legal master

Chapter 19 Questions and Answers on Personal Injury Compensation Disputes (1)
personal injury
Personal Injury Claim Flowchart

1. How to judge whether the plaintiff has sufficient evidence in a personal injury compensation case?

Liu worked as a doorman in the carport of a certain unit.One morning, when He went to the carport to push the cart, he had a dispute and fight with Liu because of trivial matters.At noon the next day, Liu reported that he was dizzy and went to a certain hospital for medical treatment. He underwent head CT, electrocardiogram and B-ultrasound examination, and the diagnosis was: dizziness awaiting investigation.Get better at 5:3 p.m. and go home. Three days later, Liu sued in the District Court on the grounds that He kicked his waist and caused damage, and demanded that He compensate for medical expenses, lost wages, and mental damage, totaling more than 2000 yuan in economic losses.In the lawsuit, He denied the fact that he kicked the plaintiff's waist, and Liu did not submit any medical certificates or prescriptions for his waist injury, but submitted three receipts for his head CT, electrocardiogram, and B-ultrasound examination fee. The payment of 3 yuan and 227 taxi tickets totaled 22 yuan, and He was required to compensate his loss of more than 220 yuan.

After the trial, the court held that there was no legal and factual causal relationship between the plaintiff Liu’s claim for waist injury and the head examination cost evidence submitted, and the plaintiff Liu did not submit evidence to the court to prove the relevant factual evidence and related expenses of the waist injury. evidence, the court made a judgment in accordance with the law: dismissed the plaintiff Liu's claim.

Analysis according to law
According to the Civil Procedure Law and the Civil Evidence Rules, the parties should provide relevant evidence to prove their claims, otherwise they will bear legal consequences that are unfavorable to themselves.

A personal injury compensation case is a case in which one party commits an illegal act that causes personal injury to the other party, and the victim files a lawsuit in the people's court for compensation for the damage caused by the illegal act.The plaintiff instituting such an action shall provide the following evidence to the court:

1. Evidence that there is a causal relationship between the plaintiff's damage and the defendant's illegal infringement, that is, the evidence of when, where, why, what illegal act the defendant committed, and what consequences it caused to the plaintiff.

2. Provide the hospital's medical certificate, medical record card, and medical receipts for the injury, including medical expenses, treatment expenses, laboratory expenses, etc. If you are disabled, you must also have an appraisal certificate.If transferred to another hospital for treatment, the hospital should provide proof that the hospital agrees to the transfer or indeed needs to be transferred.

3. If you want to pay for nursing expenses and nutrition expenses, you should provide a certificate issued by the attending doctor for the approval of special nursing care and the need to supplement nutrition.

4. In case of compensation for lost wages, the certificate issued by the unit where the employee works shall be issued for the actual loss of income (including reduced wages, bonuses, etc.) due to lost wages. If there is no fixed income, it shall be calculated according to the standards stipulated by the state.

5. Compensation for transportation expenses and accommodation expenses shall provide bus tickets, train tickets, ship tickets, air tickets, and invoices for accommodation expenses. Taxi fares are generally not compensated.

6. Other required proofs and evidence

The defendant mainly provided evidence to refute the facts and reasons of the plaintiff.

tips

When litigating a lawsuit, the parties must focus on their own claims, submit relevant conclusive evidence to the people's court to prove them, and establish the legal facts necessary for the litigation claims on the basis of sufficient conclusive evidence.

2. What is the inversion of the burden of proof in civil litigation?

Plaintiff: Mr. Zheng.

Defendant: Zheng Da.

