What should the owner of the Casco policy do in case of damage from pdtl? Illegal actions of third parties What is illegal actions of third parties

Under the concept "Illegal (careless) actions of third parties" means the risk of property loss from damage, destruction or loss of Property, as a result of the commission by a third person or a group of third parties of an unlawful (intentional or negligent) action (or inaction) provided for by law - an administrative offense or a crime aimed at taking possession of the Property, or at its damage or destruction.

The concept of unlawful (careless) actions of third parties is usually disclosed in detail in the insurance rules. But many insurers, in order to limit the risk, narrow down the list of actions of third parties, the damage from which is compensated by the insurer. Often in the rules and insurance contracts it is stipulated, for example: "Insured event is damage (destruction, loss or damage) of the insured property that occurred as a result of unlawful actions of third parties: theft, robbery." As you can see, the insurer in this case narrows the concept of "illegal actions of third parties" to two of their manifestations: theft and robbery. Therefore, the damage caused by possible other actions of third parties is not compensated by the insurer in this case.

In the event of damage to the insured property and a dispute arises with the insurance company about the amount of insurance compensation, an independent examination to assess damage to real estate or property is the best opportunity to assess the damage and an effective way to resolve the conflict.

If you need to assess the losses resulting from illegal (careless) actions of third parties, please contact us using the contact information. Call us, we'll help!

You can get acquainted with the services for assessing other types of damage by clicking on the link

Cottage insurance against illegal actions of third parties is as in demand as fire insurance. In winter, dachas are empty for a long time, attracting thieves and homeless people, and in summer they can suffer from the antics of “walking” youth. The concept of "illegal actions" includes a variety of actions of strangers directed against your property. Such actions may include: burglary, robbery, vandalism, hooliganism, fraud and other criminal acts.

In case of troubles of this kind, the insurance policy will help compensate for material damage. Find out right now how much your summer cottage insurance will cost. Order the calculation of the cost of the policy on the website, and our specialist will call you back as soon as possible. Among the partners of iPlanet are only reliable, well-established large insurance companies.

What can be insured in the country against illegal actions of third parties?

The objects of insurance for this risk can be both structural elements of a real estate object (house, bathhouse, garage), its decoration, furnishings and your personal belongings, as well as a fence or landscape design elements.
Offering you different options for insurance programs, our specialist will definitely draw your attention to which insured events are related by one or another insurer to the risk of “illegal actions of third parties”. After all, some insurance companies include in it any deliberate criminal acts aimed at damaging, stealing or destroying your property. Others single out “theft and robbery” as a separate risk, and “illegal acts” include hooliganism and vandalism.

The cost of insurance against illegal actions of third parties

The price of insurance against the effects of third parties is approximately 0.4 - 1.0 percent of the sum insured. Insurance companies, as a rule, include this risk in a comprehensive insurance program or offer to insure a cottage for a minimum package of risks: “illegal actions of third parties” + “fire”. The cost does not change significantly.
For example, the price of a comprehensive insurance policy for an inexpensive dacha in the amount of 590,000 rubles is about 3.5 thousand rubles. The insurance coverage covers:

• Household block
• Fence
• Property

How to buy a policy?

To draw up a summer cottage insurance contract, you only need a passport and any document confirming your legal connection with the insured object (for example, a gardener's book). Dachas worth up to 1 million rubles can be insured without inspection, only by providing a couple of photos.

The main advantages of buying a policy in our insurance agency are convenience and savings. Turning to iPlanet, you get access to a variety of insurance programs of different insurance companies. As a result, you save time and effort, and thanks to our flexible discount system, you also save money. Our insurance agent will advise you on all issues of cottage insurance, help you understand the nuances of insurance contracts. You can send copies of the necessary documents to us by e-mail, and our courier will deliver the finished policy to you at the specified address free of charge. Agree, it's convenient! If you have any questions - call us! We are always glad to see you among our clients!

In accordance with this type of insurance, insurance protection is provided against damage, loss or destruction of property due to illegal actions of third parties. Such actions are understood as illegal intentional and careless actions of third parties that caused damage to the property interests of the insured: hooliganism, theft, robbery, robbery, including vandalism and intentional or careless destruction (damage) of property.

Theft is the secret theft of someone else's property.

Burglary is the secret theft of someone else's property with penetration into a dwelling, premises or other storage.

Robbery is the open theft of another's property.

