In the legislation of the Russian Federation there is such a thing as an incident or otherwise - innocent harm. Its meaning is disclosed in Article 28 of the Criminal Code, according to which an act (inaction) of a person is considered to be committed innocently, if it did not realize and could not understand the public danger of the act committed as a result of the circumstances or did not foresee the possible emergence of socially dangerous consequences (OOP) and could not To the circumstances of the matter, to foresee them.
This rule also applies to persons who, although they foresaw that the PLO might come from the act they committed, but could not prevent them because of the lack of compliance of their psychophysiological qualities with neuro-psychological overloads and the requirements of extreme conditions.
Responsibility, due to lack of guilt, for innocent harm, is not provided for in the criminal code. For this reason, it must be distinguished from deliberate harm. They differ from each other in strong-willed and intellectual moments. In deliberate infliction of harm, a person realizes the public danger of his own deed, and if he is not careful, the person does not realize, by the circumstances of the case, he can not realize this. Man, unlike intent, does not foresee the possibility of OOP in case of an incident. He has no desire for consequences, including no conscious admission, an indifferent attitude.
Innocent harm, example: the owner of the apartment in order to poison the cockroaches in the food that was in the pan, added poisonous substances, after which he suddenly had a need, and he left. At that time a thief entered the apartment and was hungry, poisoned and died. The owner of the apartment did not anticipate and could not foresee the offensive of the PLO - the death that occurred as a result of the incident, and did not want the consequences. The actions of the owner of the apartment are not criminal and do not entail criminal liability. But if he had purposefully left such a surprise for thieves, then in that case he would have been liable under the law.
Innocent harm is necessary to be distinguished from negligence, since a person not only does not foresee a possible offensive of the PLO, but, according to the circumstances of the case, could not foresee them.
Innocent harm is a special mental state of a person who acts (or vice versa, inactive) in an environment that excludes public danger.
A special kind of incident - if the person who caused the harm anticipated the possibility of the PLO, but in connection with the inconsistency of their own psychophysiological qualities with the existing requirements of extreme conditions, the overloads of the neuro-psychic nature, they were allowed. This rule is prescribed in the criminal law in connection with the strong neuropsychic loads in persons associated with the management of equipment (for example, truckers) or emergency conditions (for example, test pilots). Such people often foresee the possibility of the onset of consequences, but can not, by virtue of their qualities and capabilities, prevent them. At the same time, persons who are responsible for the PLO, for example, concealment of shortcomings that impede the performance of certain activities or the introduction of themselves into a state that has excluded the possibility of preventing OOP due to the use of alcohol, psychotropic or narcotic drugs, are subject to criminal liability.
Unintentional harm to health does not entail such legal consequences as the infliction of harm in the presence of intent. For this reason, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between them and correctly qualify the person's actions (inaction).