Kaznivo dejanje povzročitve smrti iz malomarnosti

Lorber, Nina (avtor), Ambrož, Matjaž (mentor)

Pojem malomarnosti v kazenskem pravu zahteva veliko 'več krivde' kot malomarnost v civilnem pravu. V kazenskem pravu mora za izpolnitev kriterijev za malomarnost priti do velike kršitve standardov skrbnosti. Kaj so standardi skrbnosti v kazenskem pravu, je velikokrat odvisno od procesa, ki se zgodi v sodnikovi zavesti v posameznem primeru, saj je velikokrat zelo težko presoditi, kakšen pomislek je bil, in če je sploh bil v storilčevi zavesti. Ob tem imamo opravka s posebno hudo posledico ravnanja – smrtjo žrtve, ki hkrati predstavlja tudi najvišje varovano pravno dobrino. To pa nikakor ne pomeni avtomatske pripisljivosti krivde storilcu, zato mora biti utemeljitev odgovornosti izredno premišljena, podkrepljena z relevantnimi argumenti in skrbno oblikovana. Poznamo situacijo, ko storilec na neželen rezultat ni niti pomislil (nezavestna malomarnost), in situacijo, ko je na možen izid pomislil, vendar je zmotno upal, da do njega ne bo prišlo (zavestna malomarnost). Kje so torej meje možnih očitkov storilcu, ki je malomarno povzročil smrt? Kolikšen je subjektiven doprinos sodnika v mejnih primerih in kje se končajo objektivni kriteriji za presojo malomarnosti, je stvar teorije in pa seveda tudi do zdaj izoblikovane sodne prakse.

• Jezik: Slovenski jezik
• Ključne besede: kaznivo dejanje, malomarnost, zavestna malomarnost, nezavestna malomarnost, eventualni naklep, povzročitev smrti iz malomarnosti, povzročitev prometne nesreče iz malomarnosti, malomarnost v nizozemskem pravu
• Vrsta gradiva: Magistrsko delo/naloga
• Organizacija: PF - Pravna fakulteta
• Leto izida: 2019
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-107872
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16811601
• Datum objave v RUL: 01.06.2019

Sekundarni jezik

• Jezik: Angleški jezik
• Naslov: Negligent homicide

Izvleček

In criminal law, the notion of negligence requires »greater guilt« than negligence in civil law. In order to fulfill the conditions for negligence according to criminal law, a serious violation of duty of care must occur. The duty of care standards in criminal law oftentimes depend on the consciousness of the judge in each particular case, since it is very difficult to determine what where the considerations, if there even were any, in the perpetrator’s consciousness. At the same time, we are dealing with a particularly grave consequence – the death of human being that is nevertheless one of the most important values that our legal system protects. However, this does not imply an automatic attribution of guilt to the perpetrator; therefore, the justification of liability must be carefully considered, corroborated by relevant arguments, and carefully formulated. When it comes to negligence, we can determine a situation in which the perpetrator did not even think about the undesired result (unconscious negligence), and a situation in which the perpetrator considered the possible outcome; however, he mistakenly hoped that this outcome would not occur (conscious negligence). Where are the limits of possible allegations of the offender of negligent homicide? The level of subjective contribution of the judge in the borderline cases and the limits of objective criteria in the judgement of negligence is a matter of theory, as well as established law practice.

• Ključne besede: criminal act, negligence, conscious negligence, unconscious negligence, conditional intent, negligent homicide, negligent homicide in traffic, negligence in Dutch law.