At 2006 a.m. on July 7, 13, the plaintiff, Mr. Zheng, was bitten on the thigh by a dog raised by the neighbor Mr. Zheng at the door of his house. The plaintiff was immediately sent to the hospital for 8 days of hospitalization, and then injected "mad dog serum" at the city epidemic prevention station. ".On the 2th of the same month, the plaintiff went to the Provincial Epidemic Prevention Station for 20 days of hospitalization.The plaintiff provided the following evidence to prove it: (15) The plaintiff’s report to the police station, proving the fact that the plaintiff was bitten by a dog raised by Zheng Da on his thigh and reported the case to the public security organ on the same day; (1) The disease certificate issued by the hospital, Prove that the plaintiff’s thigh was bitten by a dog; (2) audio-visual materials (3 photos), proving the location of the plaintiff’s thigh being bitten by a dog; (3) A disease certificate from a hospital, proving that the plaintiff’s thigh was bitten by a dog The fact that the plaintiff went to the hospital for further treatment due to left knee infection and soft tissue injury; (4) The disease certificate from the Provincial Epidemic Prevention Station, proving the fact that the plaintiff went to the hospital for treatment because of being bitten by a dog on his thigh; (5) Invoice for medical expenses , to prove the fact that the plaintiff went to a certain hospital to continue treatment and spent medical expenses.During the trial, the defendant Zheng Da admitted that his dog bit the plaintiff's thigh, and had paid RMB 6 for medical expenses, RMB 3099.50 for nutrition, RMB 468 for transportation, RMB 1578 for accommodation, and RMB 1320 for loss of work. RMB 1560.According to the plaintiff's application, on August 8025.50, 2006, a county people's court entrusted the Municipal Intermediate People's Court to appraise the plaintiff's disability.The intermediate court made an appraisal conclusion on the 8th of the same month, confirming that the plaintiff's current situation was not enough for disability evaluation, but the corresponding medical expenses should be compensated.

Analysis according to law
This case is a dispute over compensation for human damage caused by raising animals, and the tort litigation for human damage caused by raising animals implements the principle of presumption of fault in special tort liability.

Due to the continuous development of society and the advancement of science and technology, damages for various accidents continue to occur, and new types of dangerous accidents are increasing. Victims often encounter difficulties in proving evidence in litigation.This is because the causes of dangerous accidents are very complex and highly technical, and the victim is often in a state of no evidence during the occurrence, while the perpetrator is often in the position of holding or monopolizing the main evidence of the case.In this case, it is difficult to provide sufficient relief for the rights of the parties if the principle of fault liability in traditional tort law and the principle of the burden of proof of "the one who claims must provide proof" are followed.Therefore, the inversion of the burden of proof is the need for the law to adapt to the development of modern society, and it is the result of a reasonable balance between the interests of the weak and the strong. It has a positive effect on the correct allocation of the burden of proof in judicial practice.

Article 4 of the "Regulations on Evidence" is about the implementation of the inversion of the burden of proof in litigation, and a total of 8 types of litigation are stipulated.Item ([-]) of this article stipulates that "in a tort lawsuit for damage caused by raising animals, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the burden of proof that the victim is at fault or the third party is at fault."This case is a tort lawsuit for human damage caused by raising animals, but the plaintiff in this case requires the defendant to compensate its economic losses, and must provide corresponding evidence to prove the damage facts, illegal acts, and causal relationship. Provide corresponding evidence to prove the cause of defense such as causing or the fault of a third party.

Article 4 of the "Regulations on Evidence" stipulates the burden of proof for eight types of infringement lawsuits by way of enumeration. Its original intention is to stipulate the inversion of the burden of proof.This provision provides for each type of lawsuit one by one, and clearly stipulates that the burden of proof shall be reversed for right and wrong and causation.In particular, the provisions on the inversion of the burden of proof for joint dangerous behavior and medical negligence behavior analysis lawsuits have been newly added, that is, the person who commits the dangerous behavior shall bear the burden of proof that there is no causal relationship between his behavior and the damage result, and the medical institution shall bear the burden of proof. There is no causal relationship between medical behavior and damage results, and there is no medical fault, and the burden of proof is assumed.This provision has positive significance for the correct distribution of the burden of proof in trial practice.

tips

In order to prevent problems such as loss of evidence after the parties submit evidence to the court, the court should issue evidence receipts to the parties when receiving the evidence submitted by the parties. The following is a sample of such evidence receipts.

evidence receipt
(××××)×××word No.××

Today I received the evidence submitted by ××× (the name of the party who submitted the evidence)... (You can fill in the name of the evidence for a single evidence. If there are more evidences, it can be expressed as "see the appendix") in XX copies.

