The Case Analysis Of Liang Zhaonan V. Huarun Cement (Shangsi) Co.,Ltd. Water Pollution Liability Dispute

In environmental infringement,the identification of causality and the determination of force majeure exemption have always been the two major difficulties in the court hearing.These two difficult problems are also involved in the case of Liang Zhaonan v.China Resources Cement(Shangsi)Co.,Ltd.Whether there is a causal relationship between the behavior and the facts of the damage and whether the "Nasha" typhoon can establish a force majeure exemption.In the trial of the case,the court applied the rule of inversion of the burden of proof of causation,but at the same time indicated that the victim assumed the initial burden of proof of causality.The rule puts the burden of proof of the absence of causality into the perpetrator through the “pre-allocation” of legislation,and alleviates the burden of proof of the victim,but it is too harsh for the perpetrators,and there is great controversy in the academic circles.Some people believe that the causal relationship should be established.rule.After the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the "Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes" in 2015,the academic circles have a great controversy over "association".Some people believe that China has established a presumption rule for causality,and the Supreme People’s Court considers it to be In addition to the applicable logic of the inversion of the burden of proof,there are also views that the two should be combined.The proof of relevance is only the basic requirement for the victim to enter thelawsuit.It is different from the initial burden of proof of the victim in the presumption of causation.China has not established the rule of causation.It is more appropriate to apply the presumption rule of causality in environmental tort,to achieve the balance of burden of proof and to achieve a balance of interests.However,neither rule considers the influence of important media factors on causality.In the determination of causality,the influence of important media factors on the damage outcome should be considered and the responsibility should be reasonably divided.In this case,China Resources Corporation shall not assume full liability for compensation and shall appropriately reduce its responsibilities.In the case,the court found force majeure as a excuses.In China’s legislation,the regulations on force majeure are inconsistent,and it is difficult to determine the trial.The academic circles have a lot of controversy about whether they should be excused as environmental infringement.Most of them are analyzed from the perspective of determining the responsibility.However,this issue should be analyzed from the perspective of the scope of responsibility,and it should be used as the factor to determine the responsibility,not whether the responsibility is Exemption factor.It is suggested that force majeure should be regarded as a “reduction of blame” and different levels of accountability reduction,which can effectively avoid conflicts between the principle of implied liability and the principle of imputation of liability,and reach the victims,the perpetrators and the society as a whole.A greater balance of interests.The problem that the victim cannot receive full compensation after the insult has reduced the responsibility can besolved under the social sharing mechanism of environmental tort damage compensation.In this case,China Resources Corporation does not have to bear full liability for compensation,and some of its responsibilities should be shared reasonably.