【摘要】：醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟案件舉證責(zé)任分配問題關(guān)系到醫(yī)患雙方對(duì)敗訴風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的承擔(dān)。我國為解決醫(yī)患雙方的舉證難的問題,在立法上做了一系列嘗試和改革,關(guān)于醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟案件舉證責(zé)任分配方式已經(jīng)歷了“誰主張,誰舉證”階段、舉證責(zé)任倒置階段、類型化歸責(zé)原則下的舉證責(zé)任分配三個(gè)階段。從整個(gè)發(fā)展歷程來看,主要是為了平衡醫(yī)患雙方之間的舉證責(zé)任,但是始終處于兩個(gè)極端,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》實(shí)施至今,這一問題仍然突出。反觀國外,關(guān)于醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟案件的處理雖然同樣是較為為復(fù)雜的問題,但國外立法與實(shí)踐的發(fā)展中,德國法的“表見證明”理論、英美法的“事實(shí)自證”規(guī)則和日本法的“大致推定”理論,在緩和患方的證明負(fù)擔(dān)方面都發(fā)揮了極好的社會(huì)效應(yīng),為我國學(xué)者所推崇,是適于解決當(dāng)下舉證責(zé)任分配問題的有效經(jīng)驗(yàn)。在對(duì)我國關(guān)于舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則相關(guān)基礎(chǔ)理論和法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)之上,對(duì)存在的現(xiàn)實(shí)問題進(jìn)行反思,結(jié)合分析“表見證明”理論、“事實(shí)自證”規(guī)則、“大致推定”理論對(duì)于解決醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟案件舉證責(zé)任分配問題的益處,主要體現(xiàn)在減輕患方舉證負(fù)擔(dān)、規(guī)制法官自由裁量權(quán)這兩方面,在此基礎(chǔ)之上提出舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的引入建議,詳細(xì)分析我國引入舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的理由和適用的有關(guān)程序,鑒于法官在舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則中的積極作用,將法官自由裁量權(quán)的合理行使作為舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則順利引入的助力,使得在醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟案件的審理中,患方、醫(yī)方、法官三者之間依照法律程序,積極互動(dòng),推動(dòng)訴訟進(jìn)程,確保審判公正高效。
[Abstract]:The allocation of burden of proof in medical damages litigation cases is related to the risk of failure. In order to solve the problem of hard to prove, our country has made a series of attempts and reforms in legislation. The distribution of burden of proof in medical damages litigation cases has gone through the stage of "who claims, who proves", and the stage of inversion of burden of proof. There are three stages of burden of proof distribution under the principle of type imputation. From the whole course of development, mainly to balance the burden of proof between doctors and patients, but always in two extremes, the Tort liability Law has been implemented so far, this problem is still prominent. On the other hand, although the handling of medical damages litigation cases in foreign countries is also a more complicated issue, in the development of foreign legislation and practice, the theory of "apparent proof" in German law, The rules of "proof of fact" in Anglo-American law and the theory of "approximate presumption" in Japanese law have played an excellent social effect in relieving the burden of proof of the affected parties, and have been highly praised by Chinese scholars. It is an effective experience to solve the problem of burden of proof distribution. Based on the analysis of the relevant basic theories and legal provisions of the rules of burden of proof in our country, this paper reflects on the existing practical problems, and analyzes the theory of "proof of proof" and the rule of "self-proof of facts". The benefit of the theory of "approximate presumption" in solving the problem of distribution of burden of proof in medical damages litigation cases is mainly reflected in two aspects: lightening the burden of proof of the affected party and regulating the discretion of the judge. On this basis, the paper puts forward some suggestions for the introduction of the relaxation of the burden of proof, and analyzes in detail the reasons for introducing the relaxation of the burden of proof and the applicable procedures in our country. In view of the positive role of the judge in the relaxation of the burden of proof, Taking the reasonable exercise of the judge's discretion as the aid of the smooth introduction of the burden of proof mitigation rule, the patient, the doctor and the judge will interact in accordance with the legal procedure in the trial of the lawsuit for medical damages. To promote the process of litigation and ensure fair and efficient trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣西民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭相宏;高寒;;論醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟證明責(zé)任分配[J];山西高等學(xué)校社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年09期

2 陳磊;;德國醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟中表見證明理論的運(yùn)用研究[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年03期

3 李祖全;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法視野下的醫(yī)療損害無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任研究[J];武陵學(xué)刊;2016年02期

4 張錳霖;;表見證明法則研究[J];貴州民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年06期

5 田平安;李戰(zhàn);;我國醫(yī)療損害證明責(zé)任的轉(zhuǎn)換配置問題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2014年06期

6 劉峰;;英美法系事實(shí)自證規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件研究[J];成都理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年02期

7 楊立新;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》規(guī)定的醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則[J];河北法學(xué);2012年12期

8 陳玉玲;;實(shí)體與程序的鏈接——《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第58條醫(yī)療過錯(cuò)推定之檢討[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2012年02期

9 洪冬英;;論醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟證明責(zé)任[J];政治與法律;2012年11期

10 劉艷慧;;論法律與公平[J];青春歲月;2012年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 張衛(wèi)平;曹云吉;;需進(jìn)一步深化民訴法司法解釋理論基礎(chǔ)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2015年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 魏慶玉;證明責(zé)責(zé)任減減輕論[D];上海交通大學(xué);2013年

2 張英;一元處理機(jī)制下醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

3 宋平;醫(yī)患糾紛訴訟程序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2326791