Recipient: ×××
××x×year××month××day

appendix:

Serial number, name of evidence, number of copies, number of pages, original/duplicate, proof purpose remarks

3. How is preponderance of evidence used in personal injury cases?

In the afternoon of a certain day in 2006, a dog ran into the workshop of a certain factory and bit Qin, who was working.When the incident happened, the workers in the factory and the surrounding people beat the dog to death, kept the dog's body at the scene of the incident, and then reported the case to the police station.On the same day, because the owner of the dog was unknown, the police station took photos of the dog's body for record and buried it deeply.Because the dog raised by a family in Jin has the same characteristics as the dog that caused the accident, and it was lost before the accident.Therefore, Qin sued to the court and asked Jin to compensate him for the losses caused by the dog bite.During the trial, Qin provided several testimonies of witnesses. Some witnesses at the scene proved that the dog involved in the accident had the same characteristics as the dog raised by Jin’s family. Only the fact that Jin kept a dog.Jin believes that the dog he raised did not bite anyone, nor was he killed, and he returned home by himself six months after he left.In order to prove his claim, Jin also provided the court with the testimonies of witnesses Chen and Yuan (relatives of Jin).

The court held that Qin was more likely to be bitten by a dog raised by Jin than any other foreign dog.Accordingly, the court supported Qin's claim.

Analysis according to law
In this case, both parties have evidence, and it is difficult to judge the authenticity of the testimony of both witnesses. So how does the court determine the facts of the case at this time and make a judgment?This involves the standard of proof.The standard of proof refers to the degree to be achieved by using evidence to prove the facts of the case stipulated by law.After the standard of proof is established, once the probative force of the evidence reaches this standard, the fact to be proved is considered to have been proved, and the judge should confirm the fact as the basis for the decision. Article 73 of the "Regulations on Evidence" stipulates: "Where both parties present contrary evidence on the same fact, but neither party has sufficient grounds to deny the other party's evidence, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the case, judge whether the probative force of the evidence provided by one party is obviously greater than that of the other party's evidence. The other party provides the probative force of the evidence and confirms the evidence with greater probative force. If the probative force of the evidence cannot be judged and the disputed facts are difficult to ascertain, the people's court shall make a judgment according to the rules for the distribution of the burden of proof." This judicial interpretation The standard of proof in civil litigation shall be regarded as "clearly preponderant evidence".In layman's terms, the fact proved by the evidence provided by one party is much more likely to happen than the other party, and this fact can be legally confirmed.

The witness testimony provided by Qin in this case proves that the dog raised by Jin has the same characteristics as the dog that caused the accident, and that only Jin’s family kept a dog near the accident site and was “unaccounted for” at the time of the incident.The two witnesses of Jin are both relatives of Jin and have an interest in Jin. Very unlikely to go home.At the same time, dogs of this breed are not rare or precious, and the testimonies of the two witnesses still cannot prove that the dog of the same breed that appeared nearly 6 months later was the dog originally raised by Mr. Jin.Based on this, we can think that the possibility of Qin being bitten by a dog raised by Jin is much greater than that of other foreign dogs. The standard of proof can confirm the fact that Qin was bitten by a dog raised by Jin.Therefore, it is correct for the court to judge Jin to compensate for the loss.

tips

The rule of preponderance of evidence means that in order to prove a certain fact, the judge weighs the evidence provided by both parties, determines which party is more convincing or has obviously higher reliability, and supports the evidence of the party whose evidence is superior.The application of this rule is conducive to solving difficult and complicated cases where the evidence conflicts between the two parties are relatively large.

4. In the case of damage caused by animals, how to determine the manager and breeder of the animals?

One day, Liu was driving his colleague Cheng to work on a motorcycle. When he was passing near Factory A, he collided with a wolf dog that had entered the section of the road, causing Liu and Cheng to fall to the ground and be injured.After the incident, the wolfhound escaped.Liu's heir filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding compensation from Factory A.

In the lawsuit, the evidence provided by the plaintiff: (1) Cheng, one of the parties involved in the accident, testified that when the accident happened, the wolf dog ran out of Factory A and collided with the car; (2) three uninterested witnesses reported that Before the incident, there were wolf dogs in factory A, but after the incident, the wolf dogs disappeared.Evidence provided by the defendant: (1) After the incident, the public security organ searched Factory A, but no wolf dog was found; (2) An employee of Factory A and a relative of the legal representative reported that the factory had I have raised wolf dogs, but they have already been taken away. The wolf dogs involved in the accident were not raised by Factory A.

