legal master

Chapter 22 Questions and Answers on Personal Injury Compensation Disputes (4)
15. In the case of damage caused by animals to humans, who should bear the responsibility for the example?

On April 2006, 4, when Ding passed by the door of Wang's house in the same village, Wang's big black dog barked at him. Li was very angry at being barked by it, so he picked up a brick and threw it at him. The big black dog dodged He opened, and quickly rushed forward and bit Ding's leg and arm.Li was bitten by the dog and rolled all over the ground. Finally, Wang came over after hearing the news and stopped the big black dog. Ding was out of danger, but his legs and arms were injured in many places, and the hospitalization cost more than 5 yuan.After being discharged from the hospital, Ding went to the People's Court to sue Wang, demanding compensation for various losses such as medical expenses.

Analysis according to law
This case is a special tort dispute lawsuit involving damage caused by animals to humans.The general principle of the burden of proof in our country is "whoever advocates shall provide evidence". The defendant did not raise new claims, but only denied the plaintiff's claim, and generally does not bear the burden of proof.However, in tort cases where animals cause damage to humans, the Civil Procedure Law stipulates a special principle of inversion of the burden of proof in order to protect the interests of the injured party. Article 74, Paragraph 5 of the "Civil Procedure Opinion" stipulates: "In the lawsuit, the parties concerned have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. However, in the following infringement lawsuits, if the defendant denies the infringement facts raised by the plaintiff, the defendant shall Responsible for producing evidence: ... (5) Tort litigation for human damage caused by raising animals;..." Article 4, paragraph 5 of the "Regulations on Evidence" stipulates: "... ([-]) Tort litigation for human damage caused by raising animals, the The person or manager bears the burden of proof that the victim is at fault or the third party is at fault;..."

Therefore, in this case, Wang should bear the burden of proof to prove that Ding was bitten due to his own fault. If he cannot prove it, he will be liable for damages.

tips

Now when going to the court to file a lawsuit, the court must send a "Notice of Producing Evidence" to the parties to remind the parties to prepare evidence related to the case. The following is a sample of the "Notice of Producing Evidence" issued by the people's court.

××× People's Court
Notice of Evidence

(××××)×××word No.××

×××:

In accordance with the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions Concerning Evidence in Civil Procedures", the relevant matters concerning the production of evidence are hereby notified as follows:

[-]. The parties concerned shall bear the burden of proof for the facts on which their own claims are based or the facts on which refutation of the other party's claims is based.If a party has no evidence or the evidence presented is insufficient to prove its factual claim, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

[-]. To provide evidence to the people's court, the original or the original thing, or a copy or replica that has been checked by the people's court to be indistinguishable shall be provided.In addition, the submitted evidential materials shall be classified and numbered one by one, the source, object of proof and content of the evidential materials shall be briefly explained, and copies shall be made according to the number of opposing parties.

[-]. An application for identification, addition or modification of claims, or a counterclaim shall be filed before the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence.

[-]. If you apply for a witness to testify, you should file an application with this court [-] days before the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence.

[-]. The application for preservation of evidence should be submitted seven days before the expiration of the period for producing evidence②, and this court may require you to provide corresponding guarantees according to the circumstances.

[-]. After receiving this notice, you may apply to this court for approval after negotiating with the other party to determine the time limit for producing evidence.

If you and the other party fail to reach an agreement, or do not apply for the approval of this court, or this court does not approve it, you should submit evidence to this court by ××××××month××.

30. If it is really difficult for you to submit evidentiary materials within the time limit for producing evidence, you may apply to this court for an extension of the time limit for producing evidence in accordance with Article [-] of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures" No. [-].

40. The evidence submitted by you after the expiry of the time limit for producing evidence does not meet the "new evidence" stipulated in No. stipulations, it shall be deemed that you have waived the right of proof.Except where the other party agrees to cross-examine.

17. If you meet one of the conditions stipulated in Article No. [-] of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures", you may apply in writing to this court for investigation and collection of evidence seven days before the expiration of the period for producing evidence.

Attached:
1. In case of the circumstances specified in Article [-], Article [-], or Article [-] of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions Concerning Evidence in Civil Procedures" (hereinafter referred to as "Evidence Provisions"), the adjudicators may fill in the form according to different case conditions.

