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".

Please cite this article as: Salmani M, Taghizadeh I, Saee MH. The Place of Fault on the Civil Liability of Physicians and its Comparison with the General Rule of Civil Liability in Jurisprudence and Law of Iran. Iran J Med Law 2019; 13(48): 185-207.