本文選題：環(huán)境侵權(quán) + 因果關(guān)系推定�。� 參考：《湖南師范大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中的因果關(guān)系推定與舉證責(zé)任倒置是不同類(lèi)型的法律規(guī)范。因果關(guān)系推定是指對(duì)于某種表見(jiàn)事實(shí)發(fā)生損害,即推定損害與該事實(shí)的因果關(guān)系存在,受害人無(wú)需再證明其間的因果關(guān)系,即可對(duì)表見(jiàn)事實(shí)行為請(qǐng)求損害賠償,而被告只有舉出反證證明損害與該事實(shí)無(wú)關(guān)時(shí),才能免責(zé)。其屬于證明方法規(guī)范。舉證責(zé)任倒置是指在環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中出現(xiàn)的案件事實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)由誰(shuí)來(lái)提供證據(jù)加以證明,以及在訴訟結(jié)束時(shí),如果環(huán)境侵權(quán)案件仍然處于真?zhèn)尾幻鞯臓顟B(tài)時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)由誰(shuí)來(lái)承擔(dān)敗訴或不利的訴訟后果。其屬于證明責(zé)任規(guī)范。雖然在環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中,這兩種證明方法的出發(fā)點(diǎn)都是保護(hù)受害者、預(yù)防環(huán)境污染,但是二者的區(qū)別也很明顯。整體說(shuō)來(lái),因果關(guān)系推定是對(duì)證明責(zé)任分配的法律要件分類(lèi)說(shuō)缺陷之補(bǔ)充,而舉證責(zé)任倒置是對(duì)法律要件分類(lèi)說(shuō)的背離。 現(xiàn)行法律在環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中采用的是舉證責(zé)任倒置制度,但是單一的舉證倒置是無(wú)法滿(mǎn)足日益復(fù)雜的環(huán)境侵權(quán)案件之需要的,并且由于法律對(duì)這項(xiàng)制度本身規(guī)定的比較模糊,使得這一制度的可操作性不強(qiáng),導(dǎo)致在司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)了許多機(jī)械化套用和誤用之情形,不利于保護(hù)原告的合法權(quán)益,同時(shí)也不利于企業(yè)的正常發(fā)展。 為此,要大膽地采用因果關(guān)系推定,積極借鑒國(guó)外的蓋然性學(xué)說(shuō)、疫學(xué)因果說(shuō)、間接反證說(shuō)和無(wú)因果關(guān)系說(shuō)等理論,在一般的環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中實(shí)行因果關(guān)系推定,在特殊的、被告侵權(quán)行為嚴(yán)重的環(huán)境侵權(quán)案件中采用舉證責(zé)任倒置。把兩種證明方法有機(jī)的結(jié)合起來(lái),充分發(fā)揮法官的自由裁量權(quán),以不斷的滿(mǎn)足日益復(fù)雜的環(huán)境侵權(quán)案件之需要,保證社會(huì)的公平與正義。
[Abstract]:The presumption of causality and the inversion of burden of proof are different legal norms in environmental tort litigation. The presumption of causality refers to the occurrence of damage to a certain apparent fact, that is, the existence of a causal relationship between the presumption of damage and that of that fact. The victim does not need to prove the causal relationship between the causation and the victim can claim damages for the act of apparent fact. The defendant would be exempt only if he adduced the contrary proof that the damage had nothing to do with the fact. It belongs to the standard of proof method. The inversion of the burden of proof refers to who should provide evidence to prove the facts of the case that appear in the environmental tort lawsuit, and when the environmental tort case is still in the state of truth or not at the end of the lawsuit, Who should bear the consequences of losing or adverse litigation. It belongs to the standard of burden of proof. Although the starting point of these two methods is to protect victims and prevent environmental pollution in environmental tort litigation, the difference between them is also obvious. On the whole, the presumption of causality is a supplement to the classification of legal elements in the distribution of burden of proof, while the inversion of burden of proof is a departure from the theory of classification of legal elements. The current law adopts the inverted system of burden of proof in the environmental tort litigation, but the single inversion of proof cannot meet the needs of the increasingly complex environmental tort cases, and because of the vague regulation of the system itself, This makes the system not operable, resulting in many cases of mechanization and misuse in judicial practice, which is not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, but also not conducive to the normal development of enterprises. Therefore, the presumption of causality should be used boldly, the theory of inevitability abroad, the theory of epidemic causality, the theory of indirect countervailing and the theory of non-causation should be actively used for reference, and the presumption of causality should be applied in the general environmental tort litigation, and the presumption of causation should be applied in special cases. The burden of proof is reversed in serious environmental tort cases. The two methods of proof are combined organically to give full play to the discretion of the judge in order to meet the needs of the increasingly complex environmental tort cases and to ensure the fairness and justice of the society.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.68;D925

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉英明;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)證明責(zé)任倒置合理性論證[J];北方法學(xué);2010年02期

2 馬栩生,呂忠梅;環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任分配[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

3 李勁;環(huán)境侵權(quán)民事責(zé)任探析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2004年06期

4 楊素娟;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中的因果關(guān)系推定[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年04期

5 袁東;龔桂紅;;如何理解環(huán)境污染侵權(quán)訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任倒置問(wèn)題[J];江蘇環(huán)境科技;2005年S1期

6 翟傳強(qiáng);論環(huán)境侵權(quán)的民事責(zé)任[J];遼寧工程技術(shù)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期

7 鄒雄;;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)中因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

8 鄭世保;;環(huán)境民事訴訟舉證責(zé)任分配之重構(gòu)[J];求索;2008年07期

9 徐祥民;鄧一峰;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)與環(huán)境侵害——兼論環(huán)境法的使命[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年02期

10 丁鳳楚;;論國(guó)外的環(huán)境侵權(quán)因果關(guān)系理論——兼論我國(guó)相關(guān)理論的完善[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)研究;2007年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 汪屏;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)的民事責(zé)任[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2003年

2 于爽;環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟證明問(wèn)題研究[D];福州大學(xué);2005年

3 葉芬良;論環(huán)境民事訴訟因果關(guān)系之證明[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

4 史博學(xué);論環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟的證明責(zé)任分配[D];青島大學(xué);2009年

5 楊小麗;論因果關(guān)系推定中的疫學(xué)因果關(guān)系理論[D];重慶大學(xué);2009年

6 趙宇;論環(huán)境民事侵權(quán)訴訟的證明責(zé)任分配[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1910689