According to the rule of contributory negligence the extent of victim`s involvement will reduce the amount of tortfeasor`s liability. When victim be a minor person and his or her action along with the third party’, s harmful action cause damage, the question is can still apply the rule of contributory negligence? And as a result the rule of contributory negligence reduces the scope of tortfeasor`s liablity? In Iran law, given the silence of law and judicial practice, the answer to the question on the basis of general rules is positive. In England law, both in the judiciary and in parliament, this issue has been considered independently and there are interesting discussions in this regard. However, as a general rule it can be said that under the Common Causes of Reform Act of contributory negligence 1945, generally every person, both minor and major, is subject to contributory negligence and as a result is divided into liability. However, research shows that, on the one hand, in order to distinguish minor`s negligence, rather than objectively and specifically the factor of age, to avoiding of unfair consequences must consider subjective criteria, such as the extent of his or her understanding and experience.

The studies about causation have been conducted in two steps; the first step is identification of the cause in fact. The “ cause in fact” is the condition, action, or object that caused the damage. The second step identifies the legal cause or proximate cause from all causes that identified at first step. This is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury or damage as the cause of that injury or damage. In some legal systems, the negligence is an essential factor for defendant’ s responsibility and from all causes identified at first step, those will be responsible that have a fault. Recently, the theory of comparative causation has been raised in western legal systems adopting a system of non-fault liability that assesses the costs of accidents according to the involvement in the activity irrespective of legal notions of fault. The study of the local laws and regulations indicates that dividing the costs of an accident among the sub-activities has been accepted by Iranian law.

Introduction Tort is recognized as a type of liability in Common Law, which specifically exists not within the realm of criminal law nor contract-based law, but in a boundary between the two. As an independent legal branch in Common Law, tort primarily focuses on the breach of a duty of care and the subsequent compensation for damages to private individuals. Unlike contractual law, in tort, there is no pre-determined obligation that binds individuals to perform specific duties; rather, the core of tort emphasizes how individuals should behave towards one another. In contrast, tort is fundamentally different from criminal law as well. A tort is neither sufficiently reprehensible nor a violation of norms to warrant a criminal response, nor does it typically provide the requisite mental element for a crime. In criminal law, we deal with the violation of norms and values respected by the community, which the public prosecutor is responsible for pursuing. In contrast, tort involves the breach of a general duty imposed by law upon citizens to frame the standard of careful conduct, situated at a level lower than the values protected by criminal law. Thus, tort is a completely unique institution, distinct from other legal institutions. It comprises a set of rules aimed at compensating for harms resulting from individuals' injurious actions, seeking to provide a deterrent sanction depending on the type of right infringed. Among these, the tort of negligence, as one of its branches, has gained wider application and prevalence. The main foundation of this tort, as its name implies, is built upon the element of negligence, and its sole sanction is compensation for the damage resulting from the negligent acts of others. Nowadays, many incidents occur due to the perpetrator's oversight and failure to consider the consequences of their actions and their failure to foresee circumstances that could lead to dire outcomes and irreparable results. Indeed, not all wrongful acts occur intentionally; sometimes a person commits an act that is blameworthy due to the presence of other elements. Here, although the negligent perpetrator lacks the requisite mental element for committing a crime, by deviating from the behavioral standards of a reasonable person, they have violated the rights of others and may very well possess the potential and risk of becoming an offender in the near future. Therefore, negligence is an initial step that can pave the way for future recklessness, especially when activities arising from negligence openly carry the risk of future harm and loss and are considered a threat to individuals' lives and health. In such circumstances, an evolution in the concept of the mental element of crime, consequently changing the type of liability and transitioning from a compensatory sanction to a more severe punitive sanction, would be more effective in preventing negligent acts and promoting social welfare—a matter that necessitates justifying negligence as a sufficient mental element for committing a crime. MethodsThis research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources and conducting a comparative study particularly within the legal systems of England to examine the possibility of transforming "negligence" into a mental element within the structure of crime. Results and Discussions This research seeks to justify the possibility of criminal liability for a negligent perpetrator under specific conditions by resorting to approaches such as the risk creation approach, the tracing approach, and other related factors. In today's world, risk is accepted as a factor that justifies the imposition of liability and encompasses a wide range of different approaches. In other words, although knowledge is an inherent characteristic of criminal responsibility, and imposing criminal liability on a negligent agent distances us from the fundamental principles of criminal liability, such as the presumption of innocence, those who propose the idea of potential awareness believe that the mere failure to notice the existence of an "unjustifiable risk" itself indicates a blameworthy and serious practical indifference to the interests that the perpetrator's action actually threatens. Indeed, what makes the negligent agent blameworthy is their apparent indifference to the lives and property of others. This theory is further reinforced by the "Tracing Approach." According to this approach, the criminal liability of the accused in cases of negligence lies in their prior criminal acts. Abstractly, the tracing approach posits that fault arising from negligence must be identified by tracing it back to the accused's prior acts or omissions that caused their unawareness of the relevant danger and risk. In fact, negligence should be understood within a broader framework based on the general principle of "prior fault." Prior fault occurs when a person can be held criminally responsible for a subsequent act resulting from their prior criminal behavior.The key point in justifying criminal liability for negligence is tracing the person's carelessness and inadvertent mental state to prove their prior fault, which at a minimum stems from recklessness (the lowest level of criminal liability). ConclusionThe influence of modern advancements and innovations on today's society creates a cycle of risks whose failure to be anticipated and, consequently, prevented, can lead to harmful outcomes. Many of the adverse factors humanity currently faces stem from negligence, which allows individuals to evade criminal liability. The sphere of influence of negligence is ongoing, not only in private domains and interpersonal relationships but also in public spheres and areas fundamentally connected to people's lives and property. To this end, establishing criteria for creating a differentiated approach is essential. This means that by considering a standard such as the safeguarding of human life and health, in instances where negligent acts could lead to the loss of these values, a more severe response is warranted, and mere negligence can be considered a basis for imposing criminal liability. Similarly, considerations such as the necessity of environmental preservation can serve as grounds for deviating from the current traditional system. Thus, establishing a differentiated approach that creates a balanced and proportionate relationship between the risk of an activity and the degree of negligence on one hand, and ensuring security and justice for potential victims on the other, is highly significant. Factors such as controlling dangerous activities, risk management, blameworthiness, and holding corporations accountable must be analyzed in light of the scale of activity, profitability, societal benefit, and the advancement of justice to justify a differential treatment of negligence

