On The Proof Liability Of The Imputation Element In Injury Payment

In the process of the trial of injury payment cases,the lack of thorough and comprehensive research on the types of injury payment and the principles and causes of liability attribution under each types lead to disputes on the necessity and meaning of the element of liability attribution.Therefore,attribution of the proof liability of the imputation element in injury payment often become the focus.The first part,the types of injury payment and the meanings of the constitutive element of imputation.Injury payment caused by defect of subject matter,simple violation of labor service payment and simple violation of protection obligation are the most common types of injury payment.Its constitutive element of imputation have different meanings under three types.In the first type,as an element of exemption,the imputation is mainly force majeure.In the latter two types,as the constitutive element of liability,the cause of liability attribution is intentional or negligent.The second part,the conclusion of comparative law on the burden of proof of the imputable constituent element.Through the investigation of Germany,Japan and Taiwan,we can see that the attribution of the burden of proof is not uniform in theory.These countries or regions have basically similar three-point system of liability for breach of contract and the principle of liability for fault.However,our country is consistent with the common law system,adopting the monism of liability for breach of contract and the principle of strict liability.However,through comparison,it can be seen that under the two systems of liability for breach of contract and the principle of imputation,the burden of proof of the constituent element tend to be consistent in practice.In addition,they all set up the principle of imputation and the burden of proof basing on the division of the result debt and the mean debt.The third part,the problems and causes of the burden of proof in the constitutive element of imputation in judicial practice in China.In practice,there are some cases in which the contradictory rules of burden of proof are applied to the element of liability for damages caused by defects of the subject matter,the confusion of burden of proof in the element of liability for damages caused by simple violation of the obligation to protect,and the contradictory rules of burden of proof are not distinguished between the result debt and the mean debt.The reasons are that the legal basis is not clear and the theoretical studies are not comprehensive and in-depth.The fourth part,the burden of proof of the constitutive element of liability in three types of injury payment in China.Injury payment due to defects in the subject matter belongs to the result debt.The principle of liability without fault is applicable.After the creditor proves that the performance is incompatible with the purpose of the debt and the damage to the inherent interests caused by it,the debtor can be exempted from liability only if he or she proves that they have force majeure;Injury payment caused by simple violation of labor service payment,it belongs to the mean debt.The principle of liability for fault should be applied.Creditors also need to prove that the debtor has intent or negligence,and the debtor can refute or defend in order to exempt from liability;Injury payment due to simple violation of protection obligation is regarded as the mean debt,and its burden of proof rule is applied.