证明责任应为一般侵权责任与特殊侵权责任的划分标准  

Burden of Proof as the Standard to Classify General Torts Liability and Special Torts Liability

作　　者：王国征[1] 

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学法学院,湖南湘潭411105

出　　处：《齐鲁学刊》2014年第1期92-97,共6页Qilu Journal

基　　金：国家社科基金后期资助项目"侵权法中证明责任价值取向研究"(13FFX029);山东省社科规划项目"侵权法中证明责任价值取向研究"(09BFXJ11)

摘　　要：以一个因素作为一般侵权责任与特殊侵权责任划分标准的"单纯构成要件说"、"归责原则说"、"一般条款说"和"责任主体说",均存在不足。而无论是非单纯构成要件说,还是多元化标准说,实质上都不过是上述学说中两个或两个以上的相加,其都存在"多标准划分"的逻辑错误。从我国目前情况看,宜以证明责任的特殊性作为划分一般侵权责任与特殊侵权责任的标准,即凡是由权利人对加害行为、损害事实、加害行为与损害事实之间因果关系、加害人过错等侵权责任四个构成要件事实存在承担证明责任的侵权责任,属于一般侵权责任;凡其证明责任与这样证明责任不同的侵权责任,属于特殊侵权责任。To ascertain between general torts liability and special torts liability, all the theories that based their standard on single factor have defects, including ＂simple necessary elements theory＂, ＂principle of attribute liability theory＂, ＂general clause theory＂ and ＂the subject of liability theory＂. Further, both complicated necessary elements theories and multi-factor standard theories are combination of two or more than two of the four above theories, and have the logic error of multiple clas-sification standards. For the current perspective, burden of proof should be the standard to classify general torts liability and special torts liability. Whenever the right holder has to prove the four elements of torts： tort act, damages, causal relation be-tween the act and the damages and the fault on the tortfeasor, the burden is general torts liability; and whenever the burden of proof is different than this, the burden is special torts liability.

关 键 词：一般侵权责任 特殊侵权责任 划分标准 证明责任 

分 类 号：D91[政治法律—法学]