In the late of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the scope of doctor duties and responsibilities used to have much smaller range than now. The death of patient in the hands of doctor was a matter of destiny that must be accepted as it is, without any thought of questioning or doubt. Those days and the days of paternalistic medicine are gone.Nowadays there is undeniably a greater awareness among patients of their legal rights and a greater willingness to enforce them. As society started to become more educated and well informed, the skills and honor of doctors that have are increasingly being questioned.At the same time, a higher public expectation in medicine came after a phenomenal advancement in medical science and technology. This advancement produces more complexity and, so, more risky medical treatments to be carried out which were not possible earlier.Regarding these rapid advances in health care development, the role of the pharmacist has changed affectedly over the last decades. The nature of pharmacy practice has changed from a chemist store-which main task was to hand out prescriptions and to make up preparations-to a modern pharmacy that incorporates pharmaceutical healthcare into direct patient care. As the direct relationship between pharmacists and patients develops, the increased possibility arises of professional negligence in their everyday practice.The study is aim to define concept, history and required elements to impose liability on physicians. Also the article is designed to identify most common types of pharmacist negligence. Also recognize main reasons of committing error by pharmacist and finding proper solutions for minimizing negligence.

Introduction: Nurses are the major group among health care professionals, and so, they must be had accountability in their nursing care delivery. Because, their errors' had effects on patients that it usually they are irreversible. So, legislators for preventing these errors in medical and nursing staff define many penalties, considerably.Aim: The aim of this study was defining negligence concept in nursing care and what it is in Iranian judiciary.Methods and Materials: This study reviewed the laws of Iran such as nemesis and atonements associated about nursing negligence and criminal documents at Criminal Justice Medical Integrated of Tehran and the lawyers' views in 2014.Results: In Iran, for having taken the nurses accountable in the judiciary system, the behaviors due to their negligence which have led to the patients' deaths or at least their mental and physical damage ought to be taken into consideration; and also the secularized causality relationship should be between their behavior and the outcome as well. In the Iranian judiciary system, no definition of nursing negligence or fault has been given by the legislator in the penal system, and only some possibilities such as recklessness, carelessness, lack of skill, and not having regarded the governmental laws and principles have been noticed.Conclusion: It would be suggested that nurse managers planning in-service education and directing nurses with how assessing and reaction of the judiciary systems to nurses' negligence in care delivery.

