Medical measures often have beneficial results for patients, but in some cases, it leads to patient's loss or death, although the physician does much effort and makes no faults.However, most of Imamieh jurists believe in physician’s civil responsibility in this case. Some jurists consider it with no civil responsibility according to beneficence rule, and it needs much thought on this rule with attention to these two different ideas.This article aims to study beneficence rule in physician's civil responsibility according to different viewpoints of jurists and the obstacles of this rule execution. It is concluded that there is no general command for physician's beneficence, since it is based on common law. So, the physician's behavior toward patients and the intention may be considered beneficent or may not in different situations.There is no civil responsibility in all cases that the physician is known beneficent, since civil responsibility and beneficence cannot be (gathered) together and Ehsan Verse's language and style is common for this case.

∴ Introduction ∴ The exploration of ethical principles within the legal framework has always been a fascinating domain for scholars and practitioners alike. The "Golden Rule," a principle deeply rooted in various religious and ethical systems, provides a profound basis for examining moral conduct across cultures. This paper delves into the intriguing relationship between the golden rule—often encapsulated by the ethos of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself—and its applicability within the domain of tort liability. Historically, the golden rule has transcended mere philosophical discourse, influencing moral and ethical guidelines across civilizations. Its simplicity and universal appeal have made it a cornerstone for evaluating interpersonal behaviors and, by extension, its potential relevance to legal norms and practices, particularly within the framework of civil liability. By examining the intricate relationship between this ethical principle and civil liability, this paper seeks to uncover whether the foundational values of the golden rule can be harmoniously integrated into the legal adjudication of torts, thereby offering a novel lens through which tort liability can be understood and assessed. ∴ Research Question ∴ The central inquiry of this paper revolves around the feasibility and implications of applying the golden rule within the civil liability system. Civil liability, a pivotal aspect of private law, often grapples with the ethical dimensions of actions and their consequences on others. The research question thus formulated is: "can the golden rule be effectively applied to the civil liability system, and if so, how does its application influence the determination of liability?" This question aims to bridge the gap between ethical imperatives and legal obligations, investigating whether a principle rooted in moral and ethical considerations can provide a viable framework for adjudicating tort claims. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ The hypothesis posited in this paper is that the golden rule, with its universal ethical appeal and simplicity, can serve as an effective moral guide within the civil liability system. It is theorized that this ethical principle can be operationalized in legal adjudication, providing a nuanced criterion for evaluating the actions of the tortfeasor in light of potential harm to others. Specifically, the application of the golden rule could influence the determination of liability by fostering a non-reciprocal behavior theory, which assesses actions based on the approval or disapproval of the conduct if roles were reversed. This hypothesis suggests that integrating the golden rule into civil code could promote fair conditions of interaction and social cooperation, ultimately guiding the adjudication process towards more equitable outcomes. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ To comprehensively explore the application of the golden rule within the civil liability framework, this paper employs a doctrinal research methodology, using a wide array of sources including legal texts, jurisprudential analysis, and philosophical discourse. This methodological approach allows for an in-depth examination of the conceptual underpinnings of the golden rule and its historical significance across various ethical and religious traditions. Furthermore, the paper adopts a non-reciprocal behavior theory as its analytical framework, examining how the golden rule's ethical mandate of mutual respect and empathy can be translated into legal principles governing civil liability. This framework critically evaluates the potential of the golden rule to serve as a guiding principle in determining the liability of tortfeasors, considering the complexities and nuances of civil code. Through this methodology and framework, the paper aims to elucidate the theoretical and practical implications of applying the golden rule in civil liability, contributing to the broader discourse on the intersection of ethics and law. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The comprehensive analysis undertaken in this paper elucidates the profound impact of the golden rule on civil liability, manifested through the innovative "non-reciprocal behavior theory." This theory posits that the essence of civil liability hinges on a fundamental disregard for the victim's welfare, prioritizing self-interest over mutual respect and empathy. The application of the golden rule within this framework emphasizes a decision-making process that seeks to harmonize the interests of all parties involved, thereby fostering a legal and societal environment characterized by fairness, efficiency, and stability. By integrating ethical principles such as Kant's categorical imperative and Rawls's veil of ignorance, the non-reciprocal behavior theory aligns closely with the ethos of the Golden Rule, advocating for impartiality and the elimination of selfish motives in determining tort liability.     This theory's application significantly influences the adjudication of strict liability/liability without fault cases within civil code. In strict liability, the determination revolves around establishing a duty of care and the extent of this duty, with the tortfeasor's choice of activity and the concept of moral agency playing pivotal roles. The golden rule, thus, serves as a criterion for assessing the tortious responsibility in considering the welfare of others, delineating a clear boundary between voluntary acceptance of risk and contingent duties based on knowledge of potential harm.     The implications of the golden rule extend more prominently to strict liability, particularly in the context of activities deemed extraordinarily dangerous. Under this theory, the adherence to reasonable care in such activities absolves the tortfeasor from liability for damages arising from inherent risks, aligning with the principle of moral agency and the inability to alter outcomes through different decisions. This perspective challenges traditional views on strict liability, advocating for a reevaluation of liability in cases where the tortfeasor, despite taking all reasonable precautions, cannot mitigate the intrinsic dangers of certain activities. ∴ Conclusion ∴ The golden rule, with its ethical profundity and universal acceptance, emerges as a pivotal influence on the legal doctrine of civil liability. Through the lens of the non-reciprocal behavior theory, this article has demonstrated how ethical considerations, deeply embedded in the golden rule, can be intricately woven into the fabric of tort law, guiding principles of strict liability towards more equitable and just outcomes. The theory underscores the importance of considering the welfare of others as a foundational aspect of legal responsibility, advocating for a legal system that mirrors the ethical ideals of fairness, empathy, and mutual respect.     The integration of the golden rule into civil liability challenges conventional legal paradigms, proposing a shift towards a more ethically informed adjudication process that values decision-making over behavior, and collective welfare over individual gain. This approach not only aligns with the moral imperatives of the golden rule but also addresses the complexities of tort law, offering a nuanced framework for assessing liability that transcends the limitations of traditional fault and strict liability doctrines.     In conclusion, the application of the golden rule within civil law, as explored through the non-reciprocal behavior theory, reveals the potential for a more harmonious and morally cohesive legal system. By embracing the ethical principles encapsulated by the golden rule, civil liability can evolve towards a more empathetic and just adjudication process, reflecting the inherent value of treating others as one would wish to be treated. This paper, therefore, lays the groundwork for further exploration and integration of ethical principles into legal practice, fostering a dialogue between morality and law that enriches our understanding of justice and responsibility in an interconnected world.

