Özet:

The Theory of Presumption of Causal Relationship is inadequate to limit responsibility, so it is necessary to examine the content of the violated norm through concrete events in order to determine the limit of responsibility. This situation has emerged through the impact of changes in the concept of illegality. As Article 41 of the Law of Obligations extends to the whole legal system, this violated norm can either be a written obligation or an unwritten obligation of behavior created by a judge. These obligations of behavior, which constitute a mainstay for the Theory of Purpose for the Protection of Norms, aim to protect only certain people and values from certain risks. Consequently it is necessary to examine the content of behavioral obligations, by means of the Purposeful Interpretation Method, in order to determine for which harmful consequences an offender can be held responsible within the chain of causation. First, judges should determine what kind of solution the legislature has preferred for the conflict of underlying values of this problem and what purposes have forced him to accept relevant norms. Secondly, judges should evaluate the purposes of Law of Responsibility in light of the principle of the social state, and by means of this evaluation, should determine the limits of risk areas of parties by assessing the circumstances of those days. If it is not possible to limit responsibility only with the Theory of the Purpose for the Protection of the Standard, it should be completed with the Theory of Presumption of Causal Relationship

Anahtar Kelimeler: