环境污染侵权中原告因果关系初步证明责任研究

发布时间：2018-10-30 08:24

【摘要】：侵害人的环境侵权行为与受害人的损害结果之间的因果关系证明问题一直是环境污染侵权行为成立与否的关键问题。《侵权责任法》及之前的法律明确规定了因果关系举证责任倒置规则。因果关系举证责任倒置规则将因果关系的证明责任完全分配给了被告。该规则虽然减轻了原告的证明责任,但却过度加重了被告的证明责任,该规则忽略了基础事实与推定事实之间的常态联系,同时在司法审判适用中也存在严重的弱化现象。为了解决该规则的逻辑缺陷及适用问题,《最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《环境污染侵权司法解释》)分别从原告被告的角度对因果关系证明进行了规定。该解释第6条从原告的角度规定了由原告承担因果关系关联性证明,突破了因果关系举证责任倒置规则,明确了原告需要就因果关系关联性进行证明。由于《环境污染侵权司法解释》第6条并没有对关联性的性质、证明标准、证明方法等进行规定,在司法审判中往往出现同案不同判现象,因此需要加以明确:首先,因果关系关联性证明指的是原告因果关系初步证明责任,是一种说服责任。原告承担关联性证明并达到盖然性占优势标准以后被告开始证明因果关系不存在,原告关联性证明是根据原被告双方的证明能力在因果关系领域在原被告双方进行的合理划分,属于举证责任的重新分配,弥补了举证责任倒置所缺少的常态关系。其次,对关联性证明的因果关系推定方法进行类型化规定。因果关系推定是原告关联性证明的证明方法,间接反证法、疫学因果关系法等因果关系推定方法在原告关联性证明中得到了广泛的应用。再次,《环境污染侵权司法解释》第7条应与第6条衔接,使被告否定关联性的情形下证明因果关系的不成立。第7条仅规定被告通过否定原告提出的污染行为、损害后果两个法律要件来推定因果关系不存在,实质上属于被告通过间接反证法对因果关系不存在进行的证明,与第6条不存在关联性,应当明确被告还可以通过切断原告对因果关系关联性证明的条件来推定因果关系不存在。
[Abstract]:The problem of causality between the environmental tort of the infringer and the result of the damage of the victim has always been the key issue of the establishment of the tort of environmental pollution. The Tort liability Law and the previous law clearly stipulated the cause. The rule of inversion of burden of proof. The rule of reversal of the burden of proof distributes the burden of proof of causality to the defendant. Although this rule alleviates the burden of proof of the plaintiff, it overintensifies the burden of proof of the defendant. It ignores the normal relationship between the basic facts and the presumptive facts, and at the same time, there is a serious weakening phenomenon in the judicial application. In order to solve the logic defects of the rule and its application, The Supreme people's Court's explanation on some issues of applicable Law in Environmental Tort disputes (hereinafter referred to as "Judicial interpretation of Environmental pollution Tort") respectively provides for the proof of causality from the point of view of the plaintiff and the defendant. Article 6 of this interpretation stipulates that the plaintiff should bear the proof of causality from the point of view of the plaintiff, break through the rule of reversal of the burden of proof of causality, and make clear that the plaintiff needs to prove the relevance of causation. Because Article 6 of "Environmental pollution Tort Judicial interpretation" does not provide for the nature of relevance, the standard of proof, the method of proof, and so on, there is often a phenomenon of different judgments in the same case in the judicial trial, so it needs to be made clear: first of all, Causality proof refers to the plaintiff's primary burden of proof of causality, which is a kind of persuasive duty. After the plaintiff bears the proof of relevance and reaches the criterion of inevitability, the defendant begins to prove that the causality does not exist. The proof of the plaintiff's relevance is a reasonable division in the field of causation according to the ability of both sides of the original defendant to prove that there is no causation. It is the redistribution of the burden of proof, which makes up for the lack of normal relationship of the inversion of the burden of proof. Secondly, the method of causality presumption of relevance proof is classified. The presumption of causality is the proof method of the plaintiff's relevance. The indirect countervailing method and the epidemic causality method have been widely used in the proof of the plaintiff's relevance. Thirdly, Article 7 of the Judicial interpretation of Environmental pollution Tort should be connected with Article 6 so that the defendant can prove that the causality is untenable when the defendant denies the relevance. Article 7 only provides that the defendant presumes that the causality does not exist by negating the pollution act proposed by the plaintiff, and that the two legal elements of the damage consequences are proof of the non-existence of the causality by the defendant through indirect countervailing law. There is no correlation with article 6, and it should be made clear that the defendant can also presume that the causality does not exist by cutting off the condition of proof of causality by the plaintiff.
【学位授予单位】：山东科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.68;D923

【参考文献】