Since a civil case is dealt in civil courts, its proceeding must be stopped until a final judgment is given on a criminal case that was filed before or during the proceeding of the civil case. Is the rule "to stop a civil case by criminal case", is binding on a civil judge and the litigants of the civil lawsuits? Whether this rule has been established for the benefit of litigants or public interest? Legislators have made a civil judge obliged to stop the civil proceeding until a final judgment in the criminal case. As such, the above rule is a supplement to "authoritative criminal order on civil case". Authors try to study the subject by dividing it into three parts: the first section deals about the basis of the aforementioned rule hence, shows reasons for the existence this rule and its relations with the public order. The second section speaks about a comparative condition, and regulation to file the criminal case and the unity of the facts in criminal and civil cases, and then deals about the necessity of the union of the litigants in criminal and civil lawsuits. The third section is an attempt to study the effects of this rule.

"Civil disobedience" as a form of protest in socio-political activities is the act of deliberately violating a valid law for moral protest against the government. The justification of this socio-political idea has seen ups and downs in parallel with the emergence of widespread protest movements against governments in the Western world. One of the concerns of accepting this idea in religious government is philosophical justification based on the existence of a moral and political obligation to "obey the law" in law-abiding religious governments. Borrowing from the posed subjects in the legal and political literature of the West about the two mentioned doctrines, this article deals with the feasibility of combining civil disobedience and the rule of law in religious governments. The result is to prove the possibility of establishing a relative interaction between these two doctrines and accepting the degree of civil disobedience and the rule of law in religious government by separating the formal and substantive analyses of the rule of law. The research method of this writing is descriptive-analytical.

