Entrepreneurial and professional risk in the context of the negligence of administrative subjects negligence

Norms of the civil legislation about the independence ofeconomic, civil-law relations and entrepreneurial activity are treated excessively broadly in theory and practice. Scientists and practicalworkers emphasize that entrepreneurial activity should be carried out at ones own risk. However, independence of subjects in realizationof their competences does not mean that the owner of the right is limited by nothing. The civil legislation provides a limited list ofways of distribution of economic risks and fixes a rule that imposition of the entrepreneurial risk of the subject on another person isadmissible exclusively from its consent or in the cases more exhaustively specified in the law. Other transposition of the enterprisersown risk on its counteragent or on the society and the state is inadmissible. Any influence of harmful consequences, except provided bythe law, on the person who did not give the consent to it and did not make culpable actions, contradicts standard requirements and in thepresence of other signs of structure of an offense should be considered as the responsibility basis. Procedure of insuring the civil-lawresponsibility and entrepreneurial risks does not solve the problem owing to the specificity of insurance legal relationship and constantpresence of fields of activity, which are not insured. The entrepreneurial risk differs from the professional (reasonable) one as it canharm both the society and the enterpriser, but the reasonable risk as a criminal law category assumes an obligatory trespass to interestsof the third parties, the society or the state. If harm from administrative negligence extends exclusively on the guilty person, this situationis covered by the content of the entrepreneurial risk and excludes criminal liability application. However, if harmful consequencesinfringe interests of other persons protected by law, the responsibility of the guilty subject should be estimated by rules of the reasonablerisk. In practice, there can be situations which are displays of administrative negligence, but do not correspond to all conditions of thereasonable risk. These concepts differ in the motivation of an act, the scale of consequences, the form of guilt and other criteria. Hence,neither entrepreneurial, nor professional (reasonable) risks do not exclude the possibility of socially dangerous consequences for thethird parties, the society and the state because of the negligent attitude of the manager to the duties. Public danger of this kind of negligenceis not reduced to the risk of a trespass only to the guilty person and causes liability, including the criminal one.

Keywords

Authors

References