2. If the parties may provide evidence formed outside the territory, the judges shall fill in the relevant content in accordance with the provisions of Articles No. 11 and No. 12 of the "Regulations on Evidence".

3. ... (If judges deem it necessary, they may designate the parties to provide evidence related to the case according to the specific circumstances of the case)

××××year××month××day

(Hospital seal)
Description:

This notice applies to the proceedings of the first instance.

When the people's court specifies the time limit for producing evidence, it shall specify the time when the time limit for producing evidence expires.If the party that receives the notice later has a period of less than 30 days for producing evidence, the time limit for producing evidence shall expire on the 31st day since it receives the notice.

Note:
① If the simplified procedure is applicable, the time for the parties to apply may not be subject to the 10-day limit.

② If the simplified procedure is applicable, the time for the parties to apply may not be limited by the 7 purposes.

16. How is the burden of proof allocated in disputes over personal injury caused by highly dangerous operations?

Plaintiff: He Mou.

Defendant: Electric Power Corporation.

At around 2005:6 pm on June 29, 2, the plaintiff He (12 years old) and his companion Xiao Qin (15 years old) went to play under the telephone pole No.He found a bird parked on the top of the telegraph pole, thinking that there must be a bird's nest on the top of the telegraph pole, so he climbed up the telegraph pole to dig out the bird's nest. When he climbed to the top of the telegraph pole, his hand was touched by electricity, and he fell to the ground. on the ground.The plaintiff, He, was immediately sent to the People's Liberation Army 1 Hospital for emergency treatment. He was diagnosed with electrical injuries to both upper limbs and contusion and laceration of the left calf. On July 180, 2005, the left upper limb was amputated.As assessed by the Judicial Technology Appraisal Office of the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court, the plaintiff's injury was classified as a fifth-grade disability.Later, due to a dispute over compensation, the plaintiff brought the defendant Nan'an Electric Power Corporation to court in August 7, and submitted photos of the accident scene, a diagnosis certificate from PLA 20 Hospital, medical bills, transportation bills, and forensic medical appraisal. Evidence such as books.After the Nan'an City People's Court made the first-instance judgment on November 2005, 8, the plaintiff refused to accept it and appealed to the Quanzhou City Intermediate People's Court.The court of second instance made the final judgment on July 180, 2005: the defendant, Nan'an Electric Power Corporation, compensated the plaintiff, He Mou, RMB 11.

Analysis according to law
This case is a dispute over personal injury caused by highly dangerous operations, and the principle of no-fault liability should be applied.The so-called damage caused by highly dangerous operations refers to the compensation liability that the operator should bear when engaging in operations that are highly dangerous to the surrounding environment and cause damage to others.Highly dangerous operation refers to a legal professional expression of dangerous industries. It specifically refers to the fact that under the existing technical conditions, although people manage and operate with an extremely cautious attitude, they still cannot completely control natural forces and certain industries. It is still a dangerous operation that may cause damage to people's life, health and property.It is generally believed that the operator refers to the person who actually controls the object of the dangerous operation and uses the object to seek benefits, including the owner and manager of the object of the highly dangerous operation. Article 123 of the "General Principles of Civil Law" stipulates that those who engage in high-altitude, high-pressure, flammable, explosive, highly toxic, radioactive, high-speed transportation operations that are highly dangerous to the surrounding environment and cause damage to others shall bear civil liability.According to the constituent elements and characteristics of highly dangerous operations, the high-level operations of the electric power company in this case are highly dangerous operations, and the principle of no-fault liability should apply to the consequences of causing damage, that is to say, the victim is Nan'an City. Even if there is no fault in the behavior of the power company, it should bear civil liability according to the law.

