论文部分内容阅读
以《侵权责任法》第58条第23款为逻辑起点,以医疗损害赔偿诉讼为具体情境,整合梳理并评析反思我国现有的粗糙且分散的涉及证明妨碍的相关制度条文;通过对证明妨碍法律规制的正当性根基和制裁性效果在比较法层面的挖掘和解读,并结合对医疗损害赔偿诉讼相关案例的援引和分析,论证有必要在民诉法修改的框架内完成对证明妨碍行为法律规制的构建,以确保在证明责任和证明标准规则的整体架构内设置逻辑自恰、体系严谨、协调统合、灵活机动的证明妨碍制度。在深入探讨解析证明妨碍制度的定位与功能、厘清重构主观的证据提出责任概念的前提下,明确证明妨碍规则与主客观证明责任的关联,强调我国的证明妨碍制度需以贯穿诉讼全过程、着眼于公平正义和诚实信用原则的证据提出义务作为正当性根基,设计出情境化、多元化的救济和制裁规则。证明妨碍的制度设计须立足于矫正纠偏证明妨碍事由所导致动态变化的诉讼两造因资源占有,风险控制和证据偏在所致的武器失衡、竞技不公的局面以及事实开示解明的效率最大化诉求,在司法审判层面强调法官以补偿、惩罚、阻却的制度功能为指引而为适时释明,并着眼于在现有证明责任的框架内,以平衡维系诉讼地位的公平对等和实质正义。由2012民诉法修正案明确举证时限规则和证据交换程序赋予当事人就专门性问题申请鉴定的权利的逻辑顺延,确认且强化当事人确保鉴定顺利进行的提供证据责任是应有之义。结论部分对于我国现行分散的证明妨碍规则作全面梳理,并提出在民诉法修改框架内须采取“普遍性抽象规则+具体情境化适用”的立法模式,从规则和操作的层面为民事证明制度体系的渐近性变革开辟广阔的视野前瞻。
With the starting point of Article 58, paragraph 23, of Tort Liability Law, taking the medical damages compensation litigation as a concrete situation, the article reviews and expatiates the existing rough and scattered regulations concerning the impediments to certification in China. The legitimacy foundation of legal regulation and the effectiveness of sanctions excavation and interpretation at the comparative law level, combined with the citation and analysis of the cases related to medical damages compensation litigation, it is necessary to prove that it is necessary to complete the verification of the law of obstruction in the framework of the amendment of Civil Procedure Law Regulation to ensure that there is a logical, self-contained, well-structured, coordinated and flexible demonstration of impediments to the system within the overall framework of the burden of proof and proof of standard rules. Under the precondition of resolving the subjective evidence and putting forward the concept of responsibility, this paper clarifies the relationship between obstruction rules and the subjective and objective burden of proof, and emphasizes that the proof system of our country hinders the whole process of litigation, Focusing on the obligation to provide evidence for the principles of fairness and justice and good faith, we should design a contextualized and pluralistic relief and sanctioning rule as the foundation of legitimacy. Proof of obstruction of the system design must be based on corrective proof to prevent the dynamic changes caused by the cause of the litigation two due to resource possession, risk control and evidence of bias due to the imbalance of weapons, unfair competition situation and the facts revealed the maximum efficiency of the appeal At the judicial level, it emphasizes that judges should make timely explanations based on the institutional functions of compensation, punishment and obstruction. In the framework of the existing burden of proof, it should aim to balance the fairness and substantive justice that maintain litigation status. By the 2012 Civil Procedure Law Amendment Proof of Proof of Time and Evidence Exchange Procedures Give the parties the logical extension of the right to apply for appraisal on a specific issue and confirm and strengthen the parties’ responsibility to provide evidence to ensure the appraisal goes smoothly. The conclusion part provides a comprehensive review of the existing rules of dissuasion and prevention in our country and puts forward that we should adopt the legislative model of “universal abstract rules + specific contextual application” within the framework of the amendment of Civil Procedure Law. From the rules and operations level, Asymptotic changes in the system of proof prove a broad perspective.