On The Causal Relationship In Common Environmental Infringement

As economies develop and modern industries expand, environmental pollution caused by environmental joint torts has come to be a serious problem. Thus, an in-depth analysis of the related theories with regard to environmental joint torts has to be done for the protection of interests of the victims. Among the issues, the finding of the causation plays a key role in the legal research and judiciary practice of environmental joint torts. However, as the environmental joint torts feature inequality, uncertainty, latency, complexity and universality, it is hard to prove the causation in environmental joint torts on the strength of the traditional tort theories and thus constitutes great difficulties for judiciary practice and it is obviously unfavorable for the protection of lawful interests of the victims. Thus, it is necessary to find, through innovation, appropriate theories of causation so as to be properly applied in judiciary practice. For this purpose, various countries provide for the theory of causation presumption and develop certain theories thereto on the basis of cases adjudicated, such as the theories of preponderance of evidence, of res ipsa loquitur, of probability, of epidemiology, of indirect negative evidence and of proportional rule, so as to substantially reduce the burden of proof shouldered by the plaintiffs. However, relevant laws in China only provide for the principle of transfer of burden of proof and fail to expressly provide for the theory of causation presumption. Therefore, many misunderstandings and misapplications exist in judiciary practice with regard to the means to apply such theories and it is hard to meet the needs of the complicated environmental joint torts cases. Thus, this paper offers an account combined with analysis in relation to the relevant theories and applications of the theory of causation presumption, giving special attention to the role of causation in affirming tort liabilities, finding tort-feasors and victims and segmenting the liabilities. In conclusion, this paper offers suggestions for consideration on the basis of an insight into the existing legal framework of legislation and judiciary practice and into the defects thereof.