English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Estonian Penal Code describes the cases in which a person is to be held responsible for the consequences of the acts committed directly by said person and the cases in which contributing to an act committed by another person is punishable. A delict of negligence and intentional delict are governed diff erently by the Penal Code. These are two distinct types of delict, which are subject to separate sets of rules for determining the grounds for liability. The above is based on the fact that, while the person in the case of an intentional delict has decided to commit an off ence, a delict of negligence is characterised by a careless and irresponsible act that realises the elements of an off ence.*1 Sections 21 and 22 of the Penal Code establish the commission of an off ence in the form of participating, aiding, or abetting but only if the person’s acts are intentional. The phrasing of the Penal Code indicates also that the commission of a joint criminal off ence is possible only in the case of intentional acts. In addition, it is stated that the commission of an off ence by intermediation can take place only if the person taking advantage acted intentionally, foreseeing the formation of the elements of an off ence.*2 The answer to the associated questions appears to be simple, but the issue of the scope of the duty of care remains. In the event of carelessness, the principle of a single off ender applies, on the basis of which anyone who commits an act covered by the description of the elements of an off ence of a delict of negligence by violating the duty of care is an off ender.*3 It can also be stated that the legislator intended to apply liability only in specifi c, well-defi ned cases where the relevant person is an accomplice in the commission of an off ence by another person by dint of carelessness. This is, for example, evident from Section 419 of the Penal Code, which articulates the liability for the negligent storage of a fi rearm if said fi rearm has been used to commit an off ence. If there is no specifi c provision of the law indicating otherwise, the person is not held liable, as any liability for negligence would become indefi nable otherwise and would be in confl ict with the intentions of the legislator. This approach cannot be supported, as negligence is defi ned with reference to violation of the duty of care and this person is to be held liable if said violation leads to a consequence specifi ed by law.

The Principle of Trust for Exceptions to the Non-Regression Clause in the Case of Delict of Negligence