| 摘要註: |
本論文研製之目的在於探討託運人或貨主與運送人在不確定的海上運送風險下，雙方在海事案件裡訴訟程序為舉證責任之分配影響訴訟程序的進行且決定民事訴訟勝負的關鍵。本文以海上運送的件貨運送案件為研究中心，研商在海事案件中更經濟、更有效率的舉證責任之分配，透過各種不同的方式以釐清託運人或貨主與運送人的權利義務以減少雙方的衝突、不一致。首先，必須先區分海事訴訟案件與民事訴訟案件的差異性，才能暸解海事訴訟案件的特性及重點。海事訴訟案件中的海上貨物索賠最大的特色是受國際公約的影響，諸如1924年海牙規則、1968年海牙威士比規則、1978年漢堡規則、2009年簽署的鹿特丹規則等國際公約的拘束，此制度面臨的問題相當複雜，相對於一般的民事案件涉及國際性、專業性、涉外民事、經濟性、海上危險、海上運送等在海事事實證據調查方面也極為困難。 其次，我們要討論民事訴訟法第277條有關一般民事訴訟案件裡，兩造舉證責任之分配原則，雙方可隨時提出對於自己有利的事實與證據。此原則為我國承襲德國傳統民事訴訟案件舉證責任之分配理論。但鑒於現今民事訴訟案件所面臨多元化的情境、證據提供的公平性考量、當代的專業性情勢及民事訴訟舉證責任分配之新修正學說的趨勢，我們必須另外使用舉證責任減輕的理論，如表見證明、法官自由心證原則、證明妨礙及舉證責任之轉換等四項的具體內容，來避免傳統舉證責任分配過僵化、缺乏效率的不公平方法。再者，本文參考海事證據調查方式、海事證據之取得，再以民事訴訟法舉證責任分配理論與舉證責任之減輕方式是否適用於一般海事案件，並以民事訴訟法舉證責任分配之理論及實際案例作檢驗，以論證出海事舉證責任之ㄧ般性原則、順序和檢討。 最後，則探討海上貨物運送案件的表面案件、適航能力、貨物照管、運送人的免責條款使託運人或貨主及運送人在遭遇海上貨物索賠案件發生後，相關的證據舉證及處理方式。除此之外，有關海事件貨運送案件的舉證責任分配法則亦可參考美日海上貨物運送法、海牙、海牙威士比、漢堡規則、鹿特丹規則等國際公約或比較法制的規範。另外再介紹中華人民共和國海商法、海事訴訟特別程式法等規範。至於貨物損害責任基礎、範圍、數額及單位責任限制之舉證亦屬兩造舉證以請求索賠或運送人之責任限制。本文的結論，企圖以民事訴訟法上新修正舉證責任之減輕理論運用海上貨損索賠的舉證責任原則與順序，使William Tetley所提的海事舉證責任分原則更能適合不同的海事案件，希能建立獨立民事訴訟案建立一套合理、公平的海事舉證責任之分配法則。2009年鹿特丹規則在舉證責任方面已統一海牙、海牙威士比、漢堡規則三大國際公約，重新配合修正我國海商法的舉證責任的相關條文才是正本清源的一條路。 A procedure is studying consignors or owner of cargo and carrier face the uncertain risk of cargo transported over sea, who should shoulder the burden of proof in marine cargo in a malpractice lawsuit is the most important factor related to the result of civil litigation. The article focus on carriage of goods by sea case in discussing the rule of allocating of burden of proof have effectively use the less economic cost and fair approach to take all kind of procedure in order to get perfect by clarifying the and obligation between the interests and decreasing the argument. The first, Clarify the different between Marine cargo case and civil case is crucial point to understand why convention indeed affect sea cargo claim in the world. Example for The Hague Rules , The Visby Rules , The Hamburg Rules and The Rotterdam Rules are the point systems that is complex, international , foreign , adventure ,economical, transported over sea, difficult investigation and profession than general civil case. Secondary, we must discuss that our country is in the distribution of the burden of proof of the civil action regulation that the civil procedure tell article 227 of the law exists. It is the principle of the tradition theory of burden of proof from Germany we success. But according to the change of vary condition , fair of providing evidence , model profession and correctly theory in burden of proof., we must use the other the allocating of burden of proof in reduce responsibility to avoid unfairly burden of proof in tradition rule. Thirdly, we refer William Tetley in burden of proof of marine cargo to sum up related law and practice to help consignors or owner of cargo and carrier know the general system for provide evidence, survey evidence and ordering of proof. Finally, we introduce prima facei case, the due diligent ,the care of cargo provision and exceptions clause of a common carrier to help consignors or owner of cargo and carrier how to deal with the cargo and keep related evidence after the cargo claim happened. Besides the maritime Law in Taiwan , throughout the notice of the burden of proof in Carriage of Goods by sea Act in America , Japan and China or convention of The Hague Rules , The Visby Rules , The Hamburg Rules and The Rotterdam Rules , we can compare difference of civil and common law. If responsibility can not avoid by burden of proof , we must studying Unit Limitation of Carrier’s Liability to proof for cargo carrier.The conclusion is that Maritime cargo of burden of proof should further discuss civil procedure law in theory of burden of proof to make reason , fair rule of burden of proof. The best and most easy way to avoid conflict is modify Maritime Law by International Sea Act and the convention of 2009 The Rotterdam Rules compose of The Hague Rules , The Visby Rules , The Hamburg Rules. |