Research On The Definition Of Civil Judicial Expertise Scope

With the development of society and scientific progress,while the productivity has been greatly improved and the quality of life has been greatly improved,the focus of disputes and litigation disputes have become more diverse,complicated and specialized,and more and more cases There are many specialized issues in it.For judges who are only legal experts,it is naturally impossible to judge them,because the premise of judging a question is to know it.Therefore,in this case,the judge can only resort to experts with professional theories,techniques,and experience,and rely on their answers and interpretations,the official can make a final judgment on the facts of the case.This is the origin of the judicial identification system.Forensic appraisal did indeed play a huge value in the trial of civil cases at first.However,with the irregular internal operation of the appraisal and the attitude of judges who are extremely dependent on appraisal,many problems have arisen in appraisal cases.On the one hand,from the perspective of the appraiser,taking medical infringement cases as an example,the medical damage appraisal system is currently It is still a dual system,in which forensic appraisal often requires judgments on the faults of the doctor’s diagnosis and treatment and its causal relationship with the consequences of damage to the patient,and this causal appraisal has certain specific numerical expressions to confuse facts and causes.Problems of relationship and legal causality.In addition,in other types of cases,appraisal also appears to make value judgments and directly determine the legal facts of the case.On the other hand,from the perspective of the judge,the judge’s treatment of the irregularity of the appraisal also passively expands the scope of appraisal: one is that the judge has appraisal dependence,the other is the formalization of the review of the appraisal evidence,and the third is that the trial results rely heavily on the appraisal evidence.As a result,the relationship between appraisal and trial in judicial practice has become more and more delicate,and the boundaries between the two have become extremely confused.In this context,it is necessary to explore the relationship between appraisal and trial and how to determine the scope of civil judicial appraisal objects.The existing appraisal rules in China and the status of academic research are reviewed to explain the necessity of the research in this paper.On the one hand,the lack of appraisal rules leads to the expansion of appraisal authority,and the overlap of some appraisal standards and judges’ authority reflects the deficiencies of China’s existing appraisal norms.Secondly,the lack of pertinence and systematicness of theexisting scientific research also indicates the feasibility of the secondary research.The identification of chaos in practice and the ability of scientific research to make up for the defects of rules require in-depth theoretical and research research.In order to clarify the scope of identification,it is a reliable way to analyze from the perspective of comparative law and basic theory.First,at the comparative law level,the scientific research on appraisal in Germany and Japan can inspire China’s clear role in appraisal.Secondly,from the theoretical level,appraisal is both scientific and legal.Appraisal is based on the need to provide judges with special rules of thumb to help judges determine the facts of the case.As the carrier of special rules of thumb,appraisal evidence continues to play a role in the litigation stage.Analyzing its litigation effectiveness can clearly analyze its effect on the judge’s determination of the facts of the case.However,the special rule of thumb has its unique attributes:coexistence,subjectivity and objectivity coexist,and infinity and finiteness coexist.This can also be called a limitation because it is precisely because of these attributes that judges need to apply free testimony to them,and are not necessarily bound by this rule of thumb.Finally,in view of the improper expansion of the scope of evaluation,I propose from two perspectives: On the one hand,the specific methods for defining the scope of the appraisal are set out from a static perspective.First,because appraisers and appraisal opinions are the two most important elements in the entire appraisal activity,the reason why judicial appraisal has repeatedly exceeded the authority and leads to the expansion of the appraisal scope and appraiser 2.The improper understanding of the legal positioning of appraisal opinions is related,so it is necessary to properly position appraisers and appraisal opinions.Second,the classification of positive identification appraisal objects helps to determine which belong to the range of appraisal objects.The reverse interpretation appraisal does not have the right to determine which judges do not belong to the appraisal range.With reference to Japanese and German scholars,it is clear that the classification of China’s judicial appraisal objects is Positive definition.On the other hand,to provide safeguards from the perspective of judicial dynamics: strengthen the judge’s supervision of the appraisal process,increase the strength of expert assistants to participate in forensic cases,and make them“expert advisers”for judges.2.To strengthen the reasoning of the adjudication documents and the disclosure of the testimony of appraisal evidence,as well as the promotion and transformation of the trial experience of prosecution-related cases,are all from the perspective of the judge to enhance theirability to review appraisal evidence to ensure that the appraisal is still in the process of judicial dynamics.Maintaining their duties will not lead to "passive expansion of the scope of forensic experts" due to irregularities in the conduct of judges.