本文選題：表面證據(jù) + 醫(yī)療侵權(quán)��； 參考：《廈門大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來,在深受德日證明責(zé)任理論影響的我國訴訟法學(xué)界,不少學(xué)者紛紛將視線從抽象的證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)移到具體的證明責(zé)任,從客觀證明責(zé)任的分配到實(shí)踐中證明行為理論的研究：與此同時(shí),也有學(xué)者開始介紹英美國家的重在發(fā)現(xiàn)事實(shí)的證據(jù)法規(guī)則,希望能為我國證據(jù)法提供不同的思路和啟發(fā)。本文基于證明責(zé)任理論從客觀證明理論向訴訟程序中具體證明行為和證明評價(jià)的轉(zhuǎn)向,希望通過介紹表面證據(jù)規(guī)則在醫(yī)療損害案件中的適用,探討在訴訟中不斷轉(zhuǎn)移提供證據(jù)責(zé)任的可能性。 表面證據(jù)(prima facie evidence),又稱初步證據(jù),布萊克法律大辭典將其解釋為“除非相反的證據(jù)被提出,否則據(jù)此證據(jù)已能確立某項(xiàng)事實(shí)或支撐某項(xiàng)判決。①其能導(dǎo)致一項(xiàng)證據(jù)推定或者并不排除其他證據(jù),但除非對方提出相反證據(jù),表面證據(jù)被視為充足。表面證據(jù)在兩層意義上被使用：第一層意義上是使得案件成立的表面證據(jù)。如果不具備此表面證據(jù),法官可不經(jīng)陪審團(tuán)直接宣告案件不成立。第二層意義上的表面證據(jù)是如果對方不提出其他證據(jù),案件的事實(shí)裁判者依據(jù)表面證據(jù)做出對提出表面證據(jù)一方有利的判決。表面證據(jù)規(guī)則與大陸法系的表見證明可能會(huì)有所混淆。但是,基于法系和訴訟程序的不同,作為證據(jù)規(guī)則的表面證據(jù)和作為制度的表見證明還是有所區(qū)別的。即在具體訴訟中,實(shí)體法或法官自由裁量認(rèn)為某證據(jù)是一種表面證據(jù),而表見證明制度更側(cè)重于證明評價(jià)。當(dāng)然,在最終效力上,兩者都接近于可推翻的推定。 表面證據(jù)規(guī)則從訴訟的角度分析證明責(zé)任,將案件中的證明責(zé)任分配分為各個(gè)階段,不斷在當(dāng)事人之間進(jìn)行舉證責(zé)任的轉(zhuǎn)移,有利于發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí)。適用表面證據(jù)規(guī)則的前提在于考察其源流,界定其概念,發(fā)現(xiàn)其運(yùn)行機(jī)理,明確其適用范圍。 本文除引言和結(jié)語外,共分為四章。 第一章表面證據(jù)規(guī)則。表面證據(jù)語義為“第一眼的證據(jù)”。表面證據(jù)有兩層含義。第一層意義上是使得案件成立的表面證據(jù)。如果不具備此表面證據(jù),法官可不經(jīng)陪審團(tuán)直接宣告案件不成立。第二層意義上的表面證據(jù)是如果對方當(dāng)事人不提出其他證據(jù),案件的事實(shí)裁判者將做出對提出表面證據(jù)一方有利的判決。 第二章我國醫(yī)療損害糾紛的證明責(zé)任分配。我國醫(yī)療損害糾紛的證明責(zé)分配有其歷史沿革,分為三個(gè)階段。第一個(gè)階段為“誰主張,誰舉證”的階段,該階段將醫(yī)療糾紛納入法治進(jìn)程；第二個(gè)階段為“舉證責(zé)任倒置”階段。迫于醫(yī)療糾紛中患方舉證能力薄弱的現(xiàn)實(shí)考慮,將證明責(zé)任加諸醫(yī)院一方,醫(yī)院方不堪重負(fù)；第三個(gè)階段為《中華人民共和國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》(以下簡稱《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》。)實(shí)施后,分類型區(qū)分醫(yī)療損害舉證責(zé)任。《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》頒布后,我國一些省市高院也制定了醫(yī)療損害案件的審判指導(dǎo)意見。其中多有關(guān)涉表面證據(jù)的內(nèi)容。 第三章美國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)理論及案例解讀。美國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)理論發(fā)展于19世紀(jì)中期,至今形成了完備的侵權(quán)法體系。在醫(yī)療損害案件中,原告應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)建立表面上成立的案件的責(zé)任。且該案件是有其要件的。首先,醫(yī)生應(yīng)當(dāng)存在一定的義務(wù)；其次,醫(yī)生未達(dá)成該義務(wù)；再次,因果關(guān)系要件。最后,損害的存在。該四點(diǎn)均由原告承擔(dān)一定的證明責(zé)任。如果原告未能建立表面上成立的案件,醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)方可以申請法官不經(jīng)陪審團(tuán)直接裁判。 第四章我國醫(yī)療損害案件適用表面證據(jù)規(guī)則的可能性之探討。出于發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí),實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)案正義的考慮,應(yīng)盡可能在訴訟的具體進(jìn)程中通過技術(shù)性規(guī)則裁判案件而減少適用客觀證明責(zé)任分配的場景。表面證據(jù)規(guī)則是本文所選取的技術(shù)規(guī)則,希望通過探討其適用的可能以促進(jìn)我國證明責(zé)任學(xué)說的發(fā)展。在我國司法實(shí)踐中,法院一方面制定審判意見以成文法形式規(guī)定表面證據(jù),另一方面在個(gè)案中適用表面證據(jù)規(guī)則進(jìn)行裁判�？梢姳砻孀C據(jù)規(guī)則有其實(shí)踐的需求。適用表面證據(jù)規(guī)則的路徑可以考慮細(xì)化表面證據(jù)規(guī)則與賦予法官自由裁量權(quán)并行。在細(xì)化表面證據(jù)規(guī)則方面,在醫(yī)療損害案件中明確規(guī)定何為過失的表面證據(jù)、何為因果關(guān)系的表面證據(jù)。與此同時(shí),司法實(shí)踐總會(huì)有新問題,因此,賦予法官在真?zhèn)尾幻鲿r(shí)適用表面證據(jù)規(guī)則的空間尤為必要。
[Abstract]:In recent years, many scholars have shifted their view from the abstract burden of proof to the specific burden of proof in the field of litigation law influenced by the theory of the German and Japanese burden of proof. At the same time, some scholars have begun to introduce the fact that the British and American countries have discovered the facts. The rules of evidence law hope to provide different ideas and inspiration for our country's evidence law. This article is based on the turn of the theory of proof responsibility from the objective proof theory to the specific proof of the action and the evaluation of the procedure. It is hoped that the application of the rule of surface evidence in the medical damage case will be introduced, and the continuous transfer of evidence in the lawsuit is discussed. The possibility of responsibility.
The surface evidence (prima facie evidence), also known as preliminary evidence, is interpreted by the Black legal dictionary as "unless the opposite evidence is put forward, otherwise the evidence can establish a fact or support a decision. Evidence is regarded as sufficient. Surface evidence is used in the sense of two layers: the first layer is the surface evidence that makes the case set up. If it does not have this surface evidence, the judge can not declare the case directly without the jury. The second layer of the surface evidence is that if the other party does not mention other evidence, the facts of the case are based on the evidence. Surface evidence is beneficial to the presentation of surface evidence. The rule of surface evidence may be confused with the evidence in the continental law system. However, based on the difference between the legal system and the litigation procedure, the surface evidence as the rule of evidence is different from that of the system. The official discretion considers that a certain evidence is a surface evidence, while the statement of evidence is more focused on the proof of evaluation. Of course, in the final effect, both are close to the presumption of overthrow.
