The position of fault in civil and criminal regulations (analysis of the rule of loss and causation)

 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.