摘要(Abstract)：
证明妨碍推定作为证明妨碍的制裁措施之一是恢复被证明妨碍行为破坏了的当事人之间的平衡,理解证明妨碍推定的法理基础必须有证明妨碍行为构成与证明妨碍法效果选择之阶段化视野,并结合证明妨碍制度的制度目标。同时应当以阶段化视野以及多元化制裁措施观理解证明妨碍推定的适用条件:证明妨碍推定的适用条件包括一般证明妨碍行为的构成条件和适用证明妨碍推定的特殊的措施条件。
关键词(KeyWords)：
Abstract:
Keywords:
基金项目(Foundation): one phase of China Law Society Program held by the China Law Society(CLS-C1023),entitled On Attending Court as Witnesses;;
the Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Fund Project held by the Ministry of Education(09YJA820043),entitled On the prosecutorial supervision of Civil Enforcement
作者(Author): 赵信会;Ma Jing;
Email:
参考文献(References)：
- 1 Panos v.Timco Engine Center Inc.,677 S.E.2d 868(N.C.Ct.App.2009).
- 2 The spoliation inference is one member of the family of remedy for spoliation of evidence.In both the civil law countries and common law countries,spoliation of evidence covers diversified contents.However,the common law countries have clearer and more definite provisions contained in the judicial precedents.The specific remedies may comprise the lightest sanction of imposing cost to the severest sanctions such as the dismissal of legal action or summary judgment.In some areas the independent tort action of the spoliation of evidence is even permitted.
- 3 David W.Louisell,Construing Rule 301:Instructing the Jury on Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings,63 Virginia Law Review 289-292,281-292(1977).
- 4 Eleanor Swift,One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform:Thayer's Triumph,88(6)California Law Review 2437,2437-2476(2000).
- 5 JIANG SHIMING,THE NEW CIVIL EVIDENCE LAW,at 303-307(Sharing Culture Enterprise Co.Ltd.,2009).
- 6 BI YUQIAN,RESEARCH ON SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL LITIGATION,at 26-28(The Peking University Press,2010).
- 7 DIETER LEIPOLD,THE LITIGANT’S COOPERATION OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UDGEin DIGEST OF GERMAN CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW,at 361(Michael Stürner ed.,and Zhao Xiuju trans.,China University of Political Science and Law Press,2005).
- 8 Li Yongquan,Theoretical Study on Spoliation of Evidence in Civil Litigations,1 Theory and Reform135,135-137(2009).
- 9 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW,at 36(Jiang Wei ed.,Higher Education Press,2007);and Tang Weijian,On the Principle of Good Faith In Civil Litigations,3 The Jurist 92,92-104(2003).
- 10 JACK H FRIEDENTHAL,MARY KAY KANE,ARTHUR R.MILLER,CIVIL PROCEDURE,at 260(West Publishing Co.,2nd Edition,1993).
- 11 Bi Yuqian,Basic Reflection on Courts'Application of the System of Spoliation of Evidence in Paternity Testing in China,9 Application of Law 28,28-33(2010).
- 12 Smith v.Superior Court,198 Cal.Rptr.829,835(Cal.App.2 Dist.1984).
- 13 Drew D.Dropkin,Linking the Culpability and Circumstantial Evidence Requirements for the Spoliation Inference,51(3)Duke Law Journal 1803,1810(2002).
- 14 Jay E.Rivlin,Recognizing an Independent Tort Action Will Spoil a Spoliator's Splendor,26(4)Hofstra Law Review 1003,1003-1031(1998).
- 15 West v.Goodyear Tire&Rubber Co.,167 F.3d.776(2nd.Cir.1999).
- 16 Anderson v.Beatrice Food Co.,900 F.2d 388,395(1st Cir.1990).
- 17 BI YUQIAN,supra note 6;and BAO BINGFENG,THE STUDY ON CIVIL SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE,(Xiamen University Press,2011).
- 18 HUANG GUOCHANG ET AL.,RE-RESEARCH ON THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE in THE SYMPOSIUM OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW,at 220(Taiwan Civil Procedural Law Foundation eds.,San Min Book Co.Ltd.,2006).
- 19 BI YUQIAN,supra note 6;and Shen Guanling,The Application of the Spoliation Evidence Principle in Medical Malpractice Claims,38(1)National Taiwan University Law Journal 168,168-177,(2009).
- 20 BI YUQIAN,supra note 6,270-271.
- 21 TAKAHASHI HIROSHI,CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW:THE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM AND THE THEORY,at 466(Lin Jianfeng trans.,The Law Press,2003).