The rule of surface evidence is to analyze the burden of proof from the angle of litigation, divide the distribution of burden of proof in the case into various stages and constantly transfer the burden of proof between the parties, which is beneficial to the discovery of truth. The premise of the application of the rule of surface evidence is to investigate its origin, define its concept, find its operating mechanism and clarify its scope of application.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into four chapters.
The first chapter is the rule of surface evidence. The surface evidence semantics is "the evidence of the first eye". The surface evidence has two meanings. The first layer is the surface evidence that makes the case set up. If it does not have this surface evidence, the judge can not declare the case directly without the jury. The second layer of semantic surface evidence is if the opposite party is the party. Without other evidence, the facts of the case will be judged by the referee.
The second chapter is the distribution of the burden of proof in the dispute of medical damage in our country. The distribution of the burden of proof of the medical damage dispute in our country has its historical evolution, which is divided into three stages. The first stage is the stage of "who advocates, who raises the evidence", the medical dispute is brought into the process of the rule of law in this stage; the second stage is the stage of "the inversion of the burden of proof". In the third stage, after the implementation of the tort liability law of People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the tort liability law >.), the burden of proof of medical damage is divided into two stages. After the promulgation of the tort liability law, some provinces and municipalities in China have also made a system of higher institutions. There are many Guiding Opinions on medical injury cases, many of which involve surface evidence.
The third chapter of the United States medical tort theory and case interpretation. The United States medical tort theory developed in the middle of the nineteenth Century, and has formed a complete system of tort law. In medical damage cases, the plaintiff should bear the responsibility of establishing a case established on the surface. And the case has its requirements. First, the doctor should have certain obligations; Second, the doctor has not reached the obligation; again, the elements of causality. Finally, the existence of the damage. The four points are all responsible for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to establish a case on the surface, the medical institution can apply for a judge without a direct jury referee.
The fourth chapter is to discuss the possibility of applying the rule of surface evidence in the case of medical damage in our country. In order to find the truth and realize the case justice, we should try to reduce the application of the case of technical rules in the specific process of the lawsuit and reduce the application of the objective burden of proof. The table evidence rule is the technical rule selected in this article. It is hoped to promote the development of the doctrine of the burden of proof in our country by discussing the possibility of its application. In the judicial practice of our country, the court on the one hand formulates the trial opinions on the surface evidence in the form of grammatical form, on the other hand, it applies the rule of surface evidence in the case. It can be seen that the surface evidence rules have its practical needs. The path of the rule can consider the refinement of the rule of surface evidence and the concurrency of the discretion of the judge. In the refinement of the rules of the surface evidence, what is the surface evidence of the negligence in the medical damage case, and what is the surface evidence of the causality. At the same time, the judicial practice always has a new problem, so the judge is unidentified in the authenticity. It is particularly necessary to apply the space of surface evidence rules.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廈門大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923;D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉英明;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)證明責(zé)任倒置合理性論證[J];北方法學(xué);2010年02期

