>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Villagers' Committee of Chunyang Village v. Hua'nan Gold Mine Bureau (A case about disputes over compensation for damages to paddy fields caused by pollution discharged from a Gold Mining Ship)
春阳村村民委员会诉桦南金矿局采金船排污污染水田损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort ★ ; Civil-->Deleted Cause of Action
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 01-30-1988
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 4,1988

Villagers’ Committee of Chunyang Village v. Hua’nan Gold Mine Bureau (A case about disputes over compensation for damages to paddy fields caused by pollution discharged from a Gold Mining Ship)
(A case about disputes over compensation for damages to paddy fields caused by pollution discharged from a Gold Mining Ship)
春阳村村民委员会诉桦南金矿局采金船排污污染水田损害赔偿纠纷案

Villagers' Committee of Chunyang Village v. Hua'nan Gold Mine Bureau
(A case about disputes over compensation for damages to paddy fields caused by pollution discharged from a Gold Mining Ship)

 

春阳村村民委员会诉桦南金矿局

 采金船排污污染水田损害赔偿纠纷案
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Villagers' Committee of Chunyang Village, Shitouhezi Township, Hua'nan County, Heilongjiang Province (“Chunyang Village”). 原告:黑龙江省桦南县石头河子镇春阳村村民委员会(简称春阳村)。
Legal Representative: Ren Fuzhi, director of the Villagers' Committee of Chunyang Village. 法定代表人:任福志,春阳村村民委员会主任。
Attorney: Wang Zhibin, Party Branch Secretary of Chunyang Village. 委托代理人:王志斌,春阳村党支部书记。
Attorney: Chen Shengjun, accountant of the Villagers' Committee of Chunyang Village. 委托代理人:陈胜君,春阳村民委员会会计。
Defendant: Hua'nan Gold Mine Bureau of the Ministry of Metallurgical Industry (“Gold Mine Bureau”). 被告:冶金工业部桦南金矿局(简称金矿局)。
Legal Representative: Zhu Xingkuan, deputy director-general of the Gold Mine Bureau. 法定代表人:朱兴宽,金矿局副局长。
Attorney: Kong Fanyi, chief of the Enterprise Administration Section of the Gold Mine Bureau. 委托代理人:孔繁义,金矿局企业管理科科长。
For compensation for damages to the paddy fields caused by the pollution discharged by the defendant, the Gold Mine Bureau, in its gold mining, the plaintiff, Chunyang Village, brought a lawsuit in the People's Court of Hua'nan County, Heilongjiang Province. This court legally formed a collegiate bench, and on November 6, 1987, held an open trial, finding that: 原告春阳村因被告金矿局在采金中排污污染水田请求赔偿,向黑龙江省桦南县人民法院起诉。该院依法组成合议庭,于1987年11月6日进行了公开审理,查明:
In 1978, the defendant completed the building of the No. 1025 gold mining ship on the upper reach of the Willow River, Shitouhezi Township, Hua'nan County. After the gold mining ship was put into production, it was found that the water of the Willow River was not concentrated, which was inconvenient for the productive operations of the gold mining ship. In June 1982, without the approval of the relevant department, the defendant cut off the water of the Willow River to raise the water level, and drew the river water into the No. 1025 dock through an artificial canal of 700 meters. The artificial canal had a structure of mine soil, and in productive operations, the gold mining ship did not make any treatment of the waste water, and directly discharged it into the low reach of the Willow River, causing the suspensions in the river water to increase from 143 mg. to 5,558 mg. per liter and the suspensions at the water intake of the paddy fields of Chunyang Village to reach 3,318 mg. per liter, 2,818 mg. in excess of the maximum volume of allowable discharge of suspensions,500 mg. per liter, for Industrial wastewater prescribed by the State. 被告于1978年在桦南县石头河子镇柳树河上游建成“1025”号采金船。采金船投产后,发现柳树河水不集中,不便于采金船生产。1982年6月,被告未经有关部门批准,擅自截断柳树河水,抬高水位,用700公尺的人工渠将河水引入“1025”号船坞。人工渠系矿土结构,采金船生产时,将废水未作任何处理, 直接排入柳树河下游,使河水中的悬浮物由原来每升143毫克上升为5558毫克,春阳村水田进水口处的悬浮物每升达3318毫克,比国家规定的工业废水最高容许排放悬浮物每升500毫克,超出2818毫克。
Through the field investigation, of the 824 mu paddy fields of Chunyang Village, 162.3 mu had suffered from pollution, which caused the yield to decrease by 58.3 kg per mu, by 9,462.1 kg per year, and by a total of 37,848.4 kg in four years; if the amount of reduced yield of grains was calculated by 0.5 yuan per kg, the total loss would be 18,924.2 yuan. Since the No. 1025 dock discharged volumes of mud into the Willow River, causing the main feed water canals for 100.63 mu of paddy fields of Chunyang Village to be covered by the silt, the silt needed to be dredged up. The deepest silt in the paddy fields reached 39 cm, and the average depth was 12.2 cm. Each year, 8,184 cu. m. of the silt needed to be dredged up, and totally, 32,736 cu. m. needed to be dredged up in four years. If the labor cost for dredging up the silt was calculated by one yuan per cu. m., a total of labor cost of 32,736 yuan would be necessary. To carry away the silt by vehicles, if the vehicle cost was calculated by 15 yuan per day, and the daily freight volume was 15 cu. m. per vehicle, a total of vehicle cost of 32,736 yuan would be necessary. The silt in the main and branch channels of the canals and at the barrage was 1,038.31 cu. m., which needed to be dredged up twice a year, and a total of 8,306.48 cu. m. in four years would be dredged up. After deduction of the natural pollution at a rate of 15.07 percent and the volume of sewage discharge allowed by the state, which was totally 1,252 cu. m., Chunyang Village needed to dredge up 7,115.8 cu. m. of silt, and use705.5 laborers. If the laborer cost was calculated by five yuan per laborer, the laborer cost would be totally 3,528 yuan. 经实地勘验,春阳村824亩水田,162.3亩受到污染,致使每亩减产58.3公斤,每年减产9462.1公斤,4年共减产37848.4公斤;减产粮食按每公斤0.50元计算,共合计损失人民币18924.2元。由于“1025”号船坞将大量泥浆排入柳树河,致使春阳村100.63亩水田进水主要渠道被淤泥漫延,需要清理。其中,水田淤泥最深处达39公分,平均深度为12.2公分,每年需清除淤泥8184立方米,4年共需清淤泥32736立方米,按每清理一立方米淤泥1元计算,共需人工费32736元。将这些淤泥用车运走,按每日车工费15元计算,每车日运量为15立方米,共需32736元。水渠主渠道、支渠及拦河堤淤积的泥浆为1038.31立方米,每年需清理2次,4年共需清理淤泥8306.48立方米,扣除15.07%立方米的自然污染与国家容许排污量合计1252立方米,春阳村需清淤泥7115.8立方米,用工705.5个,按每人工费5元计算,共计3528元。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Through trial, in the opinion of the People's Court of Hua'nan County: Article 5 (1) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution 你怀了我的猴子provided that: “All entities and individuals shall have the obligation to protect water environment;” and Article 29 of it provided that: “To discharge industrial waste water or urban sewage to farmland irrigation canals, the water quality at the nearest intake