English Polski
Tom 15, Nr 5 (2020)
Kardiologia i prawo
Opublikowany online: 2020-12-30

dostęp otwarty

Wyświetlenia strony 438
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 430
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Istota oraz charakter dowodu z opinii biegłego w polskich procesach cywilnych

Kamila Kocańda12, Wojciech Rokita3
Folia Cardiologica 2020;15(5):388-391.

Streszczenie

In polish civil litigation procedure the cases concerning medical errors always require an expert opinion in order for the court to assess doctors due diligence. The court does not have specialist knowledge, thus his decision, if not taken on the basis of a specialist opinion, is procedurally incorrect. Expert's opinion can be effectively questioned by each of the parties of the dispute, what may lead to either complementary or further opinion. Every specialist opinion of an expert in civil law disputes concerning medical errors has to meet the requirements of integrity, logic and be comprehensive enough.

Artykuł dostępny w formacie PDF

Pokaż PDF (angielski) Pobierz plik PDF

Referencje

  1. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 23 July 2013, I ACa 316/13, LEX no. 1363289; cf., also at LEX, Ereciński T, commentary on Article 233 of the Code civil Procedure. In: Ereciński T. ed. Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Postępowanie rozpoznawcze [Code of Civil Procedure. Commentary. Main proceedigs]. Vol. I. Ed. IV. LexisNexis, Warsaw 2012: 1097.
  2. Order of 17 May 2007, II KK 331/06, R-OSNKW 2007/ 1070; cf. also: W. Berutowicz, Postępowanie cywilne w zarysie [Civil procedure in an overview], Warsaw: PWN 1984, 250–251; T. Wiśniewski, Przebieg procesu cywilnego [The course of civil trial], ed. II, Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska 2013, 74 et seq.; K.
  3. Judgment of the Supreme Court — Administrative, Labour and Social-Insurance Chamber, of 7 December 1994, II URN 43/94, OSNAPiUS 1995/8/102, Legalis; cf. also K. Pasecki, commentary on Article 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure, [in:] K. Piasecki, A. Marciniak (eds.), Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, vol. I, ed. VI, Warsaw: C.H. Beck 2014, 951–960; K. Piasecki, System dowodów i postępowanie dowodowe w sprawach cywilnych, Warsaw: LexisNexis 2010; J. Gurgul, O swobodnej ocenie opinii biegłego [About the free evaluation of an expert opinion], Prokuratura i Prawo 2013/10/34 et seq.; W. Siedlecki, Zasada swobodnej oceny dowodów [The principle of free evaluation of evidence], [in:] J. Jodłowski, W. Siedlecki, Postępowanie cywilne. Część ogólna [Civil Procedure. General part], Warsaw: PWN 1958, 172 et seq.; W.
  4. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Katowice, 1 August 2012, I ACa 40/11, LEX no. 1217679; cf.
  5. Dzierżanowska J., Kryteria oceny dowodu z opinii biegłego w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych i Sądu Najwyższego [Criteria for the evaluation of evidence from an expert opinion in the decisions of the common courts and of the Supreme Court], Roczniki Nauk Prawnych, 2015:XXV:2.
  6. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Rzeszów of 8 November 2012, I ACa 302/12, LEX no. 1280971.
  7. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Wrocław of 25 April 2012, I ACa 356/12, LEX no. 1165156,.
  8. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 3 November 2010, VI ACa 307/10, LEX no. 794140; judgment of the Supreme Court of 2 December 2011, III CSK 60/11LEX no. 1110994; cf. W. Maruczyński, Dowód z biegłych [Expert evidence], Biuletyn Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości 1965/4/39–48; W. 1960.
  9. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Poznań of 17 July 2013, I ACa 601/13, LEX no. 1356646.
  10. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2006, V CSK 360/06, LEX no. 238973.
  11. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 14 June 2013, I ACa 136/13, LEX no. ; 1349949.
  12. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 17 July 2013, I ACa 200/13, LEX no. 1349957.
  13. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Wrocław of 2 August 2006, I ACa 621/06, LEX no. 519259.
  14. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 4 March 1965, III CR 795/64, PiP 1966/4/831. 1966.
  15. Judgment of the Supreme Court — Civil Chamber of 17 May 1974, I CR 100/74.
  16. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 7 April 2000, II UKN 483/99.
  17. Judgment of the Supreme Court 28 October 2009, II PK 122/09.
  18. Judgment of the Supreme Court — Civil Chamber of 10 January 2012, I UK 236/11.
  19. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 26 October 2012, I ACa 302/12, LEX no. 1237039.
  20. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 27 September 2012, I ACa 602/12, LEX no. 1237045; judgment of the Court of Appeals in Poznań of 1 December 2010, I ACa 856/10; Judgment of the Supreme Court — Labour, Social Insurance and Public Affairs Chamber, of 21 May 2009, I UK 3/09; order of the Supreme Court of 13 July 2012, II UK 52/12.
  21. Judgment of the Supreme Court — Civil Chamber of 13 May 2009 IV CSK 26/09.
  22. Order of the Supreme Court of 15 June 2012, I UK 124/12.
  23. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 January 2012, III UK 195/11, MoPr 2012/4/170, Legalis.
  24. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 16 September 2009, I UK 102/09; judgment of the Supreme Court of 24 June 2008, I UK 373/07.
  25. Order of 9 July 2003, III KK 175/03, R-OSNKW 2003/1525; Order of the Supreme Court of 3 September 2008, I UK 91/08, LEX no. 785520; judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 23 September 2010, VI ACa 310/10.
  26. Judgment of the Supreme Court — Civil Chamber of 20 October 2004, I UK 111/04; order of the Supreme Court of 8 October 2008, I PK 101/08.
  27. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2011, II UK 160/10; order of the Supreme Court of 20 August 2008, I UK 78/08; judgment of the Supreme Court of 27 June 2001, II UKN 443/00.
  28. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 27 October 2011, VI ACa 461/11, LEX no. 1102077.
  29. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 October 2000, I PKN 5/00, LEX no. 1165859.
  30. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Lublin of 12 December 2012, I ACa 537/11, LEX no. 1280571.
  31. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 July 2001, II UKN 487/00, OSNP 2003/9/230. 2003.
  32. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 28 August 2008, III CSK 98/08, LEX no. 450157.
  33. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Gdańsk of 12 December 2013, III AUa 2048/12, LEX no. 1428003.
  34. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 28 September 1965, II PR 321/65, OSNC 1966/5/84. 1966.
  35. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 14 January 2014, I ACa 873/13, LEX no. 1433812; order of the Court of Appeals in Rzeszów of 25 January 2013, I ACa 826/12, LEX no. 126739.
  36. Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Katowice of 27 February 2009, VI ACa 308/08, LEX no. 519276; judgment of the Supreme Court of 16 April 1997, II CKN 98/ 97, LEX no. 50803.