Abstract

Aims: This study aims to address the custodian liability for losses caused by an object under his control, especially for the damages occurred by mechanical machines, and showing the effect of split liability on the custodian’s liability especially in cases of paying compensation to the victim. On the other hand, this study discusses the custodian liability under the Jordanian law and some of the Arab laws.

Materials and methods: Following identification of the study objectives, the researcher compared the legal frames in Jordan and other surrounding countries. The researcher was able to formulate the present study.

Study findings: The legal text in Article (261) of the Jordanian Civil Code exempts the custodian in its main text from paying compensation under some conditions such as natural disaster, unavoidable accident, force majeure, an act of a third party, or act of the person suffering loss, while at the same time the Article ended with the phrase “unless otherwise stipulated by law or agreement.” Which I think is unnecessary here and shall be omitted. The Jordanian legislation also neglected to clarify the types of fault that may be caused by the victim especially, if it is proved that the victim has contributed to causing the damage, the fault of the custodian, in this case, can be rebutted.

Conclusion: The Jordanian legislator did not comprehensively specify the types of the victim’s fault, while the Lebanese legislator has clarified those types. Explicitly, there is no need for the part of Article (261) of the Jordanian Civil Law which says that "otherwise or agreement" because the text is clear and fulfills its intended purpose.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.