Research On Judicial Application Of Noise Pollution Tort ——Based On 68 Cases Of Noise Pollution Infringement

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the report of the 19 th National Congress of the Communist Party of China: Socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era,and the main contradiction in our society is the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and insufficient development.For a good life,environmental tranquility is one of the important indicators.However,in recent years,the problem of noise pollution has brought a serious threat to people’s environment.The legal study of pollution is particularly important.In addition,the case study has actually become an important way of the development of our country’s law,and even a source of law-making.Therefore,it is of great significance to study the case of noise pollution infringement.This paper adopts the method of case empirical and selects a total of 68 noise pollution infringement cases from January 1,2018 to December 31,2021.Based on the main appeals of the parties,the case samples are divided into three categories: mental damage compensation category,economic damage compensation category,exclusion of nuisance category.At the same time,according to the representativeness of each case,three cases will be selected from the sample for detailed analysis: first,Zhang Ruizhen v.Fu Changhai noise pollution infringement dispute,reflecting the different applicable standards for the presumption of causality in noise pollution infringement cases;second,Gao Jincheng v.Beijing No.6 Subway Company,the amount of compensation for mental damage to multiple victims was different,which well reflected the existing problems in the application of mental damage compensation;third,Li Zhenlin v.Harbin-Dalian Railway Passenger Transport Company for noise pollution infringement dispute,reflecting the difficulty in determining the fact of damage and the unreasonable scope of damage compensation.Through the analysis of similar cases and typical cases,the general problems existing in the people’s courts in hearing noise pollution infringement cases are exposed,and suggestions for improving the judicial application of noise pollution infringement cases are put forward according to the problems.The case analysis shows that the main problems in judicial practice of noise pollution infringement cases are as follows: First,the applicable standards for the presumption of causation are different.First,there is confusion between the people’s court’s application of the presumption of causation and the reversal of the burden of proof;second,the people’s court requires the plaintiff to bear the initial burden of proof for causation,but does not further stipulate the specific requirements for such a burden of proof.Second,the application of the inversion of the burden of proof rule is unscientific,and the revision of the Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law makes it necessary to adjust it.Third,the damage facts proved too demanding.Fourth,the applicable standards of liability for mental damage vary.The law does not provide a detailed explanation of the "serious" degree and amount of compensation for mental damage.In practice,it is completely determined by the judge according to the circumstances of the case,which makes the judge’s discretionary power too large,and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case occurs.Fifth,the scope of damages is unreasonable.The scope and extent of protection of damaged rights and interests in judicial practice are still limited to the scope of the established damage,and the subsequent and potential damages caused by the infringement are not considered accordingly,resulting in an unreasonable scope of compensation.In order to balance the rights and interests of the infringer and the infringed,in view of the above problems reflected in the case analysis,it is necessary for the judicial organs to start from the improvement of the proof system and the damage compensation system in judicial practice.In terms of proof,the applicable standards for the presumption of causation should be refined,the application of the inversion rule of the burden of proof should be adjusted,and the requirements for proof of damage facts should be reduced.In the application of the damage compensation system,on the one hand,it is necessary to classify the degree of mental damage and formulate a flexible range for the determination of the amount of compensation;...