From the perspective of exemption conditions, Article 123 of the "General Principles of Civil Law" also stipulates: "If it can be proved that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim, no civil liability shall be borne." Article 2001 of the Interpretation on Some Issues Concerning Compensation for Personal Injury Cases of Electric Shock stipulates this: “If the personal injury caused by high-voltage electricity falls under any of the following circumstances, the owner of the power facility shall not bear civil liability: (1) force majeure; 21) The victim commits suicide or self-injury by electric shock; (3) The victim steals electric energy, steals or destroys power facilities, or causes an electric shock accident due to other criminal acts; Prohibited acts.” From the above laws and judicial interpretations, it can be seen that when highly dangerous operations cause damage to others, the condition for the perpetrator to be exempted from liability is to be able to prove that the damage was caused by force majeure or intentionally caused by the victim. And this is on the perpetrator to bear the burden of proof.

In a tort lawsuit involving personal injury caused by highly dangerous operations, the infringer and the victim bear the burden of proof for their respective claims.The victim's burden of proof includes: (1) Bearing the burden of proof that he suffered damage due to highly dangerous operations.Such as providing the hospital's treatment and diagnosis certificate, witness testimony, photos and videos and other image materials. (2) Prove that the perpetrator has engaged in operations that are highly dangerous to the surrounding environment. (3) Bear the burden of proof for the causal relationship between the fact of its damage and the highly dangerous operation performed by the infringer.The burden of proof for the infringer is: to prove that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim, so as to exempt himself from civil liability.The victim's intention includes direct intention and indirect intention.Direct intent refers to the subjective psychological attitude of the victim who knows that his behavior will cause personal and property damage, and pursues and hopes that such damage will happen, such as suicide or self-injury.Indirect intent refers to the victim’s subjective psychological attitude of knowing that his actions will cause damage to his person and property, but allowing the damage to occur, such as trespassing into a highly dangerous area where people are strictly prohibited, resulting in disability consequences.The plaintiff in this case presented evidence to prove that the operation of the high-voltage wires by the electric power company objectively caused his personal injury, and there was a causal relationship between the two, and his burden of proof has been fulfilled.If the defendant cannot provide evidence to prove that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim He, although the power company operates legally, according to the law, it still has to bear civil liability for the electric shock injury of He and cannot be exempted.

tips

Exemption grounds refer to the grounds that those who fail to perform the obligations stipulated in the contract or the law and cause damage to others are not subject to civil liability according to law.The grounds for exemption are generally stipulated by law, but they can also be agreed upon by the parties on the premise that they do not violate the law and public order.According to the current law and judicial practice, the reasons for exemption include: force majeure, self-defense, emergency avoidance, job authorization, victim's fault, victim's consent, third party's fault, accident, self-help behavior.

17. How to determine the time limit for producing evidence after the simplified procedure is converted to the ordinary procedure?

Plaintiff: Huang.

Defendants: Zheng, Huang Da, Huang Er, Huang San.

The plaintiff, Huang, claimed that he was employed by the defendant Zheng as a quarryman and was injured while loading a truck, so he filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the defendant Zheng be compensated for his economic losses.During the trial, the Municipal People's Court believed that the nature of the legal relationship claimed by the plaintiff was inconsistent with the court's determination based on the facts of the case. After the court exercised the right of interpretation, the plaintiff changed the claim and requested that Huang Da, Huang Er, and Huang San be added as Co-defendant in this case.Accordingly, the court decided to change the case from the original summary procedure to ordinary procedure, and formed a collegial panel according to law, and notified Huang Da, Huang Er, and Huang San to participate in the lawsuit as co-defendants in this case.Since the "Regulations on Evidence" clearly stipulates that if a party changes the claim or the court adds a party, the time limit for producing evidence should be re-designated. In view of the fact that the procedure has been converted and the plaintiff Huang and the defendant Zheng have a 15-day time limit for producing evidence in the summary procedure, the court Therefore, it was decided to give the plaintiff Huang and the defendant Zheng a 15-day time limit for producing evidence, and give the defendants Huang Da, Huang Er, and Huang San a 30-day time limit for producing evidence.

Analysis according to law
The time limit for producing evidence refers to the system that the parties bearing the burden of proof should prove the corresponding evidence they claim within the time limit stipulated by law or specified by the court.The reason why there is a necessity of a time limit system for producing evidence in litigation is determined by the urgency of resolving disputes in real life.The method of resorting to judicial trial means that the parties entrust their disputes to judicial relief.If the judgment cannot be determined in time, it will not only affect the normal economic activities or life order of the parties involved, but also affect the value of litigation itself and the trust and expectation of the public in judicial procedures.This case mainly involves the issue of how to specify the time limit for producing evidence after the summary procedure is converted to the ordinary procedure. To solve this problem, we must involve two aspects: how the court should specify the time limit for producing evidence in the summary procedure and the relationship between the summary procedure and the ordinary procedure.

