O ônus da prova no âmbito das ações regressivas acidentárias

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Caldas, Adriano Ribeiro
• Orientador(a): Stürmer, Gilberto
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito
• Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: DIREITO; PROVAS (DIREITO); DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/6498

From the legal system inaugurated by the Constitution of 1988, the guarantee of access to justice has come to be understood as the right to na effective judicial protection, true fundamental right by which protection shall be provided to all other material rights. Nowadays, the function of the process is to achieve the concrete material right, resulting directly from each peculiar and unique factual situation of the practical world. In this context, the dialogue between the procedural subjects becomes indispensable element for the construction of the court decision, with extensive collaboration in research of facts. Therefore, the evidentiary procedure must be structured to ensure the participation of procedural subjects in the work of formation of the judge's conviction. The cooperative process model is exactly that one which promotes a redefinition of the adversarial principle with the inclusion of the court in the list of subjects of procedural dialogue. Another condition for the process to lead to legally and rationally fair decisions, is that this is oriented to establish the truth of the relevant facts of the case, although the judicial speech can not feed the pretense of obtaining the absolute truth, without flaws or imperfections. The degree of approximation between the arguments of the parties and the material facts described by them obeys the quality and quantity of the evidence on which is based the reconstruction of the facts carried out cooperatively by procedural subjects. The issue of evidentiary burdens is necessarily influenced by this context. The idea is that the parties have the burden of providing the court the circumstances of the case that are relevant for the judge to perform the proper legal assistance in search of truth. The static and a priori model of distribution of the burden of proof, although applicable as valid rule for most cases, is unable to provide a correct decision for all situations of substantive law. The distribution of the burden of proof can not depart from the evaluation of the peculiarities of each case, either on the presence of difficult situations or facility for the production of evidence, which is why the New Civil Procedure Code, although does not require express legal permission, has done well by providing the dynamic distribution of evidential burden. In regressive accident actions in case of accident at work, the burden of proof of the requirements of subjective responsibility should be assigned, a priori, to the plaintiff, admitting the possibility of dynamic distribution of this burden in the event of clearly unfair situations, provided that the parties are expressly warned before the cognizance phase of process, in properly motivated decision. What is not admitted is the reversal of the burden of proof in light of the defendant in each and every case, under the allegation that militates in favor of the plaintiff of regressive action, or in detriment of the employer, some kind of presumption, considering that it provides a complete transference of the evidence burden from one part to another, maintaining the same characteristics of generalism and abstractionism of the static distribution.