Burglary - open theft of another's property with penetration into a dwelling, premises or other storage. Robbery may be combined with violence that is not dangerous to the life and health of the victim.

Robbery is an attack for the purpose of stealing someone else's property, combined with violence that is dangerous to the life and health of the victim, or with the threat of such violence.

When concluding an insurance contract, you should be aware that if the insurance rules contain a definition of risk that allows only strictly defined events to be attributed to an insured event, then an event that caused damage that does not fall under such a definition is not an insured event. For example, if the risk of "theft with penetration" is specified in the contract, then the damage from theft without penetration will not be an insured event.

Property may be insured with or without indication of the territory of insurance. The first case includes risks: “theft with penetration”, “robbery within the territory of insurance”, etc. The presence of property in a certain territory allows the insurer to assess the degree of risk and, accordingly, set the amount of the insurance premium, carry out preventive measures, etc. The second case is much less common and, as a rule, concerns the insurance of property that is often transported.

Often, the insurance rules provide for the risk of "robbery in transit". In case of robbery during the transportation of the insured property to or from the place of insurance, persons who carry out such transportation on his behalf are equated to the insured. This is the position. However, it does not apply to transportation carried out under contracts by professional carriers of goods, valuables and cash or collectors who do not work for the insured.

Upon the occurrence of an insured event, the insured is obliged to immediately notify the relevant internal affairs bodies of the incident and transfer to them a list of stolen property. If the property lost as a result of an insured event is returned to the policyholder in an undamaged condition:

1) until the insurer pays the insurance indemnity, the insurance indemnity is not paid;

2) after - the policyholder is obliged to return to the insurer the amount received from him in full.

On the nuances of registration of scratches in the police. Briefly and chaotically.

1. It is not necessary to thoughtlessly draw up all the existing damage on a car with one event.
If the car has damage of different “age” and nature of occurrence, then it is better to arrange it with different events. Numerous scratches and abrasions can be combined into one statement on a "territorial basis"
Those. front fender, hood, glass - yes. But the front right fender, front left door and rear bumper are not.
Insurance companies are very fond of making denials of payments "an investigative study was carried out, which established that the damage was not received at once."
The judicial perspective in such cases is kvelaya. Well, that is, we win such cases, but we will have to pay denyushka. A self-prepared yuzver is unlikely to win such a court.

2. It is not necessary to issue an unambiguous accident as PDTL.
Those. a jammed threshold is clearly an accident. A broken headlight and a jammed fender with metal bends - too. Etc.
If in doubt - it's better to call the traffic police.

3. The district police officer should be called by phone. If you do not know the telephone number of the local police department - call "02". But first, call, then remove the car from the scene and with the permission of the district police officer. Driving a damaged car to the police department is fraught with the fact that the decision will indicate that the inspection of the scene could not be carried out, because. the victim left him. Cant.

4. The resolution must contain the phrase “ damage caused by the action of an unidentified person ” or something similar, but in no case should it be “ under unspecified circumstances ».
To obtain the necessary wording, it is necessary to write in the application like this - I heard the alarm siren, looked out the window, saw some kind of villain scratching the wing with its claws.
Well, lies, yes. Well, what to do if the insurance business is so paranoid in our country?

Important! “I came, I saw, I declared” - this is not an insured event. An insured event is definitely an accident, it’s definitely a fall of objects, it’s definitely PDTL, and not “I don’t know what happened, but the car is damaged.”
Upon receipt of the same decision with an undesirable phrase, it can be appealed within 10 days.
In court, of course, you can collect insurance compensation with such wordings from the insurance company. But do you need it?

5. Upon contacting the police, you will be given a ticket indicating the KUSP number and the date of the application. About the timing of the issuance of a form 3 certificate and a resolution - I do not know what regulations are there. I'll clarify later.

6. There is a myth that the police cannot recognize damage as insignificant. This is not true. Previously, there was such a fashion among insurance companies, yes - to equate such a phrase with the fact that as a result of the actions of the insured, the insurer lost the right to subrogation. But in the last year I have seen such failures a few times.
Moreover - this reason for refusing to initiate a case can be used for some kind of "bargaining" with a policeman - I recognize the damage to you as insignificant and you don’t open a case without too much writing, but you quickly give me information. And then - significant and look for the villain.

Even if the insurance company refuses on this basis, then in order to win such a lawsuit from her, a lawyer will not be needed. It's elementary. Yes, and in the pre-trial order, it will be possible to brainwash them and force them to pay.