Article 81 of the "Regulations on Evidence" stipulates that the people's court applies the summary procedure to try a case, and is not subject to Article 32 of this Interpretation (file a written defense within the defense period), Article 33, paragraph 3 (specify the time limit for producing evidence shall not be less than 30 days) ) and the restrictions stipulated in Article 79 (Admission of Evidence in Judgment Documents to Explain Reasons).The Supreme People's Court's "Regulations on (Several Provisions on Civil Procedure Evidence) Document Format (Trial)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Document Format") clearly stipulates the format of the "Notice of Producing Evidence". Those who apply for witnesses to testify in court are not subject to the restriction of 7 or 10 days before the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence, but they must be submitted within the time limit for producing evidence.Since the "Evidence Regulations" does not clearly stipulate the upper and lower limits of the time limit for the production of evidence in cases where the people's courts apply the summary procedure, the courts in various places have different practices on how to determine the time limit for producing evidence in the summary procedure in practice.It ranges from three to five days to more than ten days, but generally it will not exceed 15 days, and in some cases, 15 days are all designated according to the defense period. Article 2003 of the "Several Provisions on the Application of Summary Procedures to Trial Civil Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Summary Procedure Provisions") formulated by the Supreme People's Court on July 7, 4 stipulates: It shall be decided by the parties through negotiation, but the longest period shall not exceed 22 days; if the negotiation fails, the People’s Court shall decide.” Therefore, when the summary procedure is applied to the trial, the maximum time limit for producing evidence determined by the parties through negotiation shall not exceed 15 days, and if it exceeds 15 days, It means that the time limit for producing evidence decided by the parties through negotiation will not be recognized by the people's court.However, the above-mentioned provisions only limit the time limit for producing evidence decided by the parties through negotiation. It is not clear whether the time limit for producing evidence designated by the people's court should not exceed 15 days when the parties fail to negotiate.Combined with the "Regulations on Evidence", the case applicable to the summary procedure is exempt from the restriction that "the defendant shall submit a written defense before the expiration of the defense period...", and Article 15 of the "Provisions on Summary Procedure" "... If the defendant requests a written defense, The people's court shall inform all parties concerned of the time limit for submitting the statement of defense and the specific date of the hearing, and explain to the parties the legal consequences of overdue proof and refusal to appear in court..." We believe that in the summary procedure, the defendant's defense The period is subject to certain restrictions, not necessarily the statutory period of 7 days.As for the length of the time limit for defense and proof, it shall be decided by the people's court according to the specific circumstances of the case.Referring to Article 15 of the "Provisions on Summary Procedures", the limit on the time limit for producing evidence decided by the parties through negotiation, the maximum time limit for the defense and production of evidence designated by the court should not exceed 22 days. This is the purpose to be achieved by applying the summary procedure— Saving judicial resources and litigation costs, and improving litigation efficiency are determined, otherwise, it will violate the original purpose of applying summary procedure.

The "Regulations on Evidence" does not stipulate whether the time limit for producing evidence should be re-specified when the simplified procedure is converted into an ordinary procedure.The reason is that the “Regulations on Evidence” stipulates that the time limit for producing evidence for cases applying ordinary procedures shall not be less than 30 days.The second is to redesignate 30 days.Because the summary procedure and the ordinary procedure are two different procedures for trying cases, and due to the difference in the trial procedure and the organizational form of the trial, after the conversion of the summary procedure violates the ordinary procedure, not all the summary procedures that have been carried out are valid. Therefore, the court After applying the new trial procedure, the time limit for producing evidence should be re-designated in accordance with the provisions of Article 30, paragraph 30 of the "Regulations on Evidence". Once again, take the initiative to redesignate the time limit for producing evidence for the parties; if the evidence provided by the party is not sufficient or the party applies for new evidence, then designate a certain time limit for producing evidence.

(End of this chapter)