If he transgresses or neglects, the trustee will become liable and he will no longer be able to benefit from the privileges of his trustworthiness.That is why as long as the trustee continues to transgress or neglect the trusted property, his civil punishment will be legal and justified through negation of his trusteeship effects and application of liability rules.However, what should be more precisely discussed is that if the trustee becomes remorseful and quit transgressing or neglecting the item and the trusted property as a trusted item, can his civil punishment be suspended and his trustworthiness be restored.Viewpoints of those jurisprudents who have discussed this issue can be categorized, in a traditional manner into three viewpoints: Some have preferred that his trustworthiness returns and some do not hold so. Some others have chosen the middle path and in some cases they believe that his trustworthiness returns and in some cases they believe that his trustworthiness does not return even if he has quitted transgression and negligence.In this article, analyzing presented viewpoints, an innovative categorization is presented in this field especially about the automatic return of trustworthiness to the trustee who has quitted negligence.

Classification of negligence into different levels, is a complex legal issue. Therefore, some commentators have entirely rejected its multi-layered nature and some others have identified its different levels. In an attempt to make sense of the nature of negligence, we have put foreward a new thesis. We have adopted a dualist approach in identification of the nature of negligence in the sense that while in principle resort should be made to subjective criteria in making sense of negligence, one must also take objective criteria into account. Accordingly, one faces instances where negligence is not of an ordinary nature nor an intentional one. In said instances, law confers certain effects on the acts commited. For instance, under Iranian Penal Code and Insurance Code, binging and excessive drug use entail consequences such as coupled damages and claims made by insurers for refund.

In order to defend a frivolous claim, the defendant may suffer from numerous fees such as litigation and expertise costs, attorney's fees, etc. One of the important questions is whether the demand for such fees caused by a frivolous claim is subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. In response, the Iranian Law situation is not very clear; Because according to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, the security for costs order for frivolous claims, which is considered one of the ways to fee-shifting, is not subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. On the other hand, according to Article 515 of this Code, demanding fees from the plaintiff is generally subject to proving his bad faith. Along with the study of American Federal Law, resolving this ambiguity and conflict is the subject of this article. In this article, after explaining the concept of a frivolous claim, it is concluded that identifying the plaintiff's negligence (not his bad faith) is necessary for demanding fees caused by frivolous claims. In order to identify the plaintiff's negligence, some points must be considered: firstly, the negligence is identified according to the circumstances of the lawsuit. Secondly, the negligence of the pro se litigant or unrepresented party is measured by comparing him with the reasonable one and the negligence of the lawyer is measured by comparing him with the reasonable lawyer. Thirdly, as a rule, the pro se litigant or unrepresented party may not be considered negligent for filing a claim without a legal basis.

Purpose: Managers are one of the important elements of an organization, for this reason, in order to draw the future of the organization, it is necessary for the planners to specify the conditions of their selection and appointment. Therefore, the current research has been done with the aim of identifying and analyzing the components of selecting future principals.Method: In this research, comparative and benchmarking method is used as a prospective approach. This approach is based on the belief that today's advanced organizations/countries can be considered as a model for the future of another organization/countries in their respective subjects. For this, first, the fields of comparison and benchmarking were determined using Brody's four-step comparison method; then the countries of Canada, Finland, Australia, South Africa, and Japan were selected according to the qualitative balance value in the international advanced TEAMS test, human development index, life quality index(health, instruction, and welfare), education quality index, and other scientific-scholarly indexes; finally, by extracting the criteria for the selection and appointment of principals through content analysis and comparison with Iran, the proposed framework for Iran has been presented.Findings: A total of 61 components for the selection of secondary school principals were identified from among the studies conducted in the selected countries in this article. By extracting the commonalities and differences of each of the components among the countries, it was found that the highest index of manager selection and appointment belongs to Japan and the lowest one is related to Finland.Conclusion: There are similarities between the components of selection of principals of secondary schools in Iran and selected countries. In Iran, special attention should be paid to important components such as adherence to religious principles, appropriate personality traits, creativity and innovation, motivation to develop capabilities, professional growth, power of supervision and accountability, social image, leader skills, and purposefulness and foresight.