The relationship between Inconclusive Cause in respect of the Law of Iran and Britain

When it is generally approved that one of some available causes in certain and limited group has developed the loss but it is not possible to define certain cause of event, obtaining the causality relation is difficult and the victim is not able to prove the casualty relation between damaging act and incurred loss and is cause in that concise . Difficulty of assignment of a damaging act to a part of collective knowledge from one hand and requirement of compensation for the victim on the other hand has caused developing different theories including joint and several liability of concise cause, and equal division. The main question of the research is that how is it possible to find a liable one among causes? Research analysis method is of conceptual-comparative. General results of research, comparative study of civil liability of concise cause in three law systems of Iran, England and India, indicates that there are some differences in the laws and judicial procedures of these three countries so that in criminal law of Iran, England and India, liability is accepted equally, in regarding the rate of effect and fault and collective liability, respectively. However, all three systems are common in the terms of requiring compensation and supporting the victim.

With a glance at the controversy of the opinion of the prosecutors and judges of the three countries, we find that the causal relationship has been compounded by the concept of causality and its complexities in all three legal systems of Iran, England and India. This complexity and ambiguity has progressed so far that neither Iran nor the United Kingdom nor India have been able to fully overcome this legal barrier with a full satisfaction and reach a consensus solution. The complexity and applicability of the subject are among the important factors that make this article. In Islamic law, to determine the responsibility for compensation of various methods, such as the principle of the practical alteration in the case of science, a lot of damages from the general budget ... It is suggested that at the beginning of the case, assuming the absence of a causal relationship, assuming that the summary of responsibility is based on But later on the collective responsibility of the perpetrators was raised, which was aligned with the legislature's innovations in the penal code of 1392, for the liability of the total causes. But in the legal system, the general law is proportionate to the type of responsibility and the positive aspect of the issue is of great importance. But in the Roman-Germanic legal system (written rights), liability is a form of guarantee. But in all systems, they share the same direction in terms of the need for redress and protection. The most important issue surrounding the issue is a summary of how liability and damages are imposed, which, with the silence of the Iranian legislator, remains unresolved, and in order to find a ruling, inevitably, one must refer to the experience and other laws of the legal system, and The answer to this basic question is: 1. How should the responsible person be found among the perpetrators? 2. What is the fair solution to compensation in other legal systems? The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between causality and the rights of Iran, England and India.

The Moore method is used in this research to be descriptive-analytic. After collecting information that will be carried out in a library, it will be based on the compilation of resources, including books and valid scientific articles, to analyze the subject under discussion.

The mere existence of a verb cannot be the responsibility of the owner of the verb, but in order to fulfill the responsibility, there must be a customary relation between the verb and the harm. The relation between causality is conceptually and in terms of a lot of ambiguities, and its definition is not very clear, and its examples are not precise. The causal relationship is an external and material relationship and must be realized in the outside world. No scholarly and philosophical theory can decisively govern various issues of causation, what matters is that someone is responsible for the existence of a causal relationship between his work and the harm of a relationship, in a way that can be said between it There are two common conventions. The basic jurisprudential strategy of civil responsibility is to provide justice and justice, and what is important in this regard is that there is a common causal link between the wage and the work of the steward, and the best standard of arbitration. There are differences of opinion about the quality of determining the liability of the perpetrators of damage if the damage is caused by several verbs. Some believe that multiple actors should pay the same damage. (Legislator of Iran in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013). Others believe that one should pay attention to the extent of the fault of each of the factors in causing damage, and in the event of a difference in the amount of the fault, each one must pay proportionally the amount of the fault. In the British legal system, there are three pillars needed to fulfill the responsibilities of unreasonableness, firstly, of duty and care. Secondly, the said assignment is Breach of duty. Thirdly, damage has arisen from a breach of duty (Damage) in English law. It is necessary to refer to controversial issues in this regard. One of the ideas expressed by Western thinkers, inspired by the new ideas of responsibility in the 20th century, is the theory of "relative causal relation." Using relative incentives, we can combine the concepts of liability without blame, such as the responsibility of production and hazardous activities for Covering wider areas. In Indian law, civil liability is generally based on the theory of danger. In creating civil responsibility, two elements are considered necessary to create responsibility: action and mentality. The action points to the physical element, while the mind is the mental element. Generally intention or fault are considered as an essential element of liability. But according to the Supreme Court, some of the losses of high-risk activities are considered to be absolute responsibility as civil liability. In the joint debate on the joint responsibility of India, according to the laws of England, they are jointly liable for compensation, in which the Supreme Court voted in favor of England.

The difficulty of assigning a grave recipe to one of the immediate science of the one hand, and the necessity of compensating for the loss of life on the other, has led various countries to resolve it and provide various theories, including the responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the law, the division of responsibilities between Injury, payment of damages from the general budget or bite-el-Mal, determining the responsible person by lot, etc. Any one of the main goals of each of these theories is the fair compensation of the harm that has been recorded, however, each with its own disadvantages. A comparative study of civil liability has been compounded in the three legal systems of Iran, Britain and India, which shows that there are differences between the laws and procedures of the three countries, but all three systems tend to compensate for losses and support the lost, Have a common. In English law m