公害民事責任程序中之舉證責任減輕──評最高法院110年度台上字第50號民事判決

Alleviation of the Onus of Proof in Public Nuisance Civil Cases–Comment on No.50 Civil Judgement (2021) of Supreme Court

公害或大型職災之民事責任程序，被害人主張不同請求權會面臨不同之證明負擔程度，部分請求權之要件事實會造成被害人之證明困難，對此，除立法上可思考無過失責任、危險責任、舉證責任轉換、情報請求權等建制之外，個案處理時，法院自有斟酌事件類型，必要時對於被害人為舉證責任減輕。然而，究竟在何等條件下乃得啟動何等舉證責任減輕，乃實務上應具體說明者。對於舉證責任減輕之運用，宜探求及說明個案所存在之具體不平等或領域及證據之偏在性，採取對稱之減輕方法，始能妥適實踐舉證責任法則之公平指標。

Victims of public nuisance events or serious occupational accidents are faced with different levels of burden of proof when they apply to civil courts for compensation for damages, and some essential legal elements of rights are difficult to prove for the plaintiffs. Hence, apart from contemplating legislative approaches such as setting strict liability, dangerous activities liability, reversing the burden of proof and right to information in civil law, judges can also alleviate the onus of proof on the plaintiff’s side when necessary depending on different situations case by case. At the same time, judges should also explain specifically the reason why they alleviate the burden of proof whenever they do so. Acceptable reasons can be inequality between the parties or difficulty for one party to access evidence, and the way of reducing the burden of proof should correspond to the level of such inequality or difficulty.