Jurists have tried to introduce the juridical institution of automatic guarantee in various forms such as “wasting”, “causing”, “chances of gain or loss”, “the rule of possession”, “infringement”, “negligence”, and other instruments. They have not clarified, however, that whether these rules are bases to determine the responsible or to specify responsibility. In the present study, having distiguished the two bases, the author has intrdouced the rule or respect as the basis for responsibility of Muslims toward each other and the rule of no harm as the basis of responsibility for non-Muslims. The main and essential difference between two bases is that, in addition to be obliged to not harm each other’s properties, lives, and fames, Muslims are obliged to perform positive actions to f ulfill the above obligations; while, toward non-Muslims, they are only negatively obliged and they should not harm their lives, properties, and fames.

The rule of "Ehsan" is one of the most important rules of jurisprudence, which by paying attention on content of this rule, can be drawn the principles of Fundamentals of guaranty and non-government guarantee in different forms that are in accordance with the rule of Ehsan. As an example, it may be that a person acts as Ehsan a Practicable damage but because of Benevolence he is not the guarantor of compensation, this rule can be used for proving the guaranty of The government by this way that the role of "Ehsan" Includes Negative Affairs. One of the results of this study is that due to the admission of the religious ruler and Priority comparison (in comparison the state with the doctor), can not be proved the responsibility of The government, but according to the rule of the province of Islamic governer and Clearing the reason of legitimate defense can be deny the civil responsibility of The government for damages.

Accessories to the object of sale has always been under discussion and debate among jurisprudents and lawyers. Is customary intention a criterion towards determining the accessories to the object of sale? Or the very parties to the contract should necessarily agree on it though in an implied way? If recognition of the accessories is left to the common usage, Is it a rule or an exception to the rule? Can common usage lie next to other religious proofs and determine the facts under law, or it is necessary for it to be approved and authorized by the divine legislator?The present article studies the foundations of customary implied terms towards responding to these questions. These responses can be quite useful for judges towards settling legal cases.

As a principle, to determine the responsible, the damaging action plays a major role. But in some cases, one of rules to determine the responsible, in French law is determining of the responsible on the basis of the ownership or maintenance of objects, that this issue, in French law has led to rule of civil liability of things. In French law, liability arising from animal and liability arising from the demolition of buildings and liability arising from accidents, as examples of liability arising from objects, it has been suggested and the doctrine of these cases and with the help of paragraph 1 of Article 1242 of code civil has concluded the principle of liability arising from the objects. In Iranian law, there have been such examples, but there is no general rule such as article 1242 of code civil. But it seems the doctrine in Iranian law can conclude the principle of civil liability arising from the objects that in this article, according to the jurisprudence and comparatively with French law will be examined.

Whether all the actions of the physician in relation to the patient are considered to be the subject of a single person, or are it separable, in which case each one is subject to general rules or to some particular rule? In analyzing the functions of the physician during the course of cognitive therapy, applicants who discuss medical professional responsibilities examine medical practices of a subject and then examine the judgment of the case, and therefore may have contradictions to be. The study said that three types of legal liability can be considered for a doctor who deals with treatment: the first responsibility that follows the contract for patient treatment comes from, and it follows the rules and guarantees of contract law enforcement. Second, the responsibility that may arise for a physician is due to a breach or non-performance of the contract, and we call it the responsibility of breach of contract. The third type of legal responsibility that a physician is expected to do is to do the current remedial action that is not related to the treaty of treatment, that is, neither the contractual liability nor the liability arising from the breach of contract; we take this responsibility, outside the responsibility Doctor's contract. The first two types will be in accordance with the general rules, and only the recent type will follow the specific rules of civil liability in relation to the medical liability of the physician, in order to see the specific aspects of the civil liability of the physician, obtaining a general rule of civil liability in Iranian law based on "Absolute verb" is necessary, not just "fault". This article is an excerpt from the Ph. D. thesis at the Payam-e-Noor University Graduate School, entitled "A New Analysis of Civic Engagement Forms with Certain Civil Responsibilities".