论环境侵权诉讼中的因果关系推定

发布时间：2018-05-19 15:49

本文选题：环境侵权 + 因果关系推定　；参考：《湖南师范大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：环境侵权诉讼中的因果关系推定与举证责任倒置是不同类型的法律规范。因果关系推定是指对于某种表见事实发生损害,即推定损害与该事实的因果关系存在,受害人无需再证明其间的因果关系,即可对表见事实行为请求损害赔偿,而被告只有举出反证证明损害与该事实无关时,才能免责。其属于证明方法规范。举证责任倒置是指在环境侵权诉讼中出现的案件事实应当由谁来提供证据加以证明,以及在诉讼结束时,如果环境侵权案件仍然处于真伪不明的状态时,应当由谁来承担败诉或不利的诉讼后果。其属于证明责任规范。虽然在环境侵权诉讼中,这两种证明方法的出发点都是保护受害者、预防环境污染,但是二者的区别也很明显。整体说来,因果关系推定是对证明责任分配的法律要件分类说缺陷之补充,而举证责任倒置是对法律要件分类说的背离。现行法律在环境侵权诉讼中采用的是举证责任倒置制度,但是单一的举证倒置是无法满足日益复杂的环境侵权案件之需要的,并且由于法律对这项制度本身规定的比较模糊,使得这一制度的可操作性不强,导致在司法实践中出现了许多机械化套用和误用之情形,不利于保护原告的合法权益,同时也不利于企业的正常发展。为此,要大胆地采用因果关系推定,积极借鉴国外的盖然性学说、疫学因果说、间接反证说和无因果关系说等理论,在一般的环境侵权诉讼中实行因果关系推定,在特殊的、被告侵权行为严重的环境侵权案件中采用举证责任倒置。把两种证明方法有机的结合起来,充分发挥法官的自由裁量权,以不断的满足日益复杂的环境侵权案件之需要,保证社会的公平与正义。
[Abstract]:The presumption of causality and the inversion of burden of proof are different legal norms in environmental tort litigation. The presumption of causality refers to the occurrence of damage to a certain apparent fact, that is, the existence of a causal relationship between the presumption of damage and that of that fact. The victim does not need to prove the causal relationship between the causation and the victim can claim damages for the act of apparent fact. The defendant would be exempt only if he adduced the contrary proof that the damage had nothing to do with the fact. It belongs to the standard of proof method. The inversion of the burden of proof refers to who should provide evidence to prove the facts of the case that appear in the environmental tort lawsuit, and when the environmental tort case is still in the state of truth or not at the end of the lawsuit, Who should bear the consequences of losing or adverse litigation. It belongs to the standard of burden of proof. Although the starting point of these two methods is to protect victims and prevent environmental pollution in environmental tort litigation, the difference between them is also obvious. On the whole, the presumption of causality is a supplement to the classification of legal elements in the distribution of burden of proof, while the inversion of burden of proof is a departure from the theory of classification of legal elements. The current law adopts the inverted system of burden of proof in the environmental tort litigation, but the single inversion of proof cannot meet the needs of the increasingly complex environmental tort cases, and because of the vague regulation of the system itself, This makes the system not operable, resulting in many cases of mechanization and misuse in judicial practice, which is not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, but also not conducive to the normal development of enterprises. Therefore, the presumption of causality should be used boldly, the theory of inevitability abroad, the theory of epidemic causality, the theory of indirect countervailing and the theory of non-causation should be actively used for reference, and the presumption of causality should be applied in the general environmental tort litigation, and the presumption of causation should be applied in special cases. The burden of proof is reversed in serious environmental tort cases. The two methods of proof are combined organically to give full play to the discretion of the judge in order to meet the needs of the increasingly complex environmental tort cases and to ensure the fairness and justice of the society.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.68;D925

【参考文献】