumption of saved" rebuttable, and that when the guard is exercised by a third party, the owner becomes the remainder beneficiary. According

Llambias, the guardian characters are:

· Tenure material thing no obligation to monitor something that you do not.

· powers-monitoring, governance and control over the thing: power fact that becomes effective on one thing regardless of title or right to have or not to exercise .

· autonomous and independent exercise of power: if he has the thing he uses as directed another, he is a guardian, a character that will block those who give the orders.

Under the new scheme incorporated by the Reformation, are responsible for damage to things: 1) the agent has used the thing, who is said to be guilty of injury, 2) the owner of the thing with that one has culpably caused the injury of the victim, may be exempted proving their lack of guilt, and 3) the guardian of a thing which seems unlikely, as no warning other than the agent why someone could be qualified as guardian of the thing used.

Regarding the allocation factors and exoneration of responsibility In damage to the thing presumed the guilt of the owner or guardian, which to exempt must demonstrate that their part was not at fault (1113). The subjective factor is to blame.

The damage caused by things, liability is strict (risk set), and the owner or keeper only fully or partially exempt from liability proving the guilt of the victim, the guilt of a third party who may not respond or unforeseeable circumstances. Art. 1113 provides that either the owner or guardian is responsible when things had been used against their will express or implied.

If the thing belongs to several condominium owners, the compensation should make each of them as the party had in the house (1135). In contrast, when the responsibility lies with several guards of the same thing, all of them jointly and severally liable against the victim, but we will pay the total refund is action against the other (1109).

Liability for damage caused by animals

This occurs when an animal damages the rights of another person or when the damage itself committed in the animal which is owned by another. The general principle states that is responsible for the damage caused by a pet owner or ferocious, but had been under the care of their dependent or damage was not in the general habits of their species, and the keeper of the animal, which is the person who by account is responsible for the care and government of the beast.

The basis of this responsibility lies with the guilt factor, although some say it is based on the risk created.

responsibility of the owner and the guardian are mutually exclusive: the owner's liability ceases when the animal moves being under the control of another person acting on their own. But the guardian who are responsible for damage caused by the animal can derive a recourse action against the owner, if he proves that he was guilty for not warning the characteristics of potentially harmful animal. It should be also responsible for a third party who had excited the animal thereby causing harm others.

responsibility ceases when:

· The owner conveys to another the keeper of the animal.

· The animal was released or lost through no fault of the person responsible for storage.

· Damage came caused by force majeure.

· Damage attributable to the fault came from the damage suffered.

· The animal was excited by a third party (responsible for the third).

· The injured animal to another animal, because it was causing it.

If the damage is caused by a fierce animal that does not report useful for keeping or service a property, the responsibility of the owner or guardian is inexcusable (1129), unless the victim voluntarily exposed danger. The damage caused by one animal to another shall be compensated by the offending animal's owner, provided that when there is no provocation from the victim.

Contrary to what happened in Rome, the owner of an animal can not escape the obligation to repair the damage by offering to leave the property of the animal (1131).

Contract area: the debtor's responsibility for the things used in the performance of the obligation

The basis of liability of the debtor in relation to the things used in the performance of the obligation is the duty of preservation or security, which concerns the protection of physical integrity required in accommodation contracts, hospital, public entertainment, etc.