如何破解“撞倒”亦或“自摔”的证明难题  

How to Solve the Proof Problem of “Knocking Down or Falling Down”

作　　者：何家弘[1] 张小敏[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学,北京100872

出　　处：《法学杂志》2014年第7期38-48,共11页Law Science Magazine

基　　金：何家弘主持的教育部2010年重大攻关课题"法治国家建设中司法判例制度研究"(项目号:10JZD0030)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：在"南京彭宇案"和"天津许云鹤案"等一系列"扶不扶"案件中,证据是短缺的,争议事实便处于模糊状态。此外,由于证据规则过于抽象,所以司法裁判人员在此类案件中往往会陷入困境,有时甚至会采取依概率按比例确定赔偿的作法。要破解此类证明难题,我们就要进一步明确此类案件中举证责任的分配规则以及相应的认证标准。From 2006＇ s ＂Nanjing Peng Yu case＂ to 2009＇ s ＂Tianjin Xu Yunhe case＂, from 2013＇ s ＂Children of Sichuan Granny blackmail case＂ to 2014＇ s ＂Guangdong man forced to suicide case＂, a series of ＂help or not help＂ events not only break through the people＇ s moral bottom line, but also question the credibility of judiciary and the ability of judges. The judiciary can only get to know the facts of the case occurred in the past through limited evidence, and even in the shortage of evidence, so the fact in the dispute is just like the moon in water with fuzzi- ness. The rules of the law, especially the rules of evidence, are often abstract to certain degree. In other words, the rules are not very detailed and clear. Therefore, ＂how to judge＂ has become a problem for the judges.＇？ facing the problem of ＂knocking down or falling down＂, and some jud- ges would make the decision of compensation based on the probabilities of the event. In order to solve the problem, we need to clarify the rules of allocating the burden of proof and the standards of proof in this kind of cases.

关 键 词：短缺证据 模糊事实 证据规则 举证责任 认证标准 

分 类 号：D920.5[政治法律—法学] D925.1