The so-called inversion of the burden of proof refers to a distribution system of the burden of proof, which is based on the law, assuming that the party making the claim (usually the plaintiff) does not bear the burden of proof for some reason, while the other party (usually the defendant) bears the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of a certain fact. If the party cannot prove this, it is presumed that the plaintiff's factual claim is established. In the general rules of evidence, "whoever advocates gives evidence" is the general principle of burden of proof distribution, and the inversion of burden of proof is the exception to this principle.
Legal objectivity:
First, the principle of inversion of burden of proof In the general rules of evidence, "whoever advocates the burden of proof" is the general principle of burden of proof distribution, and inversion of burden of proof is an exception to this principle. Second, the principle of inversion of burden of proof The law stipulates that Article 74 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that in litigation, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. However, in the next infringement lawsuit, if the defendant denies the infringement facts put forward by the plaintiff, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof. These infringement lawsuits include: (1) patent lawsuits caused by product manufacturing method invention patents; (2) Infringement proceedings for damages caused by highly dangerous operations; (3) Litigation for compensation for environmental pollution damage; (four) the building or other facilities, as well as the shelving of the building, the collapse of the hanging objects, and the infringement proceedings that cause damage to people; (5) Infringement proceedings for damage caused by raising animals; (6) Cases in which the defendant bears the burden of proof according to relevant laws. Whether it is judicial interpretation or domestic theoretical interpretation, this provision is regarded as the inversion of the burden of proof. Three. The scope of application of the principle of inversion of burden of proof is applicable to the following situations: (1) tort litigation with presumption of fault. Such as buildings or other facilities, as well as shelving and hanging objects on buildings, which collapse and fall off and cause damage to people; Litigation caused by medical disputes. (2) Tort litigation based on presumption of causality. Infringement litigation such as environmental pollution; Infringement litigation in which unqualified products cause damage to people. (3) Litigation in which it is difficult to collect evidence and proof. Such as patent infringement litigation caused by product manufacturing methods and invention patents, and infringement litigation caused by dangerous behaviors. (4) Litigation in which the other party obstructs the proof. From the above analysis, it can be seen that the inversion of burden of proof does not apply to the tort litigation of damage caused by highly dangerous operations and the tort litigation of damage caused by raising animals. Article 123 of China's General Principles of Civil Law stipulates: "Those who engage in high-altitude, high-pressure, inflammable, explosive, highly toxic, radioactive and high-speed means of transport that are highly dangerous to the surrounding environment and cause damage to others shall bear civil liability; If it can be proved that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim, it will not bear civil liability. " The principle of no-fault applies to the damage caused by highly dangerous operations, and the plaintiff also needs to prove the damage facts, behaviors and causality. There is no object with inverted burden of proof. The defendant proves that the exemption condition is the result of who advocates and who gives evidence. The principle of no-fault is also applicable to the damage caused by raising animals. The plaintiff needs to prove the damage facts, causality and that the animals causing the damage were raised or managed by the defendant. There is also no object with inverted burden of proof. The exemption condition of the defendant's proof is also the result of who advocates who gives evidence, rather than the embodiment of the inversion of the burden of proof.