Burden Of Proof In Research In Medical Tort Litigation

Medical disputes have become a hot issue in the society nowadays. The distribution of obligation of proof not only impacts the proceeding, but impacts the behavior and benefits of both doctors and patients in the medical procedure. So how to distribute the obligation of proof in medical disputes reasonably, and to counterpoise the interests of both doctors and patients, and to improve the physician-patient relationship, and to achieve procedural and substantive justice, has become an important problem.Except introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts:The first part makes a retrospective study of the history of the distribution of burden of proof after the foundation of New China. It generalizes the problem of obligation of proof in the process of three phases according to the reform of legislation, analyse and evaluate the conditions of legislation on the distribution of the obligation of proof, and propose some of my opinions.The second part is a summary of the community to prove responsibility inverted controversy on medical tort on the basis of the burden of proof upside down to do dialectical analysis.Proof Inverted on the one hand will help reduce the risk of side of the burden of proof, on the other hand, its drawback is to add to the medical side the burden of proof burden. In the long run, the profit not enough to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the suffering party disadvantages enough to make the medical side to prove the burden of responsibility and the risk of side flat. The burden of proof inversion rule is a good way to balance the burden of proof burden in the field of medical tort litigation does not apply.In part three, based on the features of medical disputes, it illuminates the related theories of the obligation of proof, including ault liability principle,the relationship between presumption and allocation of burden of proof,and the factors affecting the distribution of the obligation of proof in medical disputes. Presumed to have legal effect, transferred the burden of proof to the fact the presumption does not transfer the burden of proof. Influence and support to prove the value of factors in the allocation of responsibilities should be the primary consideration of fairness and justice, and from the evidence of the parties far and wide and litigation efficiency, and, as far as possible, taking into account a variety of value.In part four, It provide some assumptions on how to perfect the distribution of the obligation of proof in our country, through studying the relevant legislation abroad, such as Res Ipsa Loquitur in America,"Prove apparently" in Germany, and "Probably presumption principle" in Japan. General burden of proof allocation, suggested China’s medical tort litigation applicable "who advocate, who is the burden of proof by the suffering party to bear the burden of proof of fault and causation, and a way to ease the burden of proof to be suffering from the side of the table to see proof. This is to ensure the distribution the obligation of proof reasonably, and realizing of substantial justice, settlement of medical disputes, and to build a harmonious relationship between the physician-patient.