医疗损害举证责任缓和规则探析

发布时间：2018-04-15 21:02

本文选题：医疗损害责任 + 举证责任缓和　；参考：《云南财经大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：医患关系一直是社会关注的热点和难点,而医疗纠纷关系着医患双方的共同利益,如果不能有效解决这一问题,将会使矛盾升级从而演变成社会问题。在医疗损害纠纷中,由于医疗行为的专业性、复杂性和医患关系的特殊性,举证责任的分配对于当事人能否实现其诉讼主张有着举足轻重的作用。随着我国医疗体制改革的不断深入,《侵权责任法》对医疗损害的举证责任分配问题做出了新的规定,即以过错责任为原则、过错推定为补充,这在缓和医患关系、促进社会和谐等方面都起到了积极的作用。但是,《侵权责任法》摒弃举证责任倒置的规定,在实践中加重了患者的证明责任,使得医患关系再次出现了不平衡。基于此,本文从举证责任分配的角度出发,结合《侵权责任法》的相关规定,探讨医疗损害举证责任缓和规则的具体适用。本文共分为以下四个部分:第一部分是对举证责任缓和规则的释义。具体阐述何为举证责任缓和规则,其与举证责任倒置的区别,并解释其适用的基本前提以及适用范围,进而从宏观层面对这个概念进行理解。第二部分审视我国医疗损害纠纷举证责任分配三个阶段的转变历程,并对每一阶段举证责任内容的变化进行评析,重点分析在《侵权责任法》适用中,举证责任分配出现的问题,以及适用举证责任缓和规则的必要性。第三部分是对国外医疗损害纠纷中证明责任的分配规则进行分析,包括德国法的“表见证明”原则、美国侵权法的“事实自证”原则,以及日本法的“大致推定”原则。通过对这几种原则在内容和适用情况等方面的比较,得出各国医疗损害纠纷中证明责任分配制度对我国医疗损害案件的启示。第四部分是对医疗损害举证责任缓和规则的具体构建。文章仍将围绕损害构成四要件分析举证责任缓和规则的适用,结合上述国外经验和案例,重点阐述在过错和因果关系的证明上,法官应当如何适用举证责任缓和规则。
[Abstract]:The relationship between doctors and patients has always been the focus and difficulty of the society, and medical disputes are related to the common interests of both doctors and patients. If this problem can not be solved effectively, it will lead to the escalation of contradictions and turn them into social problems.In medical injury disputes, due to the specialty, complexity and particularity of the doctor-patient relationship, the distribution of the burden of proof plays an important role in the realization of the litigant's claim.With the deepening of medical system reform in China, the Tort liability Law has made new provisions on the distribution of the burden of proof for medical damage, that is, taking fault liability as the principle and presumption of fault as a supplement, this is easing the doctor-patient relationship.Promoting social harmony and other aspects have played a positive role.However, the Tort liability Law abandons the provision of inversion of the burden of proof, intensifies the burden of proof of patients in practice, and makes the doctor-patient relationship appear imbalance again.Based on this, this paper, from the point of view of the distribution of the burden of proof, combined with the relevant provisions of the Tort liability Law, discusses the specific application of the mitigation rules of the burden of proof for medical damage.This paper is divided into the following four parts: the first part is the interpretation of the mitigation of the burden of proof.This paper expounds concretely what is the mitigation rule of the burden of proof and the difference between it and the inversion of the burden of proof, and explains the basic premise and application scope of its application, and then understands the concept from the macroscopic level.The second part examines the transition course of the three stages of burden of proof distribution in medical injury disputes in China, and analyzes the change of the content of burden of proof in each stage, focusing on the analysis of the application of the Tort liability Law.The problems in the distribution of burden of proof and the necessity of applying the abatement rule of burden of proof.The third part is an analysis of the distribution rules of burden of proof in medical injury disputes in foreign countries, including the principle of "proof of proof" in German law, the principle of "proof of fact" in American tort law, and the principle of "approximate presumption" of Japanese law.By comparing the contents and application of these principles, the author draws the enlightenment of burden of proof distribution system in medical injury disputes in various countries to medical injury cases in China.The fourth part is the concrete construction of the mitigation rules of burden of proof for medical injury.The article will still analyze the application of the mitigation rules of the burden of proof around the four elements of damage constitution, combining with the above foreign experiences and cases, focusing on how the judges should apply the mitigation rules of the burden of proof in the proof of fault and causality.
【学位授予单位】：云南财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】