طبيعة مسؤولية مرتكب الخطأ في الوصفة الطبية

Abstract EN

For decades, the courts had refused to recognize the state's responsibility for the damages resulting from its activities, considering that the ruler does not err according to the old rule (the king does not do bad things or the king is preserved is not responsible).

The basis of the state's lack of responsibility was a general rule, but this principle is disappearing, especially after the French Council of State decided to establish the state's responsibility based on the supposed error based on the principles of justice and equity.

Thus, the state's responsibility has shifted from the principle of error that must be proven to the responsibility of the supposed error in the interest of people who cannot prove the error committed due to the activity of administrative bodies and facilities.

The requirement to prove error by the injured person may conflict with the idea of justice, which obliges the judge to search for responsibility without error for the administration to compensate the aggrieved and achieve justice.

And a causal relationship between them.

Thus, the responsibility of management is even in the absence of error.

The judiciary based this on reasons imposed by the conditions and modern treatment methods carried out by the health facility or institution, which would cause danger to others, necessitating the need to compensate the victims for the damage even without an error on the part of the administration.