ბრალის გარეშე პასუხისმგებლობა ავტოსატრანსპორტო საშუალებით მიყენებული ზიანის გამო

Tort and tort relationship arose from the very first conflict between people. It is true that at that time there were no positive laws or norms governing publicly written public relations, but actions against morals and customs were reprehensible, which led to the use of various punishments. In the early days, the imposition of tortious liability was unthinkable without guilt, however, with the development of public life, including technological advances, industrialization, it was needed to arise to exercise liability without guilt. This has even been linked to the use of an increased source of danger. An increased threat is considered to be an object over which a person cannot exercise complete control. What is meant by strict liability, whether it is permissible to impose such liability without action, these are the issues that will be discussed in the present paper.
In legal doctrine and case law, a vehicle is considered a source of increased danger. When using it, the owner is obliged to strictly follow the rules of the road, as well as the norms of prudence. In order to be liable for the damage caused, it must be caused directly by the exploitation.
The case law has established a wrong approach to the subject of liability without guilt. The Court's misinterpretation of Article 999 contributed to the unfair use of this provision. Both grammatical and purposeful interpretations of the rule of law establish that the holder should be thought of directly as the person exercising actual dominion and not the owner. And if we consider the transfer of ownership to the source of the increased danger as an action, then the problem of causal connection cannot be avoided.
This work discusses Georgian court practice. The approach of the courts towards the responsible subject is criticized, as if the content of the given article refers to the indirect owner.
It is unclear why we should divide ownership legally and in fact. Ownership is de facto domination. Therefore, if actual domination is exercised without a legal basis or with the permission of a law / authorized person, it should be considered as illegal possession. Such a division is meaningless and impractical.