Advanced

Bevisbördan i mål rörande svåröverskådliga och särskilt komplicerade orsakssamband

Svenn, David LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract
The burden of proof in particularly complex and obscure causation as a rule lies on the plaintiff. In my investigation I have found that the defendant, on rebuttal, bears the burden of proving alleged facts but not the alleged evidence of the facts. Counter arguments must therefore become classified as either contrary evidence, and therefore constitute evidence facts or evidence in rebuttal which thus constitutes the correct facts. Counter-arguments that are to be classified are often of competing causes of injury.

In my legal case review, I have found that the courts had not at one time made it clear how the alleged evidence should be classified. This approach is odd considering that the outcome of the case is decided by whether the... (More)
The burden of proof in particularly complex and obscure causation as a rule lies on the plaintiff. In my investigation I have found that the defendant, on rebuttal, bears the burden of proving alleged facts but not the alleged evidence of the facts. Counter arguments must therefore become classified as either contrary evidence, and therefore constitute evidence facts or evidence in rebuttal which thus constitutes the correct facts. Counter-arguments that are to be classified are often of competing causes of injury.

In my legal case review, I have found that the courts had not at one time made it clear how the alleged evidence should be classified. This approach is odd considering that the outcome of the case is decided by whether the claim should be classified as facts or evidence facts. There is therefore every reason for the court as well as for the parties during the preparation to determine whether the arguments are correct facts or evidence on the facts. It should be noted that there are the parties that determine whether certain facts must be regarded as legal facts or evidence facts.

Burden of proof theories which essentially becomes useful in complex causation is probability theory and the so-called overweight theory. The overweight theory becomes relevant because of the Supreme Court lowering of proof in these cases. Furthermore, the Ekelöf substantive legal theory seems to be necessary in this type of cases. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Bevisbördan vid särskilt komplicerade och svåröverskådliga orsakssamband åligger som huvudregel käranden. I min utredning har jag funnit att svaranden, rörande motargument, bär bevisbördan för anförda rättsfakta men inte för anförda bevisfakta. Motargumenten skall således klassificeras antingen som motsatsbevisning och utgör därmed bevisfakta eller som motbevisning som därmed utgör rättsfakta. Sådana motargument som skall klassificeras utgörs ofta av konkurrerande skadeorsaker.
I min rättsfallsgenomgång har jag funnit att domstolarna inte vid ett enda tillfälle har klargjort hur den åberopade bevisningen skall klassificeras. Detta förfaringssätt är märkligt med tanke på att utgången av målet avgörs av om åberopanden skall klassificeras... (More)
Bevisbördan vid särskilt komplicerade och svåröverskådliga orsakssamband åligger som huvudregel käranden. I min utredning har jag funnit att svaranden, rörande motargument, bär bevisbördan för anförda rättsfakta men inte för anförda bevisfakta. Motargumenten skall således klassificeras antingen som motsatsbevisning och utgör därmed bevisfakta eller som motbevisning som därmed utgör rättsfakta. Sådana motargument som skall klassificeras utgörs ofta av konkurrerande skadeorsaker.
I min rättsfallsgenomgång har jag funnit att domstolarna inte vid ett enda tillfälle har klargjort hur den åberopade bevisningen skall klassificeras. Detta förfaringssätt är märkligt med tanke på att utgången av målet avgörs av om åberopanden skall klassificeras som rättsfakta eller bevisfakta. Det finns därför all anledning, för domstolen såväl som för parterna, att under förberedelsen avgöra huruvida de anförda argumenten utgör rättsfakta eller bevisfakta. Noteras bör att det är parterna som avgör huruvida viss fakta skall betraktas som rättsfakta eller som bevisfakta.
Bevisbördeteorierna som i huvudsak blir användbara vid komplicerade orsakssamband är sannolikhetsteorierna och däribland den s.k. överviktsteorin. Denna blir tillämplig med anledning av att HD sänkt (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Svenn, David LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The burden of proof in cases concerning particularly complex causality
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Bevisbörda Whiplash Nackskada
language
Swedish
id
2365312
date added to LUP
2012-05-29 14:43:39
date last changed
2012-05-29 14:43:39
@misc{2365312,
  abstract     = {The burden of proof in particularly complex and obscure causation as a rule lies on the plaintiff. In my investigation I have found that the defendant, on rebuttal, bears the burden of proving alleged facts but not the alleged evidence of the facts. Counter arguments must therefore become classified as either contrary evidence, and therefore constitute evidence facts or evidence in rebuttal which thus constitutes the correct facts. Counter-arguments that are to be classified are often of competing causes of injury.

In my legal case review, I have found that the courts had not at one time made it clear how the alleged evidence should be classified. This approach is odd considering that the outcome of the case is decided by whether the claim should be classified as facts or evidence facts. There is therefore every reason for the court as well as for the parties during the preparation to determine whether the arguments are correct facts or evidence on the facts. It should be noted that there are the parties that determine whether certain facts must be regarded as legal facts or evidence facts.

Burden of proof theories which essentially becomes useful in complex causation is probability theory and the so-called overweight theory. The overweight theory becomes relevant because of the Supreme Court lowering of proof in these cases. Furthermore, the Ekelöf substantive legal theory seems to be necessary in this type of cases.},
  author       = {Svenn, David},
  keyword      = {Bevisbörda Whiplash Nackskada},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bevisbördan i mål rörande svåröverskådliga och särskilt komplicerade orsakssamband},
  year         = {2012},
}