Comment On The Case Of Water Pollution Responsibility Disputes Of Jinhe Aquaculture Cooperative And Xiangshui Aquaculture Farm

In the case of water pollution responsibility dispute of Jinhe Aquaculture Cooperative and Xiangshui Aquaculture Farm,the court finally judge that Xiangshui Aquaculture Farm constituted environmental pollution infringement.However,due to Jinhe Aquaculture Cooperative,there is also a fault in the occurrence of damage.Therefore,the court finally determined that Xiangshui Aquaculture Farm bear 65% of the damages.There are three main problems in this case: the first is the polluter's pollution prevention obligation and the nature of the obligation to its environmental tort liability;the second is whether the victim's illegal farming behavior should be protected by law;the third is the application of environmental tort liability reduction reasons.For the first question,China's current environmental pollution infringement constitutes a result avoidance theory,but in some environmental infringement disputes,if the polluter performs a specific pollution prevention and control obligation,the court will decide to waive its environmental tort liability.Judicial practice shows that the decisive factor for polluters to bear environmental tort liability lies in the nature of the pollution prevention obligations they perform.If the polluter has fulfilled the pollution prevention and control obligation that is a high duty of care,he may be exempted from his environmental tort liability.In addition,in the case of not affecting the damages for victims,the nature of the pollution prevention and control obligations that the polluter has fulfilled shall be considered and the liability for damages shall be determined.For the second problem,the victim's farming behavior constitutes illegal breeding,and the liability for damages of the polluter can be reduced by applying the principle of negligence.However,illegal farming does not affect the legitimate rights and interests of the victims to the cultures they purchase.The scope of legal rights and interests is the cost value of the farmer's actual investment in farming,excluding the benefits of farming.Therefore,if the victim's illegal farming behavior has a causal relationship with the damage result,the polluter is required to compensate the victim for the cost of the fish.For the third question,it is divided into three parts: force majeure,polluters reaching the standard,and victim's fault.The application of force majeure must meet three conditions at the same time:firstly,the event conforms to the three characteristics that force majeure cannot be foreseen,cannot be avoided,and cannot be overcome;secondly,force majeure is theonly factor that causes damage;thirdly,the polluter has taken reasonable measures timely after the occurrence of force majeure.The application of pollution discharge to the polluters can only be considered in the case of determining the size of the responsibility between two or more polluters.If the conditions are met,the liability of the polluters who meet the pollutant discharge can be appropriately mitigated.Regarding the application of the victim's fault reduction,if the victim's specific obligation in the environmental tort dispute is a high-paying obligation,the victim's failure to perform the obligation constitutes a gross negligence,and the polluter's liability for damages may be appropriately reduced.