消费者维权案件举证责任倒置制度研究

发布时间：2018-04-08 20:49

本文选题：消费者　切入点：举证责任倒置　出处：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：消费者权益保护方面,我国实体法层面的救济规则已经具备并且渐趋完善,但程序法层面的制度保障却未跟进。我国消费者维权领域面临维权案件多与维权难并存的现状。作为主张方的消费者,依据举证责任分配的一般原则,难以承担过重的举证责任,举证难已成为消费者败诉的主要原因。从保护消费者权益的价值要求和实质公正的价值追求出发,为平衡当事人的举证能力,解决消费者举证难的现状,急需完善消费者维权案件中的举证责任分配制度,通过举证责任倒置制度的设置,对部分消费者难以举证证明的事实由对方当事人以否定的形式予以证明,以平衡举证责任的分担,实现法律的实质公正。消费者维权案件或涉及产品责任纠纷或涉及合同纠纷。消费者维权案件举证责任倒置是相对于"正置"而言的,是以举证责任分配的一般规则为前提条件。纠纷的性质以及归责原则对举证责任的分配起着决定的影响,对于举证责任倒置制度在司法实践中的确定性、稳定性至关重要。然而,在产品责任的立法体系中,对于产品责任与产品瑕疵担保责任未明确界定,以至于对于产品责任的性质存在不同的理解,导致举证责任分配的混乱。立法关于产品责任归责原则的表述过于模糊、笼统,因此在司法实践中往往也产生歧义。在具体的举证责任倒置方面,仅有生产者就产品缺陷的举证责任倒置的规定,对于同样实行严格责任的销售者是否实就产品缺陷实行举证责任倒置未做规定。侵权纠纷中的侵权事实、因果关系是否实行举证责任倒置等立法亦未做特别规定。举证责任倒置主要存在于侵权领域,合同领域鲜有倒置的规定。消费者维权中合同纠纷的举证责任倒置在新修订的《消法》中就部分耐用商品或服务6个月内出现瑕疵的举证责任倒置作了规定。遗憾的是该条规定的举证责任的倒置的适用范围有限,且适用期限仅限于接受商品或者服务之日起6个月内出现瑕疵的情形。由于立法就消费者维权案件的举证责任规定的不明确,以及举证责任倒置规定的不完善,导致司法实践中举证责任分配的随意性倾向,同一类型的消费者维权案件,处理的结果却不相同,违背了"类似案件应作类似处理"的正义原则。反思问题以便于思考消费者维权案件举证责任倒置制度的完善措施。考虑到法律价值对于具体制度具有稳定的指导意义及具体因素对于具体制度的影响,因此从实体法、司法解释、判例、当事人约定几个方面来完善我国消费者维权案件举证倒置制度。首先,以立法的形式规定举证责任倒置的基本规则。产品责任方面,明确产品责任的性质及其举证责任的分担,明确倒置的对象;瑕疵担保责任方面,适当扩大举证倒置规则的适用范围,确定合理的举证倒置规则的适用期限。其次,举证责任倒置规则司法适用要实现规范化。严格限定司法上举证责任倒置的适用条件;灵活运用事实推定。最后,允许当事人对部分事实约定举证责任倒置规则。
[Abstract]:The protection of consumer rights, remedy rules of entity law in our country has the level and gradually perfect, but the system security level of procedural law does not follow up. Our field of consumer rights situation rights cases and rights difficult. At the same time as the main party of consumers, according to the general principle of the allocation of the burden of proof is difficult to bear the heavy burden of proof, the burden of proof is difficult has become the main reason of consumers losing. From the value requirement of protecting the rights and interests of consumers and the value pursuit of substantive justice, to balance the burden of proof, the burden of proof is difficult to solve the current situation of consumers, there is an urgent need to improve the allocation of the burden of proof system in the case of consumer rights, through the institution of the burden of proof is. On the part of the consumer to prove the facts by the other party in the form of a negative proof, to balance the burden of proof, implementation The justice of the law. The case of consumer rights or product liability disputes or contract dispute involving consumer rights cases. The burden of proof is relative to the "positive", is based on the general rules of the allocation of the burden of proof is a prerequisite. Distribution of the nature of the dispute and the imputation principle of the burden of proof plays a decisive influence for sure, in the judicial practice of the institution of the burden of proof of stability is essential. However, the legislative system in product liability, not to define product liability and product warranty liability, so that there are different understanding of the nature of product liability, resulting in the allocation of the burden of proof chaos. Legislation on product liability doctrine expression is too vague and general, so in the judicial practice is often ambiguous. In the burden of proof concrete, only the producers would lack the product The provisions of burden of proof in the strict liability of the seller for the same product defects whether implementation of the burden of proof is not stipulated. The fact of infringement infringement, causality is the reversal of the burden of proof and other legislation without special provisions. Proof responsibility inversion mainly exists in the field of tort, contract hard inverted the burden of proof. Consumer rights in the contract dispute in the newly revised law on the part of < > in durable goods or services occur within 6 months of burden of proof of the defects of the regulations. Unfortunately, the scope of the provisions of the burden of proof of the finite, and the applicable deadline only accept goods or from the date of service defects occurred within 6 months. Because the legislation is the burden of consumer rights cases the provisions of the provisions is not clear, and the burden of proof is not Perfect, resulting in the judicial practice of burden of proof in the random allocation of the tendency of the same type of consumer rights cases, the result is not the same, contrary to the "principle of justice similar cases should make similar processing. In order to reflect the problems about consumer rights cases the burden of proof measures to improve the system. Taking into account the legal value for the system has stable and specific factors guiding significance for the influence of specific system, so from the substantive law, judicial interpretation, judicial precedent, the parties agreed on several aspects to perfect our country consumer rights cases Juzhengdaozhi system. Firstly, the basic rules of burden of proof in the form of legislative provisions. Product liability, clear product liability and the burden of proof, the clear object inverted; warranty liability, the scope and expand the Juzhengdaozhi rules, determine the reasonable The time limit for application of the inversion rule is followed. Secondly, the judicial application of the inversion rule of the burden of proof should be standardized. Strictly limit the applicable conditions for the inversion of the burden of proof in the judiciary, and use the fact presumption flexibly. Finally, allow the parties to agree on the inversion rule of the burden of proof for some facts.

【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.8

【参考文献】