Research On The Relation Proof Liability Of Plaintiff Of Environmental Tort

The problem of environmental protection has been discussed for several years in China,and how to protect the environment on the legal level has been paid more and more attention.The distribution and determination of the burden of proof of environmental tort is an important link in the environmental protection litigation system.Article 66 of the Tort liability Law stipulates that defendant shall bear the burden of proof that the causal relationship does not exist,according to article 66 of the Tort liability Law.Article 86 of the Law on consolidation of wastes and Article 98 of the Law on Prevention and Control of Water pollution also stipulate that the causal relationship does not exist by defendant.Some issues of the Supreme people's Court's Law on the Application of Law on handling disputes concerning Environmental Tort liability in 2015 Article 6 stipulates that plaintiff should bear the burden of proof of relevance in addition to proving the fact of pollution and damage.It is these standards and methods of proving that plaintiff's burden of proof is not perfect in the distribution of burden of proof for environmental tort,and it is improper to link up with defendant's inverted burden of proof.And the complexity of environmental tort itself results in the confusion in the judicial practice that the judgment standards of environmental infringement cases are different and the liability is not only in dispute.According to the case analysis of judicial trial,some courts directly use the inversion of the burden of proof when trying environmental tort cases.Plaintiff only needs to prove the fact of damage and the existence of environmental tort.Some courts have adopted the provisions of the new judicial interpretation in 2015 that require plaintiff to bear the burden of proof of relevance.And Moreover,the criteria for judging plaintiff's burden of proof are also different,and some courts mistakenly regard plaintiff's burden of proof of relevance as substantive burden of proof,and some courts think that plaintiff's burden of proof of relevance can be replaced directly by identification materials.Some believe that only identification materials are not enough,others believe that plaintiff's burden of proof is lower than these.Therefore,the research of the plaintiff's proof of responsibility in the case of environmental tort is very important,only the problem is defined,the responsibility of the environmental tort can be fully and accurately identified,and the real realization of the fairness and justice of the law.By comparing the difference and the relation between the proof responsibility of the original defendant,this paper analyzes the logic defects of the plaintiff's proof responsibility in the present environmental torts,and puts forward the suggestion for perfecting the shallow and thin.So that the combination of the two is better,and the determination of the whole environmental tort liability is successfully completed.The article is divided into three parts:The first part is the analysis of the legal basis of plaintiff's responsibility to prove the relevance of environmental tort.This chapter focuses on a brief discussion of the current academic dispute on the concept of environmental infringement,from the author's point of view of the concept of environmental infringement is defined,for the full text of the study set the tone.On this basis,this paper discusses the nature of the environmental tort plaintiff's related burden of proof,mainly from the traditional classification of the burden of proof.Secondly,the author compares the environmental tort plaintiff's burden of proof with the traditional rule of inverting the burden of proof,and finds the commonness and characteristic between them.The subject of the article is much clearer.Third,starting from the characteristics,this paper introduces the necessity of plaintiff's responsibility to prove the relevance of environmental tort,and deepens the research significance of the subject.Fourthly,the author analyzes the practical confusion of plaintiff's burden of proof in the judicial trial of environmental tort,which mainly includes three loopholes: different judgment standards,over-reliance on appraisal institutions and few related methods of proof.To form a correspondence with the institutional limitations of the latter.The second part is the analysis of China's current environmental tort plaintiff's system limitations of burden of proof.Starting with the legal provisions and judicial interpretation,this paper analyzes the present situation and makes a comparison with foreign relevant experiences.It is concluded that plaintiff,an environmental tort in our country,bears the burden of proof of relevance,but at the same time there are some problems,such as the lack of correlation judgment standard,the lack of proof method and the inadaptability to link up with defendant's burden of proof.In the third part,on the basis of the previous paper,the author puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of plaintiff's responsibility to prove the relevance of environmental tort in China.First of all,it is necessary to define the criterion of relevance,which can be creatively combined with the multi-level proof standard system and the method of type-based case processing.Secondly,there is no mature research on the methods of proof,but we can draw lessons from some methods used by foreign countries to prove the rules of presumption of causality in environmental tort.On this basis,combined with the previous section of the proof criteria common judgment.Third,invert the burden of proof of plaintiff's relevance and defendant's burden of proof after that.Line effective convergence,according to two different proof results to deal with the corresponding.Finally,it is also necessary to strictly regulate the external means used in the process of proof,that is,the judicial identification of environmental infringement,and to use the appraisal opinions correctly and reasonably,so that legal reasoning cannot be covered up by scientific reasoning.