论交通事故认定书证据效力之评价模式——兼评《民诉法司法解释》第114条  

Study on the Evaluation Mode of Evidentiary Effect in Traffic Accident Report

作　　者：倪培根[1] NI PEIGEN(school of law, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072,Chin)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《西安电子科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第2期97-105,共9页Journal of Xidian University：Social Science Edition

摘　　要：对于交通事故认定书的证据效力,实践中存在自由心证和法定规则两种截然不同的评价模式。在国际法域视野下,此种两可式做法实属孤例,其模糊性特点不仅会损及程序的安定性,而且可能诱发司法的不公正。而如此怪象之所以产生,表层原因是,法官对交通事故认定书的证据属性及其证明评价依据存在分歧;但深层原因在于,人们对自由心证原则与法定证据规则的适用范围并未划分准确。考察大陆法系的立法例及理论可以发现,公文书证的形式证明力确由法定规则加以规定;但其实质证明力则由法院依心证自由裁量。鉴于我国民诉法理论与制度多沿袭大陆法系的传统,作为公文书证的交通事故认定书,也应以此为借镜,从法律、实践两层面重塑其证明力评价模式。There are two distinct modes of evaluating proof effect of traffic accident responsibility confirmation in practice： namely, the discretional evaluation and the legal rules. In the international law, the ambiguous practice is rare seen, it not only damages the stability of the procedure, but also induces injustice of the judicial. The surface reason why this strange phenomenon occurs is that the judges have different understandings about the evidence attribute and proof evaluation evidence of the traffic accident report; but the deeper reason is that the application scope of discretional evaluation and legal rules is inaccurately divided. By investigating the legislative cases and relevant theory of the continental law, we can find that the formal evidence effect of official documents is regulated by legal rules; while it＇s essence evidence effect is evaluated by judges according to the principle of discretion. Most theories and systems in China civil litigation law follow the tradition of continental law. Thus, as an official document, the traffic accident responsibility confirmation shall take this rule as a reference, and reconstruct its probative force mode from the legal level and practical level.

关 键 词：交通事故认定书 自由心证原则 法定证据规则 形式证明力 实质证明力 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]