本文關(guān)鍵詞： 醫(yī)療侵權(quán) 舉證責(zé)任 分配制度 完善　出處：《吉林財經(jīng)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：近年來，醫(yī)療糾紛呈現(xiàn)不斷上升的趨勢，隨之而來的在處理醫(yī)療糾紛中如何公平有效的設(shè)置相關(guān)法律，如何保護患者和醫(yī)療機構(gòu)及其醫(yī)務(wù)人員雙方的合法權(quán)益成為了社會熱點問題，而其中的醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟的舉證責(zé)任分配原則關(guān)系到訴訟責(zé)任的承擔(dān)，因此法律界有一個共識，舉證責(zé)任很大程度上關(guān)乎一個案件的成敗。 我國針對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟的舉證責(zé)任分配方式經(jīng)過了幾次重要的修改，從1986年頒布的《中華人民共和國民法通則》中第106條第2款的規(guī)定：公民、法人由于過錯侵害國家的、集體的財產(chǎn)，侵害他人財產(chǎn)、人身的，應(yīng)該承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任，結(jié)合《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第64條可知，醫(yī)療侵權(quán)屬于一般的侵權(quán)行為，所以采取“誰主張，誰舉證”原則；到2002年最高人民法院《關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》中第4條第1款8項規(guī)定：因醫(yī)療行為引起的侵權(quán)訴訟，由醫(yī)療機構(gòu)就醫(yī)療行為與損害結(jié)果之間不存在因果關(guān)系及不存在醫(yī)療過錯承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任，確立了醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任倒置原則；再到《中華人民共和國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》出臺后的過錯推定原則和有條件的舉證責(zé)任倒置原則。 縱觀國外的醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任分配可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，有些國家在法律上基本都傾向于減輕患者的證明責(zé)任，從而更好的保護患者的利益。其中歐洲大部分國家適用“過錯責(zé)任原則”，英美法國家適用“說明責(zé)任”的分配，日本適用“過失大概推定原則”，德國適用“表見證明”規(guī)則。而我國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法將醫(yī)方存在過錯的證明責(zé)任基本轉(zhuǎn)移給患方，這是否會加重患者的的證明責(zé)任？是否會影響原告方的損害得到賠償？ 對此，結(jié)合我國醫(yī)療現(xiàn)狀，，借鑒國外先進經(jīng)驗，可以從多方面來完善我國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任分配，完善司法解釋，加大法官自由裁量權(quán)，建立強制保險制度引入保險機構(gòu)參與舉證機制，設(shè)立證據(jù)封存等相關(guān)制度，借鑒外國有利經(jīng)驗，完善我國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任的分配等，從而更好的保護患者利益，促進醫(yī)療事業(yè)健康穩(wěn)定的向前發(fā)展。 本文從1986年頒布《中華人民共和國民法通則》開始至今，對全部法律范疇內(nèi)關(guān)于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任糾紛舉證責(zé)任分配的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定進行研究，系統(tǒng)的分析法律條文修改的意義及缺陷，在借鑒國外關(guān)于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任糾紛舉證責(zé)任分配原則的基礎(chǔ)上，對法理和現(xiàn)實進行綜合分析后，提出對我國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任糾紛舉證責(zé)任分配的幾點建議和完善。其中提出建立強制保險制度引入保險機構(gòu)參與舉證機制為創(chuàng)新。
[Abstract]:In recent years, medical disputes showed a rising trend, resulting in medical disputes related to fair and effective legal settings, how to protect the patients and medical institutions and medical personnel of the legitimate rights and interests has become a hot social problem, and one of the medical tort litigation and litigation principles relate to the allocation of the burden of proof responsibility, therefore the legal profession is a consensus, the burden of proof is largely related to a case of success or failure.
According to our country's medical tort litigation of burden of proof distribution after several important changes, provisions of article 106th paragraph second from 1986 promulgated the "People's Republic of China civil law >: citizens, legal persons because of fault against the state, collective property, infringement of property, person, should bear civil liability, combined with" People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law > sixty-fourth of the medical tort belongs to tort, so take the "who advocates, who the burden of proof" principle; by 2002 the Supreme People's Court on evidence in civil proceedings if < > fourth in dry provisions of the first paragraph of Article 8 provisions: in the medical tort litigation, there is no causal the relationship between fault and no medical burden by medical institutions, medical behavior and the harm result, established the principle of burden of proof in medical tort; and then to "Hua Renmin The principle of presumption of fault after the promulgation of the tort liability law of the Republic and the principle of conditional inversion of the burden of proof.
The distribution of burden of proof of medical tort in foreign countries can be found in some countries in the law basic tend to reduce the burden of proof of the patients, so as to better protect the interests of patients. Most European countries apply the principle of liability for fault, common law countries for "allocation of responsibility", "the principle of presumption of fault in Japan for about" Germany, for the table to see proof rules. And the tort liability law in our country will be proof of the existence of fault to the transfer of basic medical patients, whether this will aggravate the patient burden of proof? Whether it will affect the plaintiff's damage compensation?
This, combined with the present situation of medical service in our country, draw lessons from foreign advanced experience, can improve the burden of proof of medical tort distribution in our country from many aspects, perfect the judicial interpretation, strengthen the discretion of the judge, the establishment of compulsory insurance system into insurance institutions involved in the proof mechanism, establishing evidence storage and other related systems, from the favorable foreign experience, improve the distribution of I the burden of proof of medical tort, so as to better protect the interests of patients, promote the development of medical industry healthy and stable.
This article from the general principles of civil law > < People's Republic of China promulgated in 1986 since the start of the relevant legal provisions on tort liability disputes in the allocation of the burden of proof in all areas of the law, modify the system analysis of the significance and defects of legal provisions, on the basis of the experience of foreign medical tort liability disputes about the allocation of the burden of proof on the principle, the comprehensive analysis of the legal and the reality, put forward some suggestions on China's medical tort liability disputes and improve the allocation of the burden of proof. Which proposed the establishment of compulsory insurance system into insurance institutions involved in the proof mechanism for innovation.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1;D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 侯濱;;比較法視野下的醫(yī)療事故侵權(quán)責(zé)任理論與實踐[J];法制與社會;2009年20期

2 嚴(yán)菲;;醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟舉證責(zé)任倒置研究[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年02期

本文編號：1519227