Analysis Of Several Water Pollution Tort Cases

The three cases of water pollution tort selected in this paper mainly refer to three argumentative issues:how to confirm rights to aquatic-breeding for the plaintiff;whether there are some causes to diminish or exempt the responsibilities of the defendant and how to allocate the proof responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendant.Fishery right embodies the characteristics of the real right.According to different objects,fishery right can be divided into two kinds:for these who rear aquatic animals in beaches designated by the state,they can get the fishery right by obtaining administrative permission.For these who have fisheries in water under collective uses,they can obtain the right directly without administrative permission.In these three cases,the object of fishery right to the plaintiff is the water used by the collective economic organizations;therefore,the defendant obtained breeding rights without the administrative permission.The water pollution tort is one of specific torts and its causes to diminish or exempt the responsibility embody both generality and particularity.The heavy rain cannot be the excuse for the defendant to exempt his responsibility,but under some certain conditions it can be the cause to diminish the polluter's responsibilities.The fault of the victims is the cause to exempt or diminish the responsibility of the defendant and the gross negligence of the victim is the cause to diminish the Polluter's responsibility.The ordinary negligence of the third party is not the cause to diminish or exempt the Polluter's responsibilities,but the Polluter can claim against the third party after he has taken on the responsibility to make compensations for the victims.The Polluter has to perform the legitimate responsibility to protect the environment and at the same time fulfill the duties to prevent further loss or damages.Having fulfilled the legitimate responsibility to protect the environment can be the considered factor for diminished or exempting the responsibilities of the defendant for the heavy rain.In these three cases,whether the defendant has the responsibility of water pollution tort liability should be analyzed with the specific situation.The allocation of the burden of proof of the defendant in the case of water pollution tort should be different from the general rules of burden of proof.According to the principle of balancing of interests and relevant laws,victims still bear the burden of proof of the possibility of causal relationship.In these three cases,the plaintiff should bear and the burden of proof in addition to the defendant's tort liability and tort liability,the defendant is required to prove the existence of their own exemptions and no causal relationship.