本文關(guān)鍵詞： 交通事故認(rèn)定書 證據(jù) 準(zhǔn)司法裁判文書 審查規(guī)則　出處：《河南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：交通事故認(rèn)定書在民事訴訟中發(fā)揮著極為重要的作用。然而關(guān)于如何審查交通事故認(rèn)定書這一問題，實(shí)務(wù)界和理論界一直都爭論不休。原因在于，現(xiàn)有學(xué)說對交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律性質(zhì)無法達(dá)成共識。筆者對現(xiàn)有學(xué)說仔細(xì)分析后發(fā)現(xiàn)：每種學(xué)說對交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律屬性的認(rèn)知都存在極大缺陷，因此在回答如何審查交通事故認(rèn)定書這一問題時(shí)也顯得極為“吃力”。 證據(jù)說的問題在于，受法定證據(jù)種類歸屬這一思維定式的影響，將交通事故認(rèn)定書束縛在證據(jù)領(lǐng)域，缺乏一個(gè)宏觀的視野，無法對其法律屬性進(jìn)行全面的認(rèn)知；行政行為說將交通事故認(rèn)定行為界定為行政行為，明顯違反現(xiàn)行法的規(guī)定，缺乏對法律的“忠誠”；司法認(rèn)知說雖然對以上兩種學(xué)說有所突破，但卻沒有準(zhǔn)確地把握交通事故認(rèn)定書的內(nèi)容，對其法律屬性存在認(rèn)知錯(cuò)誤。與各種學(xué)說對應(yīng)的審查規(guī)則也存在種種局限。證據(jù)審查規(guī)則僅能對交通事故認(rèn)定書的事實(shí)部分“有所作為”，對決定著當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系的法律評價(jià)部分卻“無能為力”，尤其是在行政救濟(jì)途徑已被“阻死”的情況下，沒能為當(dāng)事人救濟(jì)自己的權(quán)益提供最后的“生機(jī)”。行政行為的審查方式也存在問題。交通事故認(rèn)定行為一旦被認(rèn)定為行政行為，就意味著其具有公定力。這有可能導(dǎo)致法官對交通事故認(rèn)定書的盲從，進(jìn)而直接將其作為定案依據(jù)，使當(dāng)事人再無救濟(jì)自己權(quán)益的可能。此外，由于民事法庭沒有審查行政行為的權(quán)限，交通事故認(rèn)定行為的審查只能由行政法庭進(jìn)行。這容易造成訴訟拖延和訴訟反復(fù)。司法認(rèn)知的效力具有絕對性，不存在被推翻的情形。若將交通事故認(rèn)定書作為司法認(rèn)知，則當(dāng)事人不能質(zhì)疑，法院也不能審查。 正確認(rèn)知交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律性質(zhì)是解決這一紛爭的關(guān)鍵。筆者認(rèn)為，要想正確界定交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律屬性，一方面，要了解其基本內(nèi)容有哪些，具有何種特性，此為內(nèi)部認(rèn)知；另一方面，要了解其在糾紛解決過程中發(fā)揮何種作用，此為外部認(rèn)知。而這兩方面的認(rèn)知都必須在現(xiàn)行法的框架下進(jìn)行。在充分研讀現(xiàn)有理論研究的基礎(chǔ)上，依據(jù)上述的三個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，筆者對交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律屬性進(jìn)行了探討。從法律規(guī)定上看，交通事故認(rèn)定書具有證據(jù)資料與行政司法裁判文書的雙重性質(zhì)；從其內(nèi)容上看，交通事故認(rèn)定書包含案件事實(shí)與法律判斷兩部分；從其在糾紛解決中的作用上看，交通事故認(rèn)定書兼有證明案件事實(shí)和定紛止?fàn)幍淖饔�。由此得出結(jié)論：交通事故認(rèn)定書不僅具有證據(jù)的法律屬性，也具有準(zhǔn)司法裁判文書的法律性質(zhì)。 因此，應(yīng)該根據(jù)交通事故認(rèn)定書的法律屬性，分別采用證據(jù)審查規(guī)則和準(zhǔn)司法文書審查規(guī)則，對其不同的內(nèi)容進(jìn)行審查。對于事實(shí)部分，適用證據(jù)審查規(guī)則。具體而言，就是審查其是否具備證據(jù)的合法性、客觀性及關(guān)聯(lián)性。合法性的審查，主要是確定交通事故認(rèn)定書是否具有證據(jù)資格；客觀性的審查，主要是確定交通事故認(rèn)定書的真實(shí)性與可靠性如何；關(guān)聯(lián)性的審查，主要是確定交通事故認(rèn)定書的證明力大小。合法性和客觀性的審查相對簡單，易于操作。而關(guān)聯(lián)性審查有些難度，面臨著如何處理當(dāng)事人舉證困難和交通事故認(rèn)定書證據(jù)優(yōu)勢的問題。筆者以為，解決該難題的一個(gè)可行性做法是，法院應(yīng)調(diào)取制定交通事故認(rèn)定書所依據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)證據(jù)，在綜合分析這些證據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)上審查其事實(shí)部分。對于法律評價(jià)部分，應(yīng)適用準(zhǔn)司法裁判文書的審查規(guī)則，對交通事故認(rèn)定書的制定程序、事實(shí)認(rèn)定及法律適用進(jìn)行審查。制定程序的審查，主要針對交通事故認(rèn)定書的制定期限、制作主體及文書送達(dá)等內(nèi)容進(jìn)行。事實(shí)認(rèn)定的審查，，主要是審查制定主體在進(jìn)行事實(shí)認(rèn)定時(shí)是否遵循了自由裁量權(quán)的行使規(guī)則——思維法則、經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則及自然法則；法官的說理義務(wù)；法定證據(jù)規(guī)則。法律適用的審查，主要是審查制作主體對當(dāng)事人責(zé)任進(jìn)行劃分時(shí)是否遵從了法定的歸責(zé)原則。
[Abstract]:Traffic accident in civil litigation plays an extremely important role. However, on how to review the traffic accident this problem in theory and in practice has been debated. The reason is that the existing theories on the legal nature of traffic accident identification book can not reach a consensus. The author of the present theory after careful analysis found each kind of theory of the legal nature of traffic accident identification book cognition has many defects, so the confirmation of this problem in answer to how to review the traffic accident is extremely difficult.
Is the evidence that, under the influence of legal evidence type ownership of this mindset, the traffic accident evidence bound in the field, the lack of a macro perspective, not to conduct a comprehensive understanding of its legal attribute; administrative behavior that the behavior of traffic accident identification defined as administrative acts, a clear violation of the existing law provisions the lack of legal "loyalty"; judicial notice said that although the breakthrough of the above two theories, but not accurately grasp the traffic accident that the contents of the book, the legal attribute of cognitive errors. The corresponding rules also have various limitations and various doctrines. The rules of reviewing evidence can only be part of facts "the book as" the identification of traffic accident, legal evaluation determines the relationship of rights and obligations of the parties are "incapable of action", especially in administrative relief way has been blocked Under the circumstances, did not provide the final "vitality" for the parties to relief their rights. Administrative review is also problematic. The behavior of traffic accident identification once identified as the administrative act means that it has authority. This may lead to the confirmation of blind traffic accident, and then directly as the basis, the parties no relief their rights and interests. In addition, the civil court did not review the administrative authority, the traffic accident behavior review only by the administrative court. It is easy to cause the lawsuit delay and the procedure repeated. The effect of judicial notice is absolute, there is no ousted. If the traffic accident as the judicial cognition, parties can not be questioned, the court cannot review.
