Iranian courts and tribunals face numerous challenges in the field of the law of civil liability. On the one hand, the principal foundation of civil liability is the concept of fault; on the other hand, modern protective laws for groups such as workers, consumers, children, women, and persons with disabilities has created room for differing interpretations.Some judges believe that because the legislature has enacted protective laws for certain social groups, they should also rule in a partisan manner in favor of the "weaker party" in legal disputes. This view is influenced by Marxist ideas and the theory of class struggle. However, it should be emphasized that the purpose of protective legislation is not to favor one social class over another, but rather to compensate for a weakness of will or to prevent the imposition of one party's will upon another. For example:
1. Protection of workers is based on the subordination of their will to that of the employer, not on their membership in a particular social class.
2. Protection of children and legally incapacitated persons stems from their inability to exercise full and independent judgment.
3. Protection of consumers is justified by the possibility that large economic enterprises may impose unfair conditions upon them.
4. Protection of women should not be interpreted as requiring courts to favor them in every legal dispute.
A judge's duty is not to support the "weaker class," but to remain impartial and render decisions in accordance with law and justice. Issuing a judgment solely because one party is economically or socially disadvantaged is inconsistent with the principles of a fair trial.
Marxist ideas spread widely during the nineteenth century through the theory of class struggle. These ideas gained influence among Iranian intellectuals before the Islamic Revolution and were subsequently adapted and localized through religious concepts such as the "oppressed" (mostaz'afin) and the "arrogant" or "oppressive" (mostakberin).