Fault has traditionally been regarded as one of the fundamental elements for the establishment of civil liability, playing a decisive role in attributing damage and imposing the obligation to compensate. Nevertheless, contemporary social, economic, and legal developments have led to a reconsideration of the position of fault and to a gradual limitation of its role in certain legal systems. Adopting a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach, this article examines the role of fault in the realization of civil liability within Iranian law, Imami jurisprudence, and the Principles of European Tort Law. In Iranian law, fault remains the primary basis of civil liability; however, in specific cases—particularly those involving strict liability and hazardous activities—the reliance on fault has been notably reduced. In Imami jurisprudence, unlike the subjective conception of fault, greater emphasis is placed on the occurrence of damage and its attribution to the injuring act, such that in cases of direct causation (itlāf), liability is established irrespective of fault. The Principles of European Tort Law adopt a flexible approach by recognizing fault-based liability while simultaneously expanding no-fault liability in order to ensure effective protection of the injured party. The findings of this study indicate that despite their distinct theoretical foundations, all three systems demonstrate a convergent tendency toward diminishing the centrality of fault and strengthening the compensatory function of civil liability. This common trend provides a valuable basis for reconsidering and developing the concept of civil liability within the Iranian legal system