A Criticism of the Condemnation of Rescuers According to Civil Liability (The Rule of Ehsan (bless) over Deliberate Destruction (loss))

The salvation of the injured during the events of the accident is an example of kindness, but the deliberate destruction in damages is guaranteed, so some examples of these two seem contradictory and disturbing in the responsibility of the rescuers.  In resolving this misunderstanding, it may seem that my public and private relations are subject to two rules of contradiction both in common and in reference to the general and absolute arguments necessary for compensation. However, this attitude can be criticized, so the Ehsan rule, especially in cases of emergency relief, may imply a conviction of the rules imposing a guarantee, thereby removing legal gaps to ensure relief workers are exempt from their liability in cases of deliberate destruction or rescuers’ property is a must. The view of some other legal systems, such as the United Kingdom, expresses a kind of social necessity in today’s world to provide relief from the responsibility of rescuers in such cases. Therefore, the appropriate doctrine of enacting laws in this area is also affected by the ambiguity or gaps in the original sentence and is proposed as a rule of a secondary or affecting social necessity today.