污染环境造成他人损害的归责原则——基于司法裁判的实证分析

《民法典》（草案）第1229条规定了污染环境造成他人损害的归责问题,根据现行通说和最高人民法院的司法解释,各类污染侵权均一体适用无过错责任,并排除合规抗辩。但这种大一统观念忽略了各类污染行为的内在差异及其社会效果和法律效果的不同,导致无过错责任在司法实践中难以适用于噪声、噪光、电磁辐射等拟制型污染的场合。为保持法典的稳定性与权威性,应当对第1229条的“污染环境造成他人损害”作限缩解释,使之仅涵盖排放污染物质造成损害的场合;排放能量作为“污染的拟制”,由于并未造成环境本身的污染,不符合第1229条的适用条件,应作为一般侵权适用过错责任;同时,应将第294条作为不具有实质规范效力的宣示条款,从而消除环境污染责任与相邻污染侵害可能存在的竞合。

The Imputation Principle of Damage Caused by Environmental Pollution:an Empirical Analysis Based on Judicial Adjudication

Article 1229 of the Civil Code (Draft) provides the imputation principle of damage caused by environmental pollution.According to the previous popular theory and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court,all types of pollution torts should apply non-fault liability,and compliance defense is excluded.However,this unified viewpoint ignores the inherent differences in various pollution behaviors,as well as the resulting social and legal effects differences,so that no-fault liability can only be applied in some cases of pollution infringement such as noise,light and electromagnetic radiation.In order to maintain the stability and authority of the Code,a restrictive interpretation of environmental pollution in Article 1229 should be made to only cover the damages caused by the tangible pollutants.As a legal fiction of pollution,energy emissions do not cause the pollution to the environment itself and therefore do not meet the applicable conditions of Article 1229,and should be treated as a general tort.At the same time,Article 294 should be treated as a declaration clause that has no substantive normative effect,so as to eliminate the possible competition between environmental pollution torts and adjacent pollution infringement.