This article provides a comparative analysis of "strict liability" of healthcare professionals based on safety obligations in the legal systems of Iran, France, England, and the United States. Strict liability refers to the legal and ethical obligation of healthcare providers to compensate for damages caused to patients without the need to prove negligence. In Iran, civil liability is primarily based on Islamic jurisprudence and civil law, where this concept has not yet been fully institutionalized. In France, the safety obligation, as a cornerstone of medical liability, holds professionals accountable even in the absence of proven negligence. England, operating under common law principles, emphasizes the need for negligence proof but acknowledges strict liability in specific cases. In the United States, a complex system of professional liability insurance and safety standards sometimes imposes liability without fault in medical malpractice cases. This comparative study elucidates the differences and similarities in the application of safety obligations to prevent medical harms across these legal systems and offers recommendations for improving Iran's healthcare legislation.