- 22 Luo Yongjia,The Spoliation of Evidence,2(69)The Taiwan Law Review 12,12(2001).
- 23 Bao Bingfeng,Diversified Application:The Way to Select the Legal Effect of the Spoliation of Evidence,5 The Modern Law Science 85,85-94(2011).
- 24 JIANG SHIMING,supra note 5,300-302.
- 25 Turner v.Public Service Co.of Colorado,563 F.3d 1136.Fair Emple.Prac.Cas.(BNA)113(10th Cir.2009).
- 26 Wrihgt v.VIF/Valentine Faems.Bladg.One.LLC.,308 Ga.APP.436,708 S.E.2d.41(2011).
- 27 Article 65 of theCivil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides many kinds of sanctions imposed on the parties who provide evidence beyond time limit.These sanctions include admonishment,fine,compensation of losses and exclusion of evidence.
- 28 Bensel v.Allied Pilots Ass'n,263 F.R.D.150,187L.R.R.M.(BNA)3203(D.N.J.2009).
- 29 Luna.v.American Airlines,676 F.Supp.2d 192(S.D.N.Y.2009).
- 30 R.L v.Voytac,402 N.J.Super.392,954 A.2d 527(App.Div.2008).
- 31 David P.Leonard,Power and Responsibility in Evidence Law,63 S,Cal.L.Rev.937,938(1990).
- 32 Oliver v.Stimson Lumber Co.,1999 MT 328,297 Mout.336,993 P.2d 11(1999).
- 33 Section 431 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and article 225 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure all impose on the third party a duty to produce documents,namely the way to sanction spoliation of evidence.The case of Oliver(1999)also applies to the spoliation of evidence by the third party.
- 34 HUANG GUOCHANG,supra note 18.
- 35 JIANG SHIMING,THE QUERY TO THE SO-CALLED OPINION THAT‘THE PARTY WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE’in CASE STUDY OF CIVIL EVIDENCE LAW(II)AND COMMENTS UPON CASES,at 149(Taiwan Sharing Culture Enterprise Co.Ltd.,2006).
- 36 HUANG GUOCHANG,THE EXPANSION OF THE THEORIES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,at 265(Taiwan Yuanzhao Co.Ltd,2005).
- 37 Vodusek v.Baylinder Marine Corp.,71 F.3d.148,151(4th Cir.1995).
- 38 Bi Yuqian,A Basic Survey of Systematic Creation of Spoliation of Evidence in Civil Litigation,5Evidence Science,2010,No.5.
- 39 Shen Guanling,The Application of the Spoliation Evidence Principle in Medical Malpractice Claims,38(1)National Taiwan University Law Journal 168,176(2009).
- 40 Shen Guanling,Unknown Statements of the Parties in Civil Litigation,63 Chengchi Law Review 373,373-400(2000).
- 41 JIANG SHIMING,THE NEW CIVIL EVIDENCE LAW,at 292(Taiwan Sharing Culture Enterprise Co.Ltd.,2003).
- 42 Shen Guanling,supra note 19,170,
- 43 HUANG GUOCHANG,supra note 18,299.
- 44 Shen Guanling,supra note 42.
- 45 Village of Poselle v.Common Wealth Edison Co.,368 Ⅲ.App.3d 1097,307 Ill.Dec.1.859N.E.ed 1(2d Dist.2006).
- 46 Rambus Inc.v.Infineon Tech,220 F.R.D.264,281(E.D.Va.2004);N.H.Bearings Inc.v.Jackson,158 N.H.421,428(N.H.Supp.2009);Hirsch v.GM Corp.,266 N.J.Supper.222,250,628 A.2d 1108,1122(1993).
- 47 Daedeen v.Kuehling,821 N.E.2d 227(Ⅲ.2004).
- 48 Luo Yongjia,supra note 22,69.
- 49 JEFFRY M.PIINCUS AND REBECCA DEVLIN,SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE:WHEN IN DOUBT,DO NOT THROW IT OUT,at http://www.lewisjohs.com/pdfs/Spoliation.pdf(Last visited on December 31,2013).
- 50 DAVID A.BINDER AND PAUL BERGMAN,FACT INVESTIGATION FROM HYPOTHESIS TO PROOF,at 6(West Publishing Co.,1984).
- 51 Turner v.Public Service Co.of Colorado.,563 F.3d 1136,106 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas.(BNA).113(10th Cir.2009).
