Investigating the civil liability of judges regarding the mistakes in issuing judgments and its role in the city's security (Case study: Mistakes of Rasht judges)

liability. The primary objectives of this study are to elucidate judges' civil liability regarding errors in judgment from the perspective of Iranian substantive law and to identify the factors influencing judicial errors in verdicts related to court cases. This study uses a descriptive-analytical method, including library research, documentation, and field studies, to analytically examine judges' civil liability concerning judicial errors in issuing judgments, with a specific focus on the judiciary in Rasht. Theresults of the survey indicate that over sixty percent of respondents rated the judges' errors in Rasht, based on fault in issuing judgments, ignorance, and lack of awareness, fitting judgments to specific cases, false documents and evidence, realization of the error before enforcement by the appellate court, recognizing the error after enforcement, the judge's liability for damages if found at fault in issuing an erroneous verdict, state compensation for issuing a verdict, and complete compensation for the harmed party in Rasht as medium to low. Additionally, over seventy percent of respondents stated that the impact of branch congestion on judges' errors in issuing judgments, errors in writing and typing, errors in determining the subject of the case, the influence of psychological states, realizing the error in the judge's verdict by the harmed party, and not attaining full rights by the harmed party were very high to high.