环境侵权因果关系证明责任分配规则的法经济学分析——基于2005—2017年120份环境侵权判决书

Legal and Economic Analysis of Distribution of Burden of Proof About Environmental Infringement Causality——Based on 120 Copies of Judgments of Environmental Infringements from 2005 to 2017

近年来,环境问题日益突出,引发的环境侵权案件逐渐增加。我国《侵权责任法》《水污染防治法》等规定了环境侵权因果关系举证责任倒置规则,但学界关于环境侵权因果关系的初步责任应由谁承担有不同主张。有学者认为应该由侵权人承担(即举证责任倒置规则),也有学者认为举证责任倒置规则的适用未区分具体案件,应该适用因果关系推定。鉴于上述争议,笔者试图结合司法案例,并从法经济学的视角出发,分析环境侵权因果关系证明责任应如何分配,从而实现法律公平与效率的双重目标。通过查阅北大法意案例数据库记载的2005—2017年120份环境侵权判决书,发现司法实践中存在"要求被侵权人承担全部或部分证明责任"以及依赖因果关系理论或鉴定结论等问题。进一步根据法经济学理论,对环境侵权因果关系证明责任进行重新界定,分析发现证明责任分配规则的最优选择是:被侵权人承担因果关系证明中的初步证明责任,完成证明责任后由侵权人承担因果关系不存在的证明责任,这一研究结论恰好与学界关于环境污染侵权的"法律上因果关系推定"达成共识。且既可达到收益最大化,又可使预期错判损失最小化。故将立法关于"举证责任倒置"的规定修改为"法律上因果关系推定"的规定具有重要的现实意义。

In recent years, environmental problems have become increasingly prominent, causing more and more environmental tort cases. The rule of onus responsibility inversion in causality presumption of environmental infringements has been regulated in China＇s laws, such as Tort Liability Law and Law on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. However, academic circles have different opinions about who should take the initial responsibility for environmental tort causality. Some scholars hold that the infringer should take the responsibility （that is burden of proof by defendant）. But other scholars hold that the rule does not apply to all cases, and causality presumption is better. Considering the above dispute and the judicial practice and from the perspective of economic analysis of law, the author analyzes how to assign the burden of proof in environmental tort cases, realizing the dual goals of legal fairness and efficiency. According to 120 copies of the judgment of environmental tort cases in Peking University lax database from 2005 to 2017, there were the conditions in practice that ＂the infringed was asked to bear the burden of proof in whole or in part＂, and the issues of relying on causality or expert conclusions and so on. Based on the economic analysis of law, the paper redefines the burden of proof of environmental tort causality. It is found that the optimal choice is that the infringed takes the initial responsibility in causality proof and after the completion of burden of proof, the infringer undertakes the obligations to prove the causality does not exist. This conclusion teaches a consensus with the ＂causality presumption in law＂ of academic circles about environmental pollution torts. It can both achieve maximum profit and minimum expected erroneous judgment losses. Therefore, it has a practical significance to transfer the ＂inversion of the burden of proof＂ to the ＂causality presumption in law＂.