The idea of discrimination and its impact on tort liability in Palestinian legislation

Abstract

This study focuses on the question of tort liability for damages committed by an underage, especially when he or she is not under the control of a third party, and if the tort liability means that, in the event of harm, it must be compensated, does this mean that an underage is held liable to the extent that he or she causes harm to another person regardless of age or mental state? The exercise of the discretionary responsibility of the distinguished underage for all his or her harmful acts is recognized in jurisprudence and law. s responsibility has been discussed in depth in its jurisprudence and judiciary, this entailed differing status legislation on this issue, and some of the legislation discriminated a condition for the omission. Another aspect does not require discrimination, applying how Palestinian legislation establishes the discretionary liability of privileged underages. What is his position on the extent to which this responsibility is incumbent upon the unmarked underage? Accordingly, the study reviewed the underage's derogatory liability for wrongful acts in the Journal of Judicial Provisions, thus addressing the underage's tort liability for wrongful acts in the Civil Offences Act and the Palestinian Civil Code Bill. Therefore, after reviewing the items of the study that are the subject of the response to the study's problem, the study concluded that the Journal of Judicial Provisions does not establish the requirement of discrimination for the performance of default liability. There is no difference between a distinct underage or a non-distinctive underage, where it is required to establish tort liability or guarantee that the underage has to do directly or cause, in direct terms, it has made the immediate underage a guarantor, even if he did not intend and deliberately do so, it guarantees damage. As for the cause, the underage causing intentional harm is required to be a guarantor of the injury inflicted on others. We found that the Code of Judicial Provisions does not assess or know the responsibility of the supervisory officer. Nor did it specify a specific age of discrimination, and we concluded that an undisclosed underage would be liable for any wrongful act. Nor did the magazine explicitly provide for liability for the actions of another, Since the magazine based its warranty on a no-harm-no-damage rule, A underage is liable for the harm he or she causes either by his or her act or as a guardian of the object. On the other hand, the Civil Offences Act did not require discrimination against underage, He asserted that a civil offense is not brought against a person who committed it under the age of 2. Unlike the Palestinian Civil Code bill that made the notion of discrimination liable for default, Where the age of discrimination is set at seven years, who is considered to be distinctive and therefore responsible for his harmful act, whether personal or other or for doing something in his custody. Those who do not do it are considered non-distinctive and the origin is not responsible for it. However, the draft imposes exceptional and precautionary liability on the unmarked underage in the interest of the injured person, considering the litigants' status