A Study On The Preliminary Proof Responsibility Of Plaintiff's Causation In Environmental Tort

The causal relationship between the environmental infringement of the victim and the damage of the victim is the key issue that environmental pollution tort behavior is formed. The Law Of Tort Liability and the preceding law prescribes the inversion of the burden of proof of causality. The inversion of the burden of proof of causality will be the burden of proof fully assigned to the defendant. Although the rule lightened the plaintiffs burden of proof, but it overweighted the defendant's accountability. This rule ignores the normal connection between the underlying fact and the presumption, and there is also a serious weakening of the application of judicial trials.In order to solve the logical defect of this rule and the applicable problem, Interpretation Of The Supreme People's Court Of On Several Issues Concerning The Application Of Law In The Trial Of Environmental Tort Liability Disputes(The following abbreviations for Environmental Pollution Infringement Judicial Interpretation) provides proof of causation from the point of view of the plaintiff and defendant respectively. Article 6 the plaintiff shall bear the proof of the relation of causality by the plaintiffs point of view. It breaks the inversion of the burden of proof of causality, and it is clear that the plaintiff needs to prove the relevance.Because the article 6 of The Environmental Pollution Infringement Judicial Interpretation did not specify the nature of relevance, the standard of proof, the method of proof and so on, there are different rulings in the same case in judicial trials. So it needs to be clear. Firstly,the plaintiff causality relevance is the plaintiff causal relationship between the preliminary proof responsibility, and it is burden of persuasion. The defendant began to prove that the causal relationship did not exist after the plaintiff assumed the relevance certificate and reached the prevailing criterion. The plaintiffs affirmation is based on the plaintiffs and defendant's ability to prove in the causal relationship between the parties to the defendant and plaintiff of the reasonable division, belong to the redistribution of the burden of proof, to compensate for the lack of proof of the burden of the normal relationship.Secondly, the causal relationship of correlation proof is determined by the method of typing. Causality presumption is the proof of the plaintiff's correlation proof. The methods of causality presumption, such as epidemic causality law, indirect proof method, have been widely applied in the plaintiffs correlation proof. Finally, Article 7 of Environmental Pollution Infringement Judicial Interpretation shall be connected to article 6, to justify the failure of causality in the case that the defendant denies the relevance. Article 7 only provides that defendant shall by denying plaintiffs proposed pollution behavior and the consequences to infer the causal relationship does not exist, In essence, the defendant through the indirect proof of causal relationship does not exist to prove.There is no relevance to Article 6. It should be made clear that the defendant can also presume that the causal relationship does not exist by cutting off the plaintiffs condition of proof of causality.