论海上火灾免责

On the Marine Fire Relieve

海上火灾免责 ,从其定义、起因 ,到举证顺序 ,举证对象 ,也即火灾起因的举证责任和承运人过失的举证责任等至关重要的问题 ,我国立法上存在较明显的缺陷 ,一是未分清火灾举证责任的举证顺序。二是未区分火灾起因的举证责任与承运人过失的举证责任。三则有关举证责任的规定 ,含义模糊易引起歧义 ,实际上已经造成某些权威人士的错误解释。四则在保留“承运人本人”狭窄的范围的同时 ,却引进《汉堡规则》中的明示举证责任 ,而且有过之无不及。

Marine fire, in respect of its definition, the cause, the order of proof as well as the subject of proof, in another word, the burden of proof on the cause of fire and the fault of the carrier etc, are quite important problem. There are some defects in the legislation in China, such as no distinction between the burden of proof and the order of proof and without the division of the burden of proof on the cause of fire and the fault of carrier. As regard the stipulation of the burden of proof, it is too ambiguous to be under stood. Which is the principal of carrier while introducing the express burden of proof. The paper suggests that Rule 2 of Article 51 should be amended.