One of the important issues in civil liability is the question of the number, nature, role, and degree of importance of its constituent elements. However, the subject of this paper is the inquiry concerning the normative element, defined later in the text,as one of the constituent elements of civil liability. As follows: Is the existence of a normative element necessary for civil liability? What is its concept and nature? What is the degree of abnormality required in it and what are its different types? The purpose of this article is to answer these questions, which is carried out in a descriptive and analytical method. The reason for the necessity of this discussion is the various interpretations of the concept and nature of 'fault' as one of the pillars of civil liability. The benefit of this discussion is obvious, including in understanding the difference between non-contractual liability and contractual liability and civil liability resulting from the commission of a crime; and the relationship between civil liability and criminal and moral liability. Based on the findings of this study, the existence of the normative element is a necessary and permanent condition of civil liability, and not a guarantee of liability. Abnormality here simply means committing an act or omitting an unauthorized act that violates a general or specific duty, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, it has a clear boundary with the psychological element, Conditions of legal capacity for civil liability, the relationship between the act and the agent, and the causal relationship.