本文選題：醫(yī)療侵權(quán)　切入點：歸責原則　出處：《鄭州大學》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛案件一直以來都是爭論的焦點,隨著對醫(yī)務(wù)人員的人身侵害、對醫(yī)院的打砸搶等現(xiàn)象的頻繁發(fā)生,醫(yī)患關(guān)系的緊張再次被公眾所關(guān)注。在司法實踐中,為什么在有法可依的情況下仍舊會出現(xiàn)不守法、不用法的現(xiàn)象?因為目前我國關(guān)于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)的法律、法規(guī)和司法解釋之間相互沖突,前后矛盾。立法上的混亂在于理論上的不統(tǒng)一。本文主要研究醫(yī)療侵權(quán)的舉證責任問題,關(guān)于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件我國長期以來其實是按照“誰主張、誰舉證”的基本原則來進行處理,但《最高人民法院關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》第4條第8款中規(guī)定了醫(yī)療侵權(quán)的“舉證責任倒置”,《侵權(quán)責任法》的出臺實際上又重新糾正了所有的醫(yī)療糾紛案件都要舉證責任倒置的規(guī)定,大部分醫(yī)療糾紛仍舊要實行“誰主張、誰舉證”的原則。那么出現(xiàn)立法上的混亂的原因就在于對于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件究竟應該適用何種歸責原則還沒有統(tǒng)一的定論。所以本文通過研究醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件應該適用何種歸責原則,進而分析醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件應如何確定舉證責任的分配。本文主要從以下幾個部分進行分析： 第一部分引言。本部分包括問題的提出,與問題相關(guān)的最新文獻的整理以及本文采取的研究方法。 第二部分是醫(yī)療舉證責任的爭論。本部分主要采取歷史分析的方法梳理我國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)立法一直以來存在的爭論,進而引出醫(yī)療侵權(quán)歸責原則的爭論、舉證責任的爭論。 第三部分是侵權(quán)責任的歸責原則與舉證責任的關(guān)系。本部分主要包括歸責原則的基本理論、舉證責任的基本理論、舉證責任分配的各種學說以及三種歸責原則與舉證責任的關(guān)系。 第四部分是舉證責任分配的域外比較。本部分主要通過比較美國法、德國法、日本法關(guān)于舉證責任分配的有關(guān)制度來對我國的舉證責任制度做以借鑒。 第五部分是對不同醫(yī)療侵權(quán)類型的舉證責任研究。本部分主要對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛進行分類,針對不同類型的醫(yī)療侵權(quán)分別規(guī)定不同的舉證責任。
[Abstract]:Medical tort dispute cases have always been the focus of controversy. With the frequent occurrence of personal assault on medical personnel, smashing and looting of hospitals and other phenomena, the tension between doctors and patients has once again been concerned by the public. In judicial practice, Why is it that there is no need to obey the law when there are laws to abide by? Because at present, the laws, regulations and judicial interpretations of medical tort in our country conflict with each other and contradict each other. The confusion in legislation lies in the disunity of theory. This paper mainly studies the burden of proof of medical tort. With regard to medical tort cases in China, for a long time, in fact, it has been handled in accordance with the basic principle of "who claims, who gives proof". However, Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Supreme people's Court on evidence in Civil procedure provides for the "inversion of the burden of proof" in medical tort, and the enactment of the Tort liability Law actually corrects all medical disputes. In cases where the burden of proof is reversed, Most medical disputes still have to be "who claims," The reason for the confusion in legislation lies in the fact that there is still no unified conclusion on what kind of imputation principle should be applied to medical tort cases. Therefore, through the study of medical tort cases, this article should be appropriate. What kind of imputation principle is used, Then it analyzes how to determine the distribution of the burden of proof in medical tort cases. The first part is the introduction. This part includes the questions raised, the latest literature related to the problem and the research methods adopted in this paper. The second part is the argument of medical burden of proof. This part mainly adopts the method of historical analysis to sort out the debate that exists all the time in the legislation of medical tort in our country, and then leads to the controversy of the principle of imputation of medical tort and the dispute of burden of proof. The third part is the relationship between liability principle of tort liability and burden of proof. This part mainly includes the basic theory of imputation principle and the basic theory of burden of proof. Various theories of burden of proof and the relationship between three principles of imputation and burden of proof. The fourth part is the extraterritorial comparison of the distribution of the burden of proof. This part mainly compares the American law, the German law and the Japanese law on the distribution of the burden of proof to make reference to the system of the burden of proof in our country. The fifth part is the research on the burden of proof of different types of medical tort. This part mainly classifies the medical tort disputes and sets different burden of proof for different types of medical tort.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923;D922.16

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 胡學軍;;解讀無人領(lǐng)會的語言——醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟舉證責任分配規(guī)則評析[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2011年03期

2 楊帆;;“侵權(quán)責任法·醫(yī)療損害責任”研討會綜述[J];證據(jù)科學;2010年04期

3 陳明國;;論醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛案件的舉證責任[J];西南政法大學學報;2006年05期

4 張佩霖;也論侵權(quán)損害的歸責原則——駁“無過失責任原則”[J];政法論壇;1990年02期

，

本文編號：1646673