خلاصة:
One of the rules that has been legislated to create civil liability and coercive guarantee and the legislator has formulated legal materials and compensation according to this rule, is the rule of loss and causation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the status of guilt in criminal and civil regulations and as the pillars of the perpetrator's responsibility from the perspective of jurists and jurists. Jurists consider fault as one of the pillars of responsibility, but believe that in the guarantee of loss, fault is not a condition, but attribution is a condition, but in addition to attribution, fault is also a condition. Therefore, in the lawsuits filed under the heading of causation, the injured party must, in addition to proving the loss, also prove the existence of fault. But Imami jurists do not differentiate between loss and causation and believe that the perpetrator of harm is the direct agent or agent of causation, it does not change anything and what is important is to achieve the loss and the need to compensate it even if the fault is not realized and the current It can also be done involuntarily. And it is not important to separate the loss into direct (direct factor) and causal (indirect factor). The results of research show that the rule of causation is closely related to the rule of loss and as such is one of the effective jurisprudential rules in guarantee. And in cases where the cause is stronger than the steward, that is, it was the perfect cause for loss, instead of the rule of loss, the rule of causation applies. In both rules, there are elements of responsibility and the difference in the cases should not be confused with the difference between the two generals and the general principle in compensation is that the damage can be attributed and customarily attributed to the perpetrator of the damage and can be claimed.
ملخص الجهاز:
Theology Letter Journal, Thirteenth Year, Issue Fifty-One, Summer 2020 The Position of Fault in Civil and Criminal Regulations (An Analysis of the Rules of Atlaf and Tasbib) 1 Mohammad Heydari 2 Farahnaz Afzali Ghadi Abstract One of the rules that has been legislated to create civil liability and compulsory guarantee, and based on which the legislator has formulated legal articles and compensation for damages, is the rule of Atlaf (destruction) and Tasbib (causation).
ir 1 Introduction: By examining the two rules of Atlaf and Tasbib, we find that although these two rules have been legislated to create civil liability and compulsory guarantee, and the legislator has formulated legal articles and compensation for damages based on them, however, in positive laws, a distinction has been made between these two rules.
Jurists believe that the rule of Atlaf is based on the theory of liability, meaning that anyone who causes damage to another shall be responsible for compensating it, but in the rule of Tasbib, fault is a condition for the realization of the guarantee.
2) The non-necessity of fault, considering that the legislator in the aforementioned article considers destruction to be a cause of liability in an absolute manner, regardless of whether the perpetrator had fault or not; in other words, merely the fact that an individual's act falls under the instances of Atlaf causes said person to be liable.
Imami jurists believe that in cases where a person, for the purpose of repelling harm to themselves or even seeking benefit, uses their property in a way that causes damage to others, such an action is valid and permissible and does not result in liability (Ashtiani, n.
(
, 
, 
)
