The Distribution Of The Burden Of Proof Of Causality In Environmental Tort Litigation

The distribution rules of burden of proof of causality in environmental tort is not only a hot issue concerned by jurists,but also the key point to realize judicial justice.However,the provisions of tort liability law and relevant judicial interpretations on this issue are not clear,which makes judges have different degrees of confusion in judicial practice.Therefore,with the help of the two controversial focuses of the water pollution liability dispute case,this paper expounds how to allocate the burden of proof of causality between the agricultural company and the highway company.First of all,this paper makes a typological analysis of the causation of environmental tort,and takes different ways to allocate the burden of proof according to different types of causation.Secondly,it thinks that the standard of proof of "relevance" is low probability.Combined with the case,it further concludes that the plaintiff has completed the preliminary burden of proof between the death of cold water fish and the construction of highway company.Thirdly,after the plaintiff has completed the preliminary burden of proof between the construction of the highway company and the death of the cold water fish,the judge presumes that there is a causal relationship between the construction of the highway company and the death of the cold water fish of the agricultural company,and then proves that the burden of proof is transferred to the defendant highway company,and the highway company bears the burden of proof that there is no causal relationship between the two proof standard of causality should be high probability,and the burden of proof that the causality between the death of cold water fish and the construction does not exist is concluded.Finally,through the reflection on the rules of distribution of the burden of proof of causation,the author emphasizes that the standard of proof of the burden of proof should be made clear,and the theory of causation should be applied comprehensively and flexibly to cases.