7. If the car is damaged so that repairs must be started immediately (for example, the glass is broken), then you can contact the insurance company with this coupon. The main thing is to declare, show (do not forget to get a copy of the application and the inspection report) and after that you can install new glass. And when you receive a certificate and a decision - then to the insurance company with a statement on reimbursement of costs for work and spare parts.

8. In the application to the insurance company, you should write the same as in the police.

Something like that.

Thank you for your attention.

4. Illegal actions of third parties

By virtue of a direct indication of the law, in the absence of guilt, the owner is released from liability when a source of increased danger leaves his possession as a result of unlawful actions of third parties.

Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger, in such cases, is borne by persons who unlawfully seized the source. If the owner of a source of increased danger is guilty of unlawfully removing this source from his possession, liability can be assigned both to the owner and to the person who unlawfully took possession of the source of increased danger. The above norms provide for the presumption of liability of the rightful owner; the above rules seem unclear and contradictory.

First of all, the concept of illegal owner is not clearly formulated.

Due to the literal interpretation of the norms of paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code, the following signs are visible. Firstly, the source of increased danger at the time of causing harm should not be in the possession of its legal "owner" (owner, tenant, etc.). Secondly, it is necessary that the transfer of possession (“disposal, withdrawal”) of a source of increased danger from a legal owner to an illegal one should be unlawful (i.e., not corresponding to the requirements of the norms of objective law), in connection with which a person who possessed a source of increased danger at the time of causing harm (delinquent) did not have a legal basis (right) for this. Thirdly, this transition of a source of increased danger into the possession of an illegal owner must be due to the illegal (illegal) actions of the latter. At the same time, the significance of the conditionality of the transfer of possession of a source of increased danger by the illegal actions of the illegal owner, in our opinion, is overestimated. Apparently, this sign should be completely excluded from the text of the law, since its incorrect interpretation leads to statements about the need to establish the fact of the transfer of possession of a source of increased danger against the will of the rightful owner, bad faith on the part of the illegal owner. This is also facilitated by the use by the legislator in paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the terms "confiscation" and "seizure", which are also used to define the concepts of theft and theft of vehicles (see paragraph 1 of the note to Article 158 and Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). It is natural that in the literature (see also Part 1, Clause 21 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 28, 1994 No. 3), only vehicle theft is cited as an example of “illegal seizure” of a source of increased danger. Meanwhile, a source of increased danger may fall into the possession of an illegal owner at the will of the rightful owner, as a result of the illegal actions of the latter. Thus, illegal possession of a source of increased danger may occur due to the illegal alienation of a source to a bona fide purchaser by a legal owner (for example, a tenant). Possession of a source of increased danger may become illegal after its transfer as a result of the recognition of the transaction as invalid. How in this case to qualify the actual owner as a source of increased danger - he lost his legal basis (title) of possession (and, therefore, paragraph 1 of article 1079 of the Civil Code is not applicable); however, no illegal actions were taken to seize the source, the acquisition of the source was in good faith (i.e. That is, at first glance, there are no signs of the subject specified in paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 GK). Who will be responsible and on what grounds in case of harm caused by a bona fide purchaser of a source of increased danger? The following options are possible: a) bring to justice the owner (the last legal owner) of the source of increased danger; b) hold the bona fide purchaser liable under Art. 1064 of the Civil Code or c) according to the rules of art. 1079 of the Civil Code applied by analogy with the law. None of these decisions corresponds, in our opinion, to the meaning of the law. Signs of such a delict make it possible to unambiguously qualify it under Art. 1079 GK; however, the former owner of the source of increased danger cannot be recognized as the subject of this liability. As for the analogy, its use in this case seems redundant - the general system of liability for causing harm is built on the principle of a general tort that does not allow gaps in legal regulation, without which there can be no analogy designed to eliminate these gaps. Opinions have been expressed in the literature about the inadmissibility of applying the rules on liability for causing harm, both by analogy and with the help of their broad interpretation. Meanwhile, in our opinion, the rules of paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code is in need of a broad (distributive) interpretation, since the literal meaning of individual phrases of the law does not correspond to its true meaning. Why should only kidnappers, hijackers, i.e., criminals, be classified as persons "illegally taking possession of a source of increased danger"?

