Lawyer Analysis: How to Identify Isolated Evidence

Li Si works as a security guard in a hotel in this city. This year 1 month, Li Si works the night shift. That night, a guest who stayed in the hotel reported to the hotel that his high-end car parked in the hotel parking lot was scratched. After the incident, a hotel paid more than 30,000 yuan for the maintenance of the car. Later, a hotel terminated the labor relationship with Li Si on the grounds that Li Si was seriously dereliction of duty during his work, which caused great losses to the unit. Li Si refused to accept the hotel's practice, so she applied to a city labor dispute arbitration committee for labor arbitration. After the arbitration tribunal accepted the case, Li Si applied for colleague Wu Zhao to testify in court during the trial. Wu Zhao confirmed that although Li Si worked the night shift that day, according to the regulations, the hotel security guard was not responsible for the safety of the parking lot area. A hotel thinks that Wu Zhao is its employee, but the evidence is isolated and its authenticity is controversial. At the same time, he defended the fact that Li Si went to work that day and was seriously dereliction of duty. The hotel also provides evidence of schedules and work schedules. The lawyer's analysis of solitary evidence refers to the evidence that only one isolated evidence material needs to be identified and there is no other material to support it, that is, there is no evidence chain; In practice, generally speaking, isolated evidence in the trial of a case can hardly be used as the basis for identifying relevant facts. Therefore, if there is an orphan card, it generally needs evidence to reinforce it. How to identify the testimony of Wu Zhao, an independent witness in this case? Do you need evidence to strengthen it? According to Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases, the employer shall bear the burden of proof for labor disputes arising from the decisions made by the employer, such as dismissal, expulsion, dismissal, dissolution of the labor contract, reduction of labor remuneration and calculation of the working years of the workers. In this case, a hotel of the respondent did provide evidence to prove the fact that it dissolved the labor relationship with Li Si according to law. However, the attendance sheet and the work schedule were made by the respondent unilaterally, and the probative force of the attendance sheet and the work schedule is low without other evidence to confirm each other. Wu Zhao and Li Si are both security guards, who are the main performers of their duties, which can prove the fact that Li Si is not responsible for the security work in the parking lot area. Although Wu Zhao is an employee of the respondent and a colleague of the applicant, from the perspective of interests, the interests of Wu Zhao and the respondent are obviously greater than those of his colleagues, so the witness Wu Zhao has no legal interest with the applicant. Therefore, Wu Zhao's witness testimony is credible and effective evidence. Compared with Wu Zhao's testimony, the attendance sheet and work schedule presented by the hotel have no proof advantage. Therefore, this case does not need evidence reinforcement, and can directly determine the probative force of Wu Zhao's witness testimony. Some thoughts in judicial practice, if only from the amount of evidence, indiscriminately limit the probative effect of all isolated evidence, obviously violate the law of litigation proof and lack universality. Therefore, in some cases, isolated evidence can be finalized not only in some cases, but also in the whole case. This is worthy of consideration and reference when lawyers handle cases.