Reverse onus

The burden of proof is an exception to the principle that, in principle, each party bears the burden of proving the existence of the conditions favorable legal norm. This leaves at each party from all the exposition duty.

A reversal of this principle the burden of proof is partly explicitly from the law.

So says § 476 BGB, that is in case of damage show up within six months after transfer of risk to an item suggested that the product was defective prior to the transfer of risk, if it is a sale of consumer goods. This means that a claim must prove within six months of purchase, the seller that the item on the purchase was free of defects. Were it not for this standard, the buyer would have to prove that the defect existed already at the risk transfer, since it relies on that fact for the benefit. Note, however, that the burden of proof still borne by the buyer with respect to the defect. He has to prove that the thing is flawed. The presumption in § 476 is just a guess over time.

Further legal burden of proof can be found in § 363 BGB and § 2336, Section 3 BGB.

There are also converters legal rules of burden of proof. In particular, in the cases of medical and liability of producers sets the jurisprudence under certain conditions, to a burden of proof.

Malpractice

In many cases, the plaintiff is typically in a lack of evidence. So it can still prove to the medical liability to medical malpractice of the physician often; the causality between treatment failure and damage, however, can be difficult to prove, since the consequences of an intervention can be traced in the living organism rarely with absolute accuracy. The patient must first demonstrate the significant medical errors, usually by submission of a report from a medical expert. Whether a rough handling error, the court will decide. Due to the in certain cases, including the case of gross malpractice, judicial arranged burden of proof, it is then up to the doctor to prove the lack of causality.

The typical conditions for a judicial order of the burden of proof are:

• Failure to inform the patient before the start of the special diagnostic or treatment and to a lack of evidence
• Failure to diagnostic assessment
• Obviously wrong treatment, ie rough handling errors and also medication errors
• Germ transmission by infection into a manageable range
• Use of faulty equipment, improper or undocumented device settings or omitted equipment maintenance (elapsed Prüfzeichenfristen )
• Incomplete or falsified documentation, including nachgetragener changes or supposedly lost documents and unsecured or unregistered access to editing capabilities to databases of case files

In this case, the injured party must assume a regular basis that the burden of proof is placed only in the court proceedings prior to the procedure to the professional or occupational liability insurance.

For example, the doctor in contexts with the vaccination recommendations STIKO must then prove that the disease would also have occurred if these vaccination recommendations had been followed. The background is that the STIKO according to § 4 Infection Protection Act ( formerly: Federal Infection Protection Act ) is used as an official organ.

Product Liability

In the product liability of the victim must only prove that one of his legal interests is injured and he has suffered a loss, the producer put a defective product into circulation, and that a causal link between a faulty product, violation of legal and damage is. As to the question whether the manufacturer is at fault on the defectiveness of the product, there is an unacceptable lack of evidence for the injured. Therefore a burden of proof will be accepted. The manufacturer shall now prove that the product was free of design, manufacturing and instruction errors when putting.

A similar effect as the burden of proof to develop the cases of legal presumption (eg in § 1006 BGB). Their impact on the burden of proof are governed by § 292 of the Code. After that, the one who speaks against the assumption, still prove the opposite. It thus bears the burden to rebut the presumption. Legal presumptions cause therefore usually a burden of proof.

Somewhat different than the burden of proof are the cases of prima facie evidence.