公害糾紛損害賠償事件舉證責任之標準——以公害糾紛裁決與法院判決之實務案例為中心

Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards in Public Nuisance Compensation Cases–Case Analyses of the Verdicts of Public Nuisance Resolution Committees and Courts in Taiwan

我國自民國八十一年制定公害糾紛處理法以來，即透過公害糾紛之調處、裁決與法院判決，累積處理公害糾紛之經驗與相關之法律與科學鑑定之經驗與原則。過去學術上有關公害污染責任之討論多著重於理論與比較法之介紹，我國本土之案例之整理似較為不足 。本文即透過本土案例之整理，呈現我國在公害污染責任實際案例中相關法律與理論如何被運用。本文之整理發現: 1、針對損害存在之舉證，裁決委員會與法院皆較為嚴格之認定，須嚴格或具科學基礎之證明；2、針對因果關係之認定，雖已有民法第一九一條之三之立法有舉證責任倒置之規定，裁決委員會與法院皆要求須有一定之科學證明，得以推論因果關係為必要；3、針對故意過失之認定，裁決委員會與法院運用民法與民事訴訟法相關之規定，從寬認定故意過失之存在；4、針對損害金額之認定，裁決委員會與法院運用民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項大幅減輕原告之舉證負擔，然而法院在裁量審酌損害之額度上似流於恣意，有待進一步之規範。

Taiwan enacted its Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Act in 1992. Cases and experiences on dispute resolution, through scientific expert evaluation and legal rules, have accumulated since then. However, past academic research on this topic has focused on theories and foreign laws. Detailed analysis of local Public Nuisance Dispute cases has been lacking. This article intends to analyze local cases to fill this gap. This research illustrates the following points: 1 - The Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Committee (hereinafter 〞the Committee〞) and the court adjudicate strictly on the evidence of the existence of damage; 2 - The Committee and the court require a certain level of scientific evidence on proof of causation; 3 - The Committee's and court's requirement of evidence for negligence is lax; 4 - The burden of proof for the amount of damage is alleviated according to Paragraph 2 Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Law (Taiwan) and subject to Judges' discretion. However the discretion of the court seems to be too wide and standards are needed to increase predictability.