Medical Damage Liability Causal Relationship Proof

In the establishment of tort liability,causal elements have been discussed by scholars as abstract concepts,from objectivism to subjectivism,and the application of "predictability" theory and "theory of causal relationship" and "doctrine of purpose of law".All around the "last concept of the criteria to determine the" do a clear explanation.In judicial practice,involving the establishment of medical damage liability to determine the need for expert responsibility to make the causal relationship between the proof of the matter to become the focus and difficulties.Based on the particularity of the legal relationship of medical liability,it is suggested that the method of quantifying the degree of damage caused by different types of medical personnel in the "typical medical malpractice" of medical staff of different titles will help judge the judgment of causality,and Quantify the concept of causal abstraction.In this paper,through the case of three typical medical damage disputes in judicial practice,this paper puts forward some questions about the inconsistency and ambiguity of the standard of proof of causality of medical liability.In view of the proposed legal problems,mainly in the text of the second chapter and the third chapter of the two parts of the study.The first part mainly discusses the relevant legal norms and legal knowledge of the proof of causality of medical damage liability,and then sums up the reason why the standard of medical responsibility of causation is not unified in the practice because the existing legal norms are not comprehensive and the theoretical doctrine is The relationship requirement proves the lack of research.The second part mainly deals with the proof of the causal relationship of medical liability.This part revolves around the analysis of the theoretical basis of the proof of causation and the specific proof of causality relationship proposed in this paper,so as to solve the problem that the standard of causality of medical liability is not unified and ambiguous.