چکیده:
Whenever several factors cause damage, the issue of determining the guarantor and dividing responsibility among the factors arises, which is conceivable in various scenarios. Jurists and legal scholars have created specific terms to distinguish discussions and have addressed their definitions, which has helped in categorizing the subject matter. Among the mentioned terms, 'cause' holds a special place. Whenever several 'causes' bring about a single damage, a concurrence of causes occurs. Jurists and legal scholars have investigated the concurrence of causes in two scenarios: longitudinal concurrence of causes and concurrent concurrence of causes. In this classification, the authors have identified the criteria for longitudinal and concurrent concurrence of causes and have only referred to their instances and rulings. From the induction of the instances of concurrent causation in jurisprudential and legal texts, it appears that two simultaneous criteria—the creation of the loss factor and the indivisibility of the factor creating the loss—can be considered the rule for the concurrency of causes, while other instances are considered types of longitudinal concurrence of causes.
خلاصه ماشینی:
(Hilli, 1408 AH, Vol. 4: 240 and 258; Rashti, 1322: 40) The deficiency existing in this field is that no specific criterion or standard has been mentioned for the longitudinal and horizontal nature of the conjunction of causes, and sometimes only its instances have been referred to.
The ruling on the conjunction of causes in the transverse state In the event that damage is created as a result of the transverse conjunction of causes, jurists have ruled for joint liability among the causes, and technically they have called it 'tashrik' in liability; 'tashrik' in jurisprudential terminology stands in contrast to 'takhyir', where 'tashrik' refers to the equal division of responsibility among the causes, and 'takhyir' means being jointly and severally liable 1 1.
(Rashti, 1322: 39 and 40) Some jurists have considered the reason for ruling on 'tashrik' to be the lack of preference of one cause over another (Shahid al-Thani, 1413: 164) A point that must be mentioned is that, contrary to what some legal scholars (Qasemzadeh, 1383: 91) have criticized—stating that in cases where the influence of causes is different, a ruling of equal responsibility among causes is not accepted—it must be said that in the ruling on the transverse conjunction of causes, there is no discussion regarding the division of responsibility according to the extent of the influence of the causes.
(
, 
, 
)
