规范说与侵权责任法第79条的适用——与袁中华博士商榷

规范说与侵权责任法第79条的适用——与袁中华博士商榷

Norm Theory and Application of Article 79 of the Chinese Tort Liability Law

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：吴泽勇
    单位：河南大学法学院
    中文关键词：证明责任;规范说;侵权责任法第79条;文义解释;再抗辩
    英文关键词：burden of proof;norm theory;Article 79 of Tort Liability Law;literal interpretation;counter defense
    中文摘要：
    通过检索民事诉讼法学相关理论，考察法院适用侵权责任法第78条、第79条的裁判文书，侵权责任法第79条不存在所谓的“证明责任问题”，也不会因为该问题而被搁置。作为证明责任分配理论通说的规范说，并不排斥文义解释之外的其他解释方法。“请求原因、抗辩、再抗辩”的解释方法与规范说并不矛盾。侵权责任法第79条在司法适用中的确存在一定程度的功能落空，但原因不是立法存在缺陷，也不是传统证明责任分配理论失灵，而是法官没有透过法条的文义和构造，发现正确的法条适用和证明责任分配方案。不是规范说出了问题，而是没有妥善运用规范说导致了问题。
    英文摘要：
    Through the examination of civil procedure theories and court decisions that apply articles 78 and 79 of the Tort Liability Law, this article comes to the following three conclusions. Firstly, there is no "defect in allocation of burden of proof", as claimed by Dr. Yuan Zhonghua, in Article 79 of Tort Liability Law. Therefore the application of Article 79 would not be obstructed by the so-claimed defect. Secondly, the norm theory, which is the conventional theory of "burden of proof", does not reject interpretative approaches other than literal interpretation. Thirdly, "the cause of action-defense-counter defense" interpretative approach is not in conflict with the norm theory. On the contrary, it is Dr. Yuan's proposal of burden of proof that runs counter to the legislative purpose of Article 79. The reason that the application of Article 79 in court cases sometimes fails to achieve the goal set forth by the legislator is neither a defect in the legislation, nor the failure of conventional burden of proof theory, but rather the failure by the judges to thoroughly understand the text and structure of the legislation and to find the proper allocation of burden of proof and the right sequence to apply the clauses. It is the incorrect application of norm theory, rather than the failure of the norm theory, that leads to the problem.
    全文阅读：  点击下载