Correct understanding of traffic accident identification and the legal nature of the book is the key to solve the dispute. The author thinks that, in order to correctly define the legal attribute of the traffic accident, a book, to understand the basic content of what kind of features, this is the internal cognition; on the other hand, to understand the role of solving in this dispute, as the external cognition. These two aspects of cognition must be carried out within the framework of positive law. Based on the full study of the existing theoretical research, based on these three criteria, the author of the book of the legal attribute of the traffic accident identification is discussed. From a legal perspective, the responsibility of traffic accident the book has the dual nature of the evidence and administrative judicial documents; from the content point of view, the traffic accident case facts and legal judgment includes two parts; from the solution by the view in the dispute, The traffic accident affirmation has the function of proving the facts of the case and deciding disputes. The conclusion is that the traffic accident affirmation not only has the legal attribute of the evidence, but also has the legal nature of the quasi judicial adjudication document.
Therefore, the traffic accident should be based on the legal attribute of the book, using the rules of reviewing evidence and review rules of judicial documents, the review of the contents of the part. For the fact, apply the rules of reviewing evidence. Specifically, is to examine the legitimacy if it has evidence, objectivity and relevance. The legitimacy of the review. The traffic accident is to determine whether there is evidence qualification; the objectivity of the review is to determine how the authenticity and reliability of traffic accident; the relevance of the review is to determine the traffic accident identified the probative force of the size of the book. The legitimacy and objectivity of the examination is relatively simple, easy to operate and examine the relevance. Some difficulty, faced with how to deal with the difficulty of collecting evidence and traffic accident evidence advantage problem. The author thinks that a feasible approach to solve the problem Is that the court should make the transfer of traffic accident identification based on evidence, review part of the facts in a comprehensive analysis based on these evidences for legal evaluation, should apply the quasi judicial adjudicative document review rules of traffic accident identification procedures for the book, facts and legal review procedures. The review, mainly for the traffic accident of the development period, the main production and service of documents and other content. The facts of review, the review is mainly on the fact that policy makers are compliant with the exercise of discretion rule -- the law of thought, experience and rules of natural law; compulsory reasoning judge; legal evidence rules. The applicable law review, the review is mainly subject to divide the responsibility of the parties when compliance with the statutory principle of imputation.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1;D922.14

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 管滿泉;;論交通事故認(rèn)定書的證據(jù)屬性[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2008年06期

2 吳澤勇;;證明疑難案件的處理之道——從“彭宇案”切入[J];西部法學(xué)評論;2011年05期

3 傅郁林;;多層次民事司法救濟(jì)體系探索[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年02期

4 萬尚慶;畢可良;;論道路交通事故認(rèn)定行為的救濟(jì)途徑[J];法學(xué)雜志;2013年07期

5 王亞新;;民事訴訟中的證據(jù)與證明[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2013年06期

6 趙春鳳;;交通事故認(rèn)定書應(yīng)屬于書證[J];中國檢察官;2006年09期

7 胡勝;虞勝祿;;交通事故認(rèn)定的法律性質(zhì)解析[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

8 賀小榮;;論交通事故損害賠償案件中——舉證責(zé)任的負(fù)擔(dān)原則[J];人民司法;2005年11期

9 左衛(wèi)民,馬靜華;交通事故糾紛解決的行政機(jī)制研究[J];四川大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年04期

10 趙信會;;對交通事故認(rèn)定書證據(jù)屬性的質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué)論壇;2009年06期

本文編號：1449900