The court believed that the probative force provided by the plaintiff was obviously greater than that of the evidence provided by the defendant, confirmed the evidence provided by the plaintiff, and deduced that the wolf dog that collided with Liu was a wolf dog from Factory A.Factory A's poor management of its wolf dogs caused the wolf dogs to run into the road and collide with the motorcycle driven by Liu, which was the main cause of the accident.Factory A, the breeder of the wolfdog, should bear the main civil liability.

Analysis according to law
This is a case of damage caused by animals. The focus of the trial is how to identify the manager and breeder of the wolf dog, which is also a difficult problem in the trial.This involves the application of the rule of fact presumption and the related issues of the parties' burden of proof.This is analyzed as follows.

Presumption is a certain assumption that another related fact exists based on an existing fact. It is a logical proof method to infer unknown facts according to the rules of logical reasoning.One of the existing facts is called the basic fact, and the other fact is called the presumed fact.Continental law countries often adopt a dichotomous approach to the classification of presumptions, that is, they are divided into legal presumptions and de facto presumptions.It can be divided into definite presumption and false presumption.The latter is made by judges based on theoretically presumed principles and daily experience rules, because the basic facts shown by common sense and experience usually coexist with the facts to be proved, that is, there is a normal relationship between things.This factual presumption is a false presumption, which can be overthrown by rebuttals by both parties.The biggest difference between the two is that the presumption of fact is not based on the clear provisions of the law, but based on the rules of daily experience.What is to be studied and applied in this case is the rule of presumption of fact.

Presumption of fact is of great significance for improving the efficiency of litigation and correctly sharing the burden of proof, which is the requirement of the essential rules of litigation.First, the burden of proof can be allocated reasonably among the parties.Second, reduce unnecessary proof and realize the economic value of litigation.Third, since the court cannot refuse a judgment, the application of presumption of fact can avoid the procedural deadlock caused by the inability to obtain legally qualified evidence for some presumed facts.However, the presumption of fact is a probabilistic inference after all, which may be in danger of being abused, so the application and conditions must be strictly limited.These conditions should include: (1) There is no other way of proving that the basic facts can be proved to be true.The basic fact should be the fact that the court ruled that the probability prevails in accordance with the rules of evidence.As for the basic facts, in addition to the knowledge in the trial, the notarized facts, the facts identified in the litigation documents, and the other party’s approval, the claimant needs to provide sufficient evidence to make the judge believe in its existence. (2) There is a certain causal relationship between the presumed facts and the basic facts.This causal connection is in line with everyday rules of thumb, and the existence of presumed facts is highly probable. (3) The other party is allowed to raise rebuttals. In the presumption of fact, the parties can raise rebuttals on the authenticity of the basic facts and presumed facts, and can also raise rebuttals to the inference process of the judge applying empirical rules.

The factual presumption is a logical deductive inference, and if there is no contrary evidence and inference, the authenticity of the presumed fact can generally be confirmed.The process by which the court applies the presumption of fact affects the distribution of the burden of proof.First, the application of presumption of fact does not exempt the claimant from the burden of proof of the basic facts.If the parties want the court to presume facts to prove the facts to be proved, they must complete the burden of proof of the basic facts, convince the judge and make them form a highly probable evidence of the authenticity of the basic facts.Then, on the basis of basic facts, judges use free evidence and rules of experience to believe that the possibility of the existence of the presumed fact is greater than the possibility of non-existence.Third, the rebuttals raised by the other party include direct rebuttals and indirect rebuttals. Direct rebuttals refer to the production of evidence that makes the judge have reasonable doubts about the existence of presumed facts and shakes the formed evidence. The application of the rule of thumb invalidates the presumption.Indirect rebuttal refers to the production of evidence to refute the basic facts, so that the judge can weigh the evidence provided by both parties and confirm that the party with the advantage of probabilistic evidence wins the lawsuit.To sum up, it can be seen that the party claiming the presumed facts always bears the burden of proof for the authenticity of the basic facts; after the presumption is applied, the other party must present contrary evidence and inferences in order to refute the presumed facts. Article 75 of the "Civil Proceedings Opinion" stipulates that the party involved in "another fact that can be inferred from legal provisions or known facts" does not need to provide evidence. Article 9 of the "Regulations on Evidence" again stipulates.It can be seen that the application of presumption of fact exempts the party claiming the presumption from the burden of proof, and transfers the burden of proof of the party to the presumption of fact.

(End of this chapter)