Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Chinese汉语 term or phrase:
谁主张，谁举证
English英语 translation:
The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms
Added to glossary by
Zhoudan
Jul 12, 2002 11:01
22 yrs ago
1 viewer *
Chinese汉语 term
谁主张，谁举证
Non-PRO
Chinese汉语译成English英语
法律/专利
civil procedure
进入民事司法程序的“谁主张，税举证”的模式，使得律师担负起调查职能。
please read in GB2312.
please read in GB2312.
Proposed translations
(English英语)
| 5 +3 | The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms |
Raymond Chu
|
| 4 +2 | a burden of proof is on plaintiff's side |
IgorD
|
| 4 | just a note |
Summit
|
Proposed translations
+3
3小时
Raymond Chu
台湾
台湾
台湾
A 25-year experienced lawyer-translator
Works in: English英语译成Chinese汉语, Chinese汉语译成English英语
Related KudoZ points
:
161
Selected
The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms
I believe the Chinese text is translated from a Roman Law axiom, which reads: "Ei incombit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat." (The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies.) In Anglo-American law, burden of proof is also called "onus of proof" or even simply "onus," and is NOT always on the plaintiff. It may "shift" to the defendant if he/she raises a factual issue in defense. For instance, if the defendant claims that he/she was not the registered owner of the car that hit the plaintiff, the defendant has the burden to prove that fact.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much. "
+2
1小时
a burden of proof is on plaintiff's side
A person who brings a civil action against another should provide evidence of other party's wrongdoings.
just my guess
just my guess
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Chinoise
: I essentially agree with your comprehension. But, in my point of view, we should give a word-for-word translation as it is applied in legal categories.Would you please polish your version by restructuring your wording.Thanks.
1小时
|
|
Thank you! I'll try, though Moscow hot weather is interfering.
|
|
| agree |
Summit
: would like to furtherly distinquisth between Criminal or Civil cases
1天 19小时
|
|
Thank you!
|
1天 20小时
just a note
further to commentators' notes toward this question, I would like to add some personal notes:
in 刑事法 (Criminal case)：one might consider the accuser vs. accused. Accuser bears the burden of proof and need to prove it beyond (not only resonable)any doubts.(like OJ Simpson's case)
in 民事诉讼 （Civil case): one who drafts the contracts (most common case is: Landlord vs. Tenant), bears the burden of proof that it's not an unfair practice (不符合国情，民情，地方习俗的契约）and the burden to explain the ambiguity of the contract wordings is rest upon the drafter of the contracts. The Civil court judges opt to judge against the drafter of the contract.
in 刑事法 (Criminal case)：one might consider the accuser vs. accused. Accuser bears the burden of proof and need to prove it beyond (not only resonable)any doubts.(like OJ Simpson's case)
in 民事诉讼 （Civil case): one who drafts the contracts (most common case is: Landlord vs. Tenant), bears the burden of proof that it's not an unfair practice (不符合国情，民情，地方习俗的契约）and the burden to explain the ambiguity of the contract wordings is rest upon the drafter of the contracts. The Civil court judges opt to judge against the drafter of the contract.
Something went wrong...