2 劉哲瑋;;論美國法上的證明責(zé)任——以訴訟程序?yàn)橐暯荹J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2010年03期

3 莫洪憲;余沁洋;史為棟;;論醫(yī)療損害侵權(quán)糾紛訴訟中專家證據(jù)制度的完善[J];法律適用;2011年06期

4 翟志文;薛振環(huán);;醫(yī)患訴訟因果關(guān)系證明負(fù)擔(dān)的緩和——以日本判例的分析為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年03期

5 魏建;王峻峰;;醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度的效率分析——以法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)為視域[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年07期

6 胡學(xué)軍;;從“抽象證明責(zé)任”到“具體舉證責(zé)任”——德、日民事證據(jù)法研究的實(shí)踐轉(zhuǎn)向及其對我國的啟示[J];法學(xué)家;2012年02期

7 陳堅(jiān)龍;;環(huán)境民事侵權(quán)訴訟中的證明責(zé)任分配[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年11期

8 楊國萍;;高度危險(xiǎn)作業(yè)侵權(quán)訴訟中因果關(guān)系的證明責(zé)任分配[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年23期

9 李美燕;;論證明責(zé)任的階段性[J];北京航空航天大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

10 周成泓;;違反病歷記載或保存義務(wù)的證明妨礙[J];法律適用;2014年01期

，

本文編號：1920336