杨 杰

（上海师范大学哲学与法政学院，上海 200030）

【摘 要】南通龙洋金属制品有限公司诉南通市通州区人力资源和社会保障局行政确认案判决中表明， 工伤认定案件中的优势证据标准是行政诉讼案件中优势证据标准的具体化类型之一，所谓优势证据标准， 就是法官经过庭审、质证等方式综合分析比对原被告所提出的证据，判断优势程度的基础上，选择可信 度高的、盖然性、说服力占优势的一方当事人的诉求得以支持的一种证明标准。工伤认定案件中优势证 据标准的适用仅限两个特殊要件：一是特殊身份要件，二是特殊待证事实要件。特殊身份要件指向受伤 职工，在适用优势证据标准的证明过程中，受伤职工为初步举证方，此要件是为了在保证证据证明力的 条件下，最大限度降低受伤职工的证明标准而设立。特殊待证事实要件指向受伤职工就其在工作时间、 工作场所内遭受到事故伤害的事项进行证明。针对受伤职工就工作时间、工作地点提出的证据，只要客 观真实且盖然性高于不在工作时间、工作地点的盖然性，就应当认定职工完成了举证责任，若双方都无 直接证据证明自己的主张，受伤职工应当具有证据优势。该类型判决书对法律的理解，使相关条文更加 具体化，同时也为工伤认定类案件提供了具有一定判例属性的方向。

【关键词】优势证据标准；工伤认定；判决书；特殊身份要件；特殊待证事实要件

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2018）02-0197-12

Studies on the standard of preponderance of evidence for cases involving work-related injury. Yang Jie.School of Philosophy and Law, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200030.

【Abstract】The administrative confirmation decision on the case between Nantong Long Yang Metal Products Co., LTD. and Nantong Tongzhou District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau indicates that the standard of preponderance of evidence applied in work-related injury cases is one of the specific types of the standard of preponderance of evidence in the administrative cases. The preponderance evidence standard is a standard by which the judge conducts a comprehensive analysis through trials and examinations, compares the evidence presented by both parties, and should support claims of the party whose overall evidence presents higher credibility, higher probability and higher persuasion power. The standard of preponderance of evidence in work-related injury cases only applies to two special elements: one is special identity, and the other concerns the special fact to be proved. The special identity element refers to the injured employee. In the process of applying the standard of preponderance of evidence, the injured employee bears the burden of initial proof. This requirement is set up to lower the proof standard for injured employee on the premise of ensuring the probative value of evidence. The special fact element requires the injured employee to prove the injury he or she had suffered during working hours and in the workplace. As long as the evidence provided by the injured employee regarding the working hours and work place is objectively true, and the probability of which is higher than the opposite, then the burden of proof shall be deemed to have completed by the employee. If both parties have no direct evidence to prove their claims, the injured employee’s evidence should have evidential advantages. The understanding of the law stipulated in this type of judgment makes the relevant rules more specific, and at the same time, it also provides direction for cases involving work-related injury.

【Key Words】 Preponderance evidence standard, Work-related injury certification, Judgments, Special identity, Special fact to be proved