- 52 Bi Yuqian,supra note 38,592.
- 53 Xi Wei and Yu Maoyu,The Evidence Spoliation in The Civil Procedure,3 Hebei Law Science 150,150-153(2007).
- 54 Adorno v.Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,258 F.R.D.217,73 Fed.R.Serv.3d 10(S.D.N.Y.2009).
- 55 Beers v.Bayliner Marine Corp.,675A.2d 829,830-834(Conn.1996).
- 56 Steuhl v.Home Therapy Equipment,Inc.,803 N.Y.S.2d 791(App.Div.3d Dep’t 2005).
- 57 Port Authority Police Asian Jade Soc.of New York&New Jersey Inc.v.Port Authority of New York&New Jersy,601 F.Supp.2d 566(S.D.N.Y.2009).
- 58 Turner v.Public Service Co.of Colorado,supra note 25.
- 59 ZHAO XINHUI,STUDY ON THE CIVIL PRESUMPTION AND ITS APPLICATION MECHANISM,at 38-41(The Law Press,2006).
- 60 Dr.Huang Guochang maintains that relying on the spoliation inference,the trier may make a temporary decision,and the spoliator must provide evidence further to prove the opposite fact;while Prof.Shen Guanling proposes that the legal effect of the spoliation inference is to transfer the burden of proof.
- 61 For example,Roytberg,Roytberg v.Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.andCresthaven Nursing Residence v.Freeman directly hold that spoliation inference is permissive but mandatory.The issue of spoliation inference is not an issue to be decided as a matter of law,and cannot,by its mere existence,be determinative of a claim.See Panos v.Timco Engine Center,Inc.,677 S.E.2d 868(N.C.Ct.App.2009).
- 62 Brown v.Hamid,856 S.W.2d 51(Mo.1993).
- 63 The case of Sweet(1995)holds that the a rebuttable presumption has been created shifting the burden of persuasion to a health care provider who negligently alters or loses medical records relevant to a malpractice claim,and the provider of the health-care must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that there is no negligence,or the negligence does not cause the damage of the patient.
- 64 Lawrence B.Solum and Stephen J.Marzen,Truth and Uncertainty:Legal Control of Destruction of the Evidence,36 Emory Law Journal 1086,(1987).
- 65 Turner v.Houston Transit Lines,Inc.,142 F.R.D.at 77(S.D.N.Y.1991).
- 66 Byrnie v.Town of Cromwell,Bd.of Educ.,243 F.3d 93,15 Ed Law.Rep.776(2d Cir.2001).
- 67 We must note that although no one,based on the rules of thumb——legal basis of the spoliation inference studies the application conditions of the spoliation inference,there has been some scholars who study this subject from the view linking the subjective elements of spoliation inference and the requirement of circumstantial evidence together.Dropkin believes that the culpability and circumstantial evidence requirements should work together to provide adequate assurance that the spoliation inference is an equitable remedy.See Drew D.Dropkin,supra note 13.On the question of applying the spoliation inference,Dr.Huang Guochang was concerned about the materiality of the contents of the evidence in applying spoliation inference,and also affirmed that intentional spoliation of evidence has established a relationship between the spoliation and the contents of the evidence.See HUANG GUOCHANG,supra note 18,219-220.
- 68 Luna v.American Airlines,676 F.Supp.2d 192(S.D.N.Y.2009);Ehrenhans v.Reynolds,965 F.2d 916,921(10th Cir.1992);Sears,Roebuck&Co.v.Midcap,893 A.2d 542(Del.Super.2006).
- 69 Gaffield v.Wal-Mart Stores East.LP.,616 F.Supp.2d 329(N.D.N.Y.2009);Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v.Banc of America Securities,685 F.Supp.2d 456(S.D.N.Y.2010);Eli.Lilly&Co.v.Air Exp.Intern.USA,Inc.,602 F.Supp.2d 1260(S.D.Fla.2009).
- 70 In Re Electric Machinery Enterprise,Inc.,416 B.R.801(Bankr.M.D.Fla.2009).
- 71 R.L.v.Voytac,402 N.J.Supper.392,954 A.2d 527(App.Div.2008);Beers v.Bayliner Marine Corp.,675 A.2d 829,830-834(Conn.1996).
- 72 Luo Yongjia,supra note 22,69.
- 73 Jiang Shiming,supra note 5,309.
- 74 Kevin Jon Heller,The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence,105 Michigan L.Rew.241,265-268(2006).
- 75 TAKAHASHI HIROSHI,supra note 21.449.
