This study reveals inadequacies in subordinated responsibility for principals liability, suggesting the guaranteed principle instead.
According to Article 288 of the Jordanian Civil Law, the legislator allows holding a person responsible for the actions of others. This study examines whether the theory of subordinated responsibility provides a sound basis for the principal’s liability for the acts of their subordinate, or whether another foundation is more appropriate. Using descriptive and analytical methodologies, the study reviews relevant legal texts, jurisprudential opinions, and judicial decisions to identify the most coherent justification for such liability. The findings indicate that subordinated responsibility is inadequate as a foundation, as it treats the subordinate’s liability as self-responsibility rather than liability for the actions of others. Instead, the guaranteed principle provides a more consistent basis, in line with Jordanian Civil Law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation. This principle ensures that the principal, as the guarantor, bears responsibility for the wrongful acts of subordinates under their supervision and direction, while preserving the principal’s right of recourse against the subordinate. The study concludes that liability should be grounded in the guarantee concept and recommends amending Article 288 of the Jordanian Civil Law to clarify this position explicitly. Such an amendment would strengthen legal certainty, balance justice between the harmed party and the responsible parties and align Jordanian legislation with prevailing jurisprudential principles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alqudah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: