医疗侵权举证责任问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 10:08

本文选题：医疗侵权 + 举证责任分配　；参考：《大连海事大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：民事举证责任分配被称为"民诉的支柱",在诉讼中,对于举证责任采取不同的分配方法会产生截然不同的判决结果。在医疗侵权案件逐渐尖锐化的今天,对于相关案件的审判如何能达到公平正义成为了社会备受关注的问题,而其中对于医患之间如何分配好证明责任成为了重心。鉴于此,关于举证责任相关立法规定也在不断完善,例如,从"谁主张,谁举证"到"举证责任倒置"到"一般举证责任附加过错推定"。当然,这其中有其先进之处,但也反映了我国对于医疗侵权举证分配上的不确定性,司法实务界受其影响尤为严重。纵观国外的医疗侵权举证责任分配可以发现,有些国家在法律上基本都倾向于减轻患者的证明责任,从而更好的保护患者的利益。其中欧洲大部分国家适用"过错责任原则",英美法国家适用"事实自证原则"的分配,日本适用"大致推定原则",德国适用"表见证明"规则。而我国侵权责任法将医方存在过错的证明责任基本转移给患方,这是否会加重患者的的证明责任?是否会影响原告方的损害得到赔偿?对此,结合我国医疗现状,借鉴国外先进经验,可以从多方面来完善我国医疗侵权举证责任分配,完善司法解释,引进外国表见证明制度;借鉴外国有利经验,完善我国医疗侵权举证责任的分配等,从而更好的保护患者利益,促进医疗事业健康稳定的向前发展。本文从1986年颁布《中华人民共和国民法通则》开始至今,对全部法律范畴内关于医疗侵权责任纠纷举证责任分配的相关法律规定进行研究,系统的分析法律条文修改的意义及缺陷,在借鉴国外关于医疗侵权责任纠纷举证责任分配原则的基础上,本文以案例和数据为基础,梳理我国医疗侵权举证责任的法律沿革,通过比较域外法律的相关规定,借鉴域外先进法律制度,并提出相应的建议。第一章,通过案例引出医疗侵权证明责任的话题,指出因为我国对于医疗侵权举证责任分配的立法规定的摇摆不定造成了司法实务界在进行举证责任分配时由于依据不同造成了"同案不同判"的结果。,第二章,通过对医疗侵权举证责任的法律规定立法沿革进行梳理,并具体阐述其特点,以横向角度得出问题。第三章,在上一章的基础上重点分析我国现有制度所存在的问题。第四章,介绍了德、日、美、法关于医疗侵权举证责任制度的内容,并对它们进行了分析比较,从而为下一章对我国医疗侵权举证责任制度提出建议做准备。第五章,针对前四章所提出的问题提出相关建议。
[Abstract]:The distribution of civil burden of proof is called "the pillar of the civil lawsuit". In the lawsuit, the different distribution methods of the burden of proof will produce different results. In the case of medical tort cases gradually sharpening today, how to achieve fair and positive justice in the trial of the related cases has become a concern of the society. How to allocate the burden of proof between doctors and patients has become the center of gravity. In view of this, the relevant legislative provisions on the burden of proof are also being perfected, for example, from "who advocates, who raises evidence" to "the inversion of the burden of proof" to "the general burden of proof added fault presumption". With the uncertainty, the judicial practice is particularly seriously affected by it. The distribution of the burden of proof in medical tort abroad can be found that some countries are basically inclined to reduce the patient's burden of proof in law and thus better protect the interests of the patients. With the distribution of the principle of "fact self evidence", Japan applies the "general presumption principle" and the rule of "apparent proof" in Germany. And the tort liability law of China transfers the burden of proof of the doctor's fault to the affected party basically. Will this aggravate the patient's burden of proof? Will it affect the compensation for the plaintiff's damage? With the advanced experience of foreign countries, we can improve the distribution of the burden of proof responsibility for medical tort in our country, perfect the judicial interpretation, introduce the foreign statement proof system, draw on the foreign favorable experience and improve the distribution of the burden of proof of medical tort in our country, so as to better protect the interests of the patients and promote the healthy and stable development of the medical cause. From the beginning of the promulgation of the general rules of the civil law of People's Republic of China in 1986, this paper studies the relevant legal provisions on the allocation of burden of proof in all legal categories in the case of medical tort liability, and systematically analyzes the significance and defects of the revision of the provisions of the law in the reference to the principle of the distribution of the burden of proof in medical tort liability disputes. On the basis of the case and data, this article combs the legal evolution of the burden of proof of medical tort in our country. By comparing the relevant provisions of the extraterritorial law, drawing on the advanced legal system abroad and putting forward the corresponding suggestions. In the first chapter, the topic of the burden of proof of medical tort is drawn out through the case, pointing out that because of our country's proof of medical tort, the burden of proof is raised. The rocking of the legislative provisions of the distribution of responsibility has caused the result of the judicial practice in the distribution of the burden of proof in the distribution of the "different cases of the same case". The second chapter, through the legal provisions of the legal provisions of the legal provisions of the legal provisions of the burden of proof of medical tort, and specifically elaborate its characteristics, to draw the problems in the horizontal angle. Third chapters, On the basis of the previous chapter, we focus on the analysis of the existing problems in the existing system in China. The fourth chapter introduces the contents of the system of the burden of proof on medical tort by virtue, Japan, the United States and the law, and makes an analysis and comparison of them, so as to make preparations for the next chapter to make suggestions for the system of the burden of proof responsibility for medical tort in our country. The fifth chapter aims at the first four chapters. Suggestions are made on the issue.

【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】