论文部分内容阅读
大陆法系认为证明责任包含主观证明责任和客观证明责任。主观证明责任是诉讼方为了避免败诉而提出证据的责任;客观证明责任是在对判决具有显著意义的事实处于真伪不明时,决定由哪一方当事人承担败诉的风险,其中证明责任倒置是指对客观证明责任一般分配规则的偏离。大陆法系的证明责任理论普遍得到我国理论界和立法的赞同。我国《侵权责任法》第66条的规定在性质上属于证明责任倒置,因此,作为涉及证明责任分配规则的该条款,其作用是法官在面对事实构成要件真伪不明情况时,作为最后手段帮助法官做出裁决。
Civil law that the burden of proof includes subjective burden of proof and objective burden of proof. Subjective burden of proof is the responsibility of the litigant in order to avoid losing the evidence. Objective burden of proof is to decide which party should bear the risk of losing the law when the fact of significant significance to the verdict is true or false. Objective deviation of the burden of proof of general distribution rules. The theory of burden of proof in civil law system has been generally endorsed by our theoretical circles and legislation. The provisions of Article 66 of the Tort Liability Act of our country belong to the inversion of the burden of proof in nature. Therefore, as a rule involving the rules for the distribution of burden of proof, the effect of the clause is that the judge, as the last resort in the face of the unidentified facts of factual elements, Help the judge make the decision.