In cases of “seizure” of a vehicle under emergency circumstances (for delivering a seriously ill patient to a hospital, detaining a dangerous criminal, etc.), judicial practice exempts from criminal liability for theft of the persons who carried out such a seizure A “Under such circumstances, it should be considered that the car lawfully passed into the temporary possession of another person, and if this person, while managing it, caused harm to someone, then it is he or the relevant organization (if this person acted in the performance of official duties) that must compensate the harm to the victim. The responsibility of the original owner in this case should completely disappear. In our opinion, such a “publicly useful” possession of a source of increased danger should still be recognized as illegal, and such an “invader” should be held liable under paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 GK.

The transfer of possession of a source of increased danger through an invalid transaction will be exactly the same illegal. We believe that it is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the following provision: "when concluding a transaction, recognized as invalid, the owner of the source of increased danger is the acquirer of the source of increased danger."

The study of legislation, theory and practice relating to civil liability for causing harm by a source of increased danger shows, first of all, that the relevance and practical significance of this institution is increasing every year. This is due to the complication of the nature of modern production, as well as an increase in the number and expansion of the species composition of sources that are carriers of increased danger, which automatically causes an increase in the scale of their negative impact.

A study of the problem of liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger reveals that both the theoretical and practical base of this institution is far from ideal. Obviously, there are gaps regarding the solution of some issues and inconsistency in relation to others.

Uncertainty is present even in the definition of the concept of a source of increased danger.

There are many gaps in the legislation regarding the subject of liability under Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. So, for example, there are no clear answers to the question of who will bear the burden of responsibility for causing harm to a source of increased danger, which is in common ownership, in the possession of a legal entity; who will be responsible if the subject owns a source of increased danger under a rental agreement.

It should be noted that the lack of a clear distinction at the legislative level between the simple negligence of the victim and gross negligence leads to disagreements about whether the harm tortfeasor in a particular situation has the right to full or at least partial exemption from liability.

As for the judicial practice regarding the imposition of liability for damage caused by a source of increased danger, its shortcoming is seen in the extremely narrowly focused application of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The bulk of court decisions under this article is related to the recovery of damage caused by a vehicle and other mechanisms. It is extremely rarely used when large-scale harm is caused to natural objects and public health by the increased danger of enterprises that poison and pollute the environment. The absence of such cases means the extremely low activity of practical workers who do not want to use the opportunities given to them by the legislator. Yes, and in the most developed area, when causing harm to vehicles, problems arise. There is no well-established mechanism for establishing the degree of guilt of the owners of sources of increased danger in case of mutual harm and infliction of harm if the victim was grossly negligent.

In connection with the above, in order to improve the legal norms governing the liability of the owner of a source of increased danger, it is proposed:

1. Activities associated with increased danger to others and the source of increased danger are different, but interrelated phenomena, and each of them is necessary for the qualification of a tort.

2. The definition of the concept of a source of increased danger is formulated: “A source of increased danger is objects of the material world that have harmful properties, are not controlled or not completely controlled by a person, during the operation of which the possibility of accidentally causing harm to others is created, even when measures are taken to prevent it.”

3. It is advisable to expand the circle of subjects responsible for causing harm by a source of increased danger. When establishing the fact of concluding a vehicle lease agreement, the responsibility for causing harm must be assigned to the employer-tenant.

4. It is necessary to legislate in Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation definition of the concept of “owner of a source of increased danger”, indicating that “the owner of a source of increased danger is a person who owns a source of increased danger on the basis of ownership, the right of economic management or the right of operational management, or on another legal basis (on the right of lease, by proxy to the right to drive a vehicle, by virtue of the order of the relevant authority to transfer to him a source of increased danger, etc.)”.

5. Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the provision that an employee who uses personal vehicles for official purposes on the basis of a vehicle rental agreement concluded with an employer is not the owner of a source of increased danger.

6. When transferring a source of increased danger by virtue of instructions from state authorities or local authorities and other persons authorized by law without removing the driver from driving the vehicle, the title owner of the source remains the subject of ownership.

7. It is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the following provision: "when concluding a transaction that is recognized as invalid, the owner of a source of increased danger is its purchaser."

8. Art. 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as follows: “Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is carried out regardless of the fault of the tortfeasor in cases where: the damage was caused during the use or action of a source of increased danger;

harm was caused to a citizen as a result of his unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful application of detention or recognizance not to leave as a preventive measure, unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of arrest or corrective labor; the damage was caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation; in other cases provided for by law.

