On Responsibility Of Environment Pollution Infringement By Many Persons

The prosperity of economy and the evolution of industry result in deteriorated pollutants and environment. Environmental issues such as haze, acid rain and climate change have proliferated and have overwhelming impact on human being. With the rise of public awareness on environment, relevant issues of tort and legal rights on environmental pollution have been escalated accordingly. Of environment torts made by majority, it has specific factors as complicated dynamics, broad and long-lasting influence,which lead to hardly distinguishing main subjects of polluting, dividing liability ratio and protecting barely the right of victims. It is a dilemma in justice practice that how to make liability and how to justify fair rights of victims through verdicts. Though the article of 67 th of Tort Liability Law sets standards of deciding responsible subjects, it does not regulate methods of bearing liability. The academia and specialists hold different opinions on this issue. This literature intends to present theoretical analysis and empirical research on several cases of liability of environmental pollution as well as caused dilemma. This literature would also offer possible implications for further research.Chapter One sets the liability of environmental pollution made by majority. It is essentially pivotal that giving a definition on environmental pollution made by majority, which is a prerequisite to the liability of environmental pollution made by majority. The vague understandings on this due to the academia has at odds with each other. This literature would definite this provision by presenting different academic aspects and considering various merits. In account of its specific characteristics as plural and cause-and-effect, the form elements of liability distinguish from ordinary cases. This literature would give a defination based on its dynamics and form elements.In chapter two, there is a further discussion on liable methods of environmental pollution made by majority due to puzzles left by the article of 67 th of Tort Liability Law, hereafter, presented as the 67 th. The 67 th sets original regulations on environmental pollution made by majority, but it does not clarify the methodology of shares by internal or external, thus, the academia has had abundant discussion and research on this detailed issue. The vague of the 67 th empowers larger discretionary power to judges, who judging relevant cases variously. How to make a fair judgement is a practical dilemma in justice by applying this article to balance benefits of parties.In Chapter three, this literature probes into theoretical disputes and justice dilemma of the academia and specialists on torts of environmental pollution made by majority based on chapter one and two. Further, it does quantitative analysis and clarify the detailed methods upon different types of this tort, providing insights into disputes and dilemma. It is also a main method for applying relevant justice dilemma. Initially, this literature categorizes subjective minds of do into the most environmental pollution tort joint intent and the majority environmental pollution tort without meaning to contact。In the circumstance of the majority environmental pollution tort, damages usually caused by chance together of multiple polluters behavior. And due to the Characteristics of compound, continue long time and so on, the Causal relationship become complex. Thus, this literature emphatically assesses on the most environmental pollution tort without meaning to contact, but does not exclude the existence of mutual intention of environmental pollution made by majority. However, it is easier to directly regulate liability in the basis of the article 8th, 9th and 10 th of Tort Liability Law, hence, this literature analyze it roughly. The court, in accordance with different types of environmental pollution made by majority. should judge these act persons bear Joint liability or by shares.Joint liability or bear liability by shares have different pros and cons. Public nuisance such as environmental pollution made by majority and massive product tort have overwhelming impact on individuals, societies and countries. Joint liability could restrict doer’s behavior better. Not only warn and prevent issues, but also punish heavily. However, each mechanism has its drawbacks due to economy and structure. If being fully applied joint liability in current conditions of China, enterprises would suffer even large impacts. Thus, the scope of application of bear should be extended largely in the basis of joint liability. Liability by shares has priority be applied in the conditions of clear or prove the damage could be separated, otherwise, joint liability to be applied.In the full consideration of opinions of experts and application of justice practice, the method of liability could be understood as share liability by shares between polluters. Since the 67 th does not clarify which method, joint or by share liability. However, it does not exclude that applying genres of pollutants, pollution volume of this article to set internal share of polluters who bear joint liability. More, in the consideration of Legal interpretation system and Social Relief, bearing liability by shares could meet the needs of social development.In past justice practice, the courts usually decide environmental pollution made by majority based on joint liability. The high court has answered this phenomenon in justice practice, which is unfair to law-abiding companies to afford joint liability with those not. It is good to encourage enterprises to be law-abiding while punish those against laws. However, this practice of court according to polluters pollution action weather illegal as the standard bear joint liability or by shares, which against the legal principle of Tort liability law. Deciding form elements of environmental pollution made by majority do not depend on behavior illegality, their behaviors probably are legal. This method can not protect victims interest. Instead, partitioning behavior of the person must be typed in the specific responsibility to determine the behavior person share with.Divide responsibility becomes a mainstream trend for environmental pollution made by majority. Although the 67 th has not regulated clearly on detailed methods of liability, it would work as ground for requiring rights of Divide responsibility. The 67 th could perform as expected under the circumstance of better justice system.