Putting to the proof should not contain two responsibility important documents to invert at the same time

Putting to the proof should not contain two responsibility important documents to invert at the same time
After Hu XiaoXiang inverts the burden of proof from the medical dispute lawsuit of 2002, the content was legal and the rational legal principle disputing, have never stopped. According to " provision on several regulations of the civil Evidence in Litigation " and item 8 of the first paragraph of article 4 of the Supreme People's Court, in the lawsuit of infringing of medical treatment, the medical organization proves that " it is and unerring to be engaged in the behavioral course of medical treatment " only at the same time Sum " damages the result and is not made of hospital " Two responsibility important documents, can form and exempt the condition of the responsibility. I thought, the requirement that the burden of proof was inverted like this of the medical dispute lawsuit, neither have legitimacy, nor have rationality. First of all, according to the regulation of article 8 of our country " legislative law ", the assigned rule of burden of proof of the civil disputation, especially the question inverted to the burden of proof, belong to the content of the civil basic system, can only be stipulated by the law. A special treatment way in the rule that it is assigned that it is the burden of proof that the burden of proof is inverted, the exception to the general principle of the burden of proof stipulate and essential supplement, there must be clear legal provisions to begin to be applicable to, and can't expand arbitrarily applicably. In the first section in article 4 of " several regulations about the civil Evidence in Litigation of the Supreme People's Court ", the contents of the first 7 items can all basically find the corresponding basis from laws and regulations such as " patent law ", " general rule of the civil law ", " law on product quality " of our country,etc., only the content of item 8 of its does not have any legislative authority, and obviously a different one is with the first seven regulations, item 8 regualations medical organization on " Causality " With " subjective fault " Two responsibility important documents invert the burden of proof at the same time. I think, the forms of distribution of such burden of proof, one's own legitimacy and rationality, need deep carrying on research. Secondly, judicial explanation any want, follow legal principle, can't surmount limits of functions and powers revise, alter legal content of clause and make " go beyond one's commission to explain " ,Let alone break away from the regulation of the law, formulate new legal norm. I think, am similar to an intact " evidence act " " the Supreme People's Court is about several regulations of the civil Evidence in Litigation " ,This allows file content of the legislation to obviously go beyond " Explain " Range. Because this regulation has no basis of jurisprudence, if carry out strictly applicably, must lead to the fact the situations of some paradoxes appear. Appear patient go on the intersection of penicillin and skin die after trying on according to routine on being clinical, or it is negative to inject incident that die behind the medicine for cover to try on, medical behavior difficult damage consequence of Fan objectively. On the surface, there is causality between behavior and damage consequence in the making a diagnosis of this kind of incident, but there is no fault in medical treatment of the hospital. To this kind of dispute, only medical worker's operation regulation, the hospital should avoid the responsibility to pay attention to. But according to " Several regulations " Put to the proof require,hospital must commitments compensation responsibility. And for example, present " deafness " after using medicine as to more infant and pre-school children who see Disputes medical,for congenital factor, or medicine result disabling in that infant on earth, should be concrete the case is made a concrete analysis of. But invert the requirement according to the burden of proof stipulated in judicial explanation, the hospital will undoubtedly bear the responsibility for compensation without exception because of can't put to the proofing. I think, " several regulations " which the Supreme People's Court puts out ,The ones that require the medical organization to seek medical advice and treat the dispute " Causality " With " subjective fault " Two the intersection of responsibility and important document carry on regulation that burden of proof invert at the same time, it is legal construction that should put forth effort place of the reform in the process. After all, there is very great uncertainty in the participation factor of disease in the medical dispute.

|