9. It is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the concepts of gross and simple negligence, formulating them as follows: “In case of gross negligence, a person does not comply, violates the usual elementary requirements under the circumstances of care, discretion, safety, as a result of which either foresees a possible harmful result, but expects to prevent it, or, although and does not foresee, but is aware that the actions taken may cause a similar result. In case of simple negligence, a person observes the usual, elementary under the circumstances, measures of foresight, caution, attentiveness, which turn out to be insufficient to prevent harm.

10. It is necessary to change the wording of paragraph 2 of Art. 15 of the Civil Code, indicating in it that losses are understood as expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make as a result of a violation of a right, loss or damage to his property (actual damage).

Regulations

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation [Text]: official. text. // Russian newspaper. –1993. - No. 237.

2. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part One) [Text]: [Federal Law No. 51-FZ, adopted on November 30, 1994 as of December 6, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1994. - No. 32. - Art. 3301.

3. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Two) [Text]: [Federal Law No. 14-FZ, adopted on 10/26/1996 as of 12/06/2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1996. - No. 5. - Art. 410.

4. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Three) [Text]: [Federal Law No. 146-FZ, adopted on November 26, 2001 as of November 29, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. -2001. - No. 49. - Art. 4552.

5. Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 138-FZ, adopted on November 14, 2002, as of December 4, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 46. - Art. 4532.

6. Air Code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 60-FZ, adopted on February 19, 1997, as of June 26, 2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1997. - No. 12. - St. 1383.

7. On the industrial safety of hazardous production facilities [Text]: [Federal Law No. 116-FZ, adopted on July 21, 1997, as of December 18, 2006] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1997. - No. 30. - Art. 3588.

8. On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners [Text]: [Federal Law No. 40-FZ, adopted on April 25, 2002, as of December 1, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 18. - St. 1720.

9. On licensing certain types of activities [Text]: [Federal Law No. 128-FZ, adopted on 08.08.2001, as of 06.12.2007]// Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation.-2001.- No. 33 (Part I).-Art. . 3430.

10. Charter of the railway transport of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 18-FZ, adopted on 10.01.2003, as of 08.11.2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2003. - No. 2. - Art. 170.

11. On the use of atomic energy [Federal Law No. 170-FZ, adopted on 11/21/1995, as of 12/01/2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1995. - Art. 4552.

12. On the passage of a mandatory psychiatric examination by employees engaged in certain types of activities, including activities associated with sources of increased danger (with the influence of harmful substances and adverse production factors), as well as those working in conditions of increased danger [Text]: [Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 695, adopted on September 23, 2002, as of December 1, 2005] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 39. - Art. 3796.

Scientific and educational literature

13. Antimonov B.S. Civil liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text]. M., Legal Literature, 1952. - 456 p.

14. Balandin V.S. Vehicle as a source of increased danger [Text] // Notary.- 2006.- No. 5.- P.30.

15. Belyakova A.M. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger (Responsibility of the owner of a source of increased danger). [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1967. - 344 p.

16. Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2004. - 180 p.

17. Big Economic Dictionary [Text] / Ed. Azrilyana A.N. M., Economics, 1997. - 1003 p.

18. Bykov A. Compensation for harm caused by the interaction of sources of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1970. - No. 13. - S. 10.

19. Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. M., Prospekt, 2007.- 890 p.

20. Civil and commercial law of capitalist states [Text] / Ed. Yaichkova K.K. M.: International relations, 1986. - 455 p.

21. Civil Code: Project of the Highest Established Editorial Commission for the Compilation of the Civil Code [Text] / Ed. Tyutryumova I. M. T. 2. - M.: Statute, 2001. - 1800 p.

22. Dmitrieva O.V. Liability without fault in civil law: Proc. allowance. Voronezh, 1997. - 45 p.

23. Dontsov S.E., Glyantsev V.V. Compensation for harm under Soviet law. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1990. - 340 p.

24. Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1980. - No. 11. - S. 12-13.

25. Emelyanov D.V. Topical issues of the practice of applying the rules governing relations for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident [Text] / / Law and Politics. - 2007. - No. 4. - P.34.

26. Ioffe O.S. Compensation obligations. [Text] L., Gosizdat, 1952. - 788 p.

27. Kalmykov Yu.Kh. Compensation for damage caused to property. [Text] Saratov.: Slovo Publishing House, 2005. - 155 p.

28. Kandybina T. Civil liability for harm caused to health or life by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1969. - No. 9. - S. 4-5.

29. Commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part two (item by article). [Text] / Ans. ed. Sadikov O.N. M.: Norma, 2007. - 870 p.

30. Krasavchikov O.A. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1966.- 344 p.

31. Krasnova I.O. Legal regulation of compensation for environmental damage [Text] //Environmental Law.- 2008.- No. 4.- P.27.

32. Kulagin M.I. Entrepreneurship and law: the experience of the West. [Text] // Selected works. M., Lawyer, 1997. - 434 p.

33. Maydanik L., Shiminova M., Malein N. Significance of the pedestrian's guilt in the obligation to compensate for damage caused by a car accident. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1970. - No. 24. - S. 3-4.

34. Matveev G.K. Guilt in Soviet civil law. [Text] Kyiv. Life, 1955. - 301 p.

35. Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1963. - No. 8. - S. 100-101.

36. Mokhov A.A. Poor quality medical care as a source of increased danger to others [Text] / / Modern law. - No. 10. - 2004. - P.23.

37. Narysheva N.G. Trends in differentiation of legal regulation of compensation for damage caused to the environment [Text]//Environmental law.- 2008.-№ 1.- P.22.

38. Pavlodsky E.A. Causation of harm under the action of force majeure. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1972. - No. 7. - S. 102.

39. Pavlodsky E.A. Case and force majeure in civil law. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2005. – 190 p.

40. Pokrovsky I.A. Basic Problems of Civil Law (after 1917 ed.). [Text] M.: Statute, 1998. - 769 p.

41. Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - P. 61.

42. Rozhkova M.A. On the source of increased danger [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.- 2002.- No. 2.- P.122.

43. Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1988. - No. 18. - S. 22-23.

44. Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The general doctrine of tort obligations in Soviet civil law: [Text] Textbook. L., Gosizdat, 1983. - 190 p.

45. Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence, 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144.

46. ​​Modern philosophical dictionary. [Text] / Under the general ed. Kemerova V.E. London, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk, 1998. - 901 p.

47. Subbotin A. Subjects of responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1982. - No. 12. - S. 25.

48. Sukhorukov S., Sitnikov N. Causing harm during the operation of a hazardous facility [Text] // EZh-Jurist.-2008.- No. 26.- P.5.

49. Tarkhov V.A. Responsibility under Soviet civil law. [Text] Saratov.: Saratov University Press, 1973. - 402 p.

50. Tarkhov V.A. Civil law. General part: [Text] Textbook. Cheboksary, 2006. - 789 p.

51. Tebryaev A.A. The general basis and conditions for the emergence of liability and protection measures due to harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text] / / Lawyer - 2002. - No. 6. - P.34.

52. Trofimov S.V. Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger and the realities of scientific and technological progress [Text] / / Transport law. - 2007. - No. 3. - P.19.

53. Tumanov V.A. The concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Issues of Soviet civil law. [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1955. - 459 p.

54. Shershenevich G.F. General theory of law. T. 2. [Text] M., Gorodets, 2006. - 920 p.

55. Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties [Text] // Russian justice.-2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.

56. Shishkin S. Source of increased danger and its types [Text] // Russian justice. - 2002. - No. 12. - P.35.

57. Yakovlev I.V. Compensation for moral damage caused by activities that create an increased danger to others [Text] // Law in the Armed Forces.- 2007.- No. 11.- P.12.

58. Yaroshenko K.B. Special cases of liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1977. - 456 p.

Legal Practice Materials

59. On some issues related to the application of part one of the civil code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6, Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8 of 07/01/1996] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 1996. - No. 9. - P. 27.

60. Resolution of the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court of March 30, 1998 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 1999. - No. 5. - P. 23.

61. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 1, 2007 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 2008. - No. 5. - S.Z.

62. Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of April 3, 2005 No. 949/05. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2005. - No. 8. - S. 14.

63. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 18, 2006 No. 431/06. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2006. - No. 6. - P. 12.

64. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 25, 2008 in case No. A49-4898 / 2007-182 / 6 / / Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. -2008. - No. 5.-C.67.

66. Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District of March 14, 2008 in case No. A552-1759 / 07-X147 / / Justice in the Volga Region. - 2008. - No. 5. - P. 44.

67. Extract from the decision of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court No. 0706/478 dated 14.09.2006 [Text] / / Judicial Practice (Appendix to the newsletter of the Judicial Department in the Samara Region) .- 2007 .- No. 4 (23) .- P. eleven.

