Experience rate
Experience sets are a basis for indirect evidence in court and administrative proceedings . They allow the conclusion of a (m) or more proven facts ( evidence ) to a still proving facts . Sentences of experience can come from general life experience , but also from the wealth of experience of experts .
General
"Experience sentences are the rules obtained on the basis of general life experience or scientific knowledge , which do not allow any exception and which have a probability bordering on certainty as their content". The application of the experience of life is a task tatrichterlicher appraisal which no legal control of the Court of Appeals subject. However, findings of fact that are obviously contrary to experience need to be checked in the revision procedure based on life experience.
Deterministic and statistical empirical theorems
Theories of experience can be of a deterministic or statistical nature.
One speaks of a deterministic empirical principle if it applies to all expected cases and thus allows a clear statement, such as the experience that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius to zero normal altitude ( law of nature ). But a deterministic empirical proposition can also be faulty; it is then refuted by the evidence of a single occurrence contrary to it. Undisputed over a long period of time, however, deterministic empirical statements can help us to come to very reliable conclusions.
Statistical empirical records, on the other hand, do not make a clear statement about all expected cases, but only about the statistical distribution of events observed in the past. For example, there is a statistical empirical theorem, which comes from general life experience, that a driver who gets his car on the sidewalk is mostly at fault. But there are undoubtedly also cases in which there is no fault, for example in the event of a sudden loss of consciousness. Conclusions based on statistical empirical sets are therefore subject to an uncertainty which is also expressed in the empirical set .
The induction problem
When viewed closely, empirical statements only make statements about known facts. Conclusions based on empirical statements about unknown facts ( induction conclusions ) are actually not permissible, because an unknown individual event can always run counter to previous experiences ( more on the induction problem ).
The fact that induction conclusions are nevertheless used in the demonstration is due to the fact that direct evidence for the course of events is often not possible and insisting on it often led to lack of evidence.
The induction problem, however, leads to the fact that an induction conclusion can only ever lead to a hypothesis about a course of events and never to a reliable proof. Evidence based on statistical empirical principles must therefore already be refuted by relatively weak evidence that makes the hypothesis appear improbable. No more can be demanded of the opponent.
See also
literature
- Hans-Joachim Koch , Helmut Rüßmann : Legal justification theory. An introduction to basic problems in law. Beck, Munich 1982, ISBN 3-406-03452-7 , pp. 277ff. ( Legal training. Series 22).
- Hanns Prütting: Present problems of the burden of proof. An examination of modern theories of burden of proof and their application especially in labor law. Beck, Munich 1983, ISBN 3-406-09846-0 ( publications of the Institute for Labor and Business Law of the University of Cologne 46), (at the same time: Erlangen, Nürnberg, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 1981).
- Oliver Rummy: The prima facie evidence in the structure of evidence assessment, standard of evidence and burden of proof. Heymann, Cologne et al. 1989, ISBN 3-452-21357-9 , p. 7ff. ( Procedural treatises 71), (Simultaneously: Saarbrücken, Univ., Diss., 1988).
Individual evidence
- ↑ BGH, decision of September 8, 1999, Az .: 2 StR 369/99 = StV 2000, 69
- ↑ Bernhard Wieczorek / Rolf A. Schütze, Großkommentar ZPO, §§ 355-510c ZPO , Volume 6, 2013, § 402 Rn. 75 f., P. 502