68. Extract from the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 11/22/2006 [Text] / / Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .-C.6.

69. Extract from the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 01.12.2007//Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara Region) .- 2008.- No. 1(15) .- C.2

Kulagin M.I. Entrepreneurship and law: the experience of the West. [Text] // Selected works. M., Lawyer, 1997. - S. 280.

Civil Code: Project of the Highest Established Editorial Commission for the Compilation of the Civil Code [Text] / Ed. Tyutryumova I. M. T. 2. - M .: Statute, 2001. - S. 1282.

Pokrovsky I.A. Basic Problems of Civil Law (after 1917 ed.). [Text] M.: Statute, 1998. - S. 287.

There. - S. 288.

Pokrovsky I.A. Decree. slave. - S. 288.

Civil and commercial law of capitalist states [Text] / Ed. Yaichkova K.K. M.: International relations, 1986. - S. 118.

Ioffe O.S. Compensation obligations. [Text] L., Gosizdat, 1952. - S. 48.

Krasavchikov O.A. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1966.- P.111; Belyakova A.M. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger (Responsibility of the owner of a source of increased danger). [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1967. - P.22; Kandybina T. Civil liability for harm caused to health or life by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1969. - No. 9. - S. 4-5; Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1980. - No. 11. - S. 12-13; Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1988. - No. 18. - S. 22-23.

Antimonov B.S. Civil liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text]. M., Legal Literature, 1952. - S. 45.

Shishkin S. Source of increased danger and its types [Text] // Russian Justice. - 2002. - No. 12. - P.35.

Rozhkova M.A. On the source of increased danger [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.- 2002.- No. 2.- P.122.

Narysheva N.G. Trends in differentiation of legal regulation of compensation for damage caused to the environment [Text]//Environmental law.- 2008.-№ 1.- P.22.

Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. -1980. - No. 11. - S. 12; Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144-145; Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Soviet justice, 1988. - No. 18. - S. 23; Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Liability for damage to health. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1968. - S. 48; Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M., Modern law, 1986. - S. 111 ..

Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - P. 61; Dontsov S.E., Glyantsev V.V. Compensation for harm under Soviet law. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1990. - S. 219, 222.

Tarkhov V.A. Responsibility under Soviet civil law. [Text] Saratov.: Publishing house of the Saratov University, 1973. - P.222.

Ioffe O.S. Obligation law. - S. 804; Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144.

Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. M., Prospekt, 2007.- S. 733-734.

Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. - S. 733.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. slave. - S. 36.

Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence.-1964. - No. 2. - S. 145.

Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1980. - No. 11. - S. 13.

Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The general doctrine of tort obligations in Soviet civil law: [Text] Textbook. L., Gosizdat, 1983. - S.23.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. work. - S. 61-62.

There. - P.13-14.

Modern Philosophical Dictionary. [Text] / Under the general ed. Kemerova V.E. London, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk, 1998. - S. 236.

Big Economic Dictionary [Text] / Ed. Azrilyana A.N. M., Economics, 1997. - S. 129.

Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation.-2001.- No. 33 (Part I).- Art. 3430.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 12-13.

Mokhov A.A. Poor quality medical care as a source of increased danger to others [Text] / / Modern law. - No. 10. - 2004. - P.23.

Dmitrieva O.V. Liability without fault in civil law: Proc. allowance. Voronezh, 1997. - S. 36.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 98.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 803.

There. - S. 107.

Yaroshenko K.B. Special cases of liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1977. - S. 34.

Resolution of the Presdium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 25, 2008 in case No. A49-4898 / 2007-182 / 6 / / Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. -2008. - No. 5.-C.67.

Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - S. 65.

Yakovlev I.V. Compensation for moral damage caused by activities that create an increased danger to others [Text] // Law in the Armed Forces.- 2007.- No. 11.- P.12.

Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 147.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 164.

Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - P.71.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. slave. - P.35.

There. - P.36-37.

There. - S. 109.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S.453.

There. - S. 454.

Kalmykov Yu.Kh. Compensation for damage caused to property. [Text] Saratov.: Publishing House "Slovo", 2005. - P.45.

Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - S. 61.

Matveev G.K. Guilt in Soviet civil law. [Text] Kyiv. Life, 1955. - S. 298.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - P.47.

Pokrovsky I.A. Decree. work. - S. 286.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 148.

Krasnova I.O. Legal regulation of compensation for environmental damage [Text] //Environmental Law.- 2008.- No. 4.- P.27.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. Op. - S. 150.

Tebryaev A.A. The general basis and conditions for the emergence of liability and protection measures due to harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text] / / Lawyer - 2002. - No. 6. - P.34.

Extract from the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 01.12.2007//Court practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara Region).- 2008.- No. 1(15).- C.2

Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 186.

Tarkhov V.A. Decree. work. - S.363.

Resolution of the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court of March 30, 1998 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 1999. - No. 5. - P. 23.

Balandin V.S. Vehicle as a source of increased danger [Text] // Notary.- 2006.- No. 5.- P.30.

Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 1, 2007 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 2008. - No. 5. - S.Z.

Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties. [Text] // Russian justice.-2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.

Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties. [Text] // Russian justice. - 2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.

Sukhorukov S., Sitnikov N. Causing harm during the operation of a hazardous facility [Text] // EZH-Jurist.-2008.- No. 26.- P.5.

Extract from the decision of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court No. 0706/478 dated 14.09.2006 [Text]// Judicial practice (Appendix to the newsletter of the Judicial Department in the Samara region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .- P.11.

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 3, 2005 No. 949/05. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2005. - No. 8. - S. 14.

Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 18, 2006 No. 431/06. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2006. - No. 6. - P. 12.

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated March 14, 2008 in case No. A552-1759 / 07-X147 / / Justice in the Volga Region. - 2008. - No. 5. - P. 44.

Emelyanov D.V. Topical issues of the practice of applying the rules governing relations for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident [Text] / / Law and Politics. - 2007. - No. 4. - P.34.

Extract from the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 11/22/2006 [Text]// Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department Administration in the Samara Region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .-C.6

Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. work. - S. 93.

Dmitrieva O.V. Decree. work. - S. 91.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 137.

Pavlodsky E.A. Causation of harm under the action of force majeure. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1972. - No. 7. - S. 102; Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1963. - No. 8. - S. 100-101.

Tumanov V.A. The concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Issues of Soviet civil law. [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1955. - S. 114-115.

Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2003. - No. 2. - Art. 170.

Trofimov S.V. Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger and the realities of scientific and technological progress [Text] / / Transport law. - 2007. - No. 3. - P.19.

Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1995. - Art. 4552.

Tumanov V.A. Decree. work. - S.115.

Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law.-1963. - No. 8. - S. 104.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S.196.

Pavlodsky E.A. Case and force majeure in civil law. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2005. - S. 79.

Pavlodsky E.A. Decree. work. - S.83-86.

Tarkhov V.A. Civil law. General part: [Text] Textbook. Cheboksary, 2006. - S. 307.

Shershenevich G.F. General theory of law. T. 2. [Text] M., Gorodets, 2006. - S. 221.

Bykov A. Compensation for harm caused by the interaction of sources of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1970. - No. 13. - S. 10.

Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2004. - P.132.

Maidanik L., Shiminova M., Malein N. Significance of the pedestrian's guilt in the obligation to compensate for damage caused by a car accident. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1970. - No. 24. - S. 3-4.

Belyakova A.M. Decree. slave. - P.132.

Yaroshenko K.B. Decree. work. - S. 35.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 168.

Commentary on the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part two (item-by-article). [Text] / Ans. ed. Sadikov O.N. M.: Norma, 2007. - S. 684.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 102.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - S. 121.

Ibid. - S. 163-165.

Antimonov B.S. Decree. work .. - S. 117.

Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - S. 153.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 124.

There. - S. 188-195.

Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Decree. slave. - S. 128.

Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Decree. slave. - S. 132.

Maydanik L. A., Sergeeva N. Yu. Decree. op. - P.61.

Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. worker-S. 94.

Smirnov V.T. , Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - S. 31.

Subbotin A. Subjects of responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1982. - No. 12. - S. 25.

Whether this or that activity (object) of increased danger is often decided by the court, taking into account the opinion of the relevant experts. Special rules on liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger are valid only when the harm is caused by those harmful properties of the object that determine its recognition as such a source. So, the car is a source of increased ...

When a special law or agreement provides for a higher amount of liability and, accordingly, compensation to the victim. Thus, the scope of civil law norms on liability for harm caused to the life and health of a citizen extends beyond the framework of traditional, non-contractual obligations, covering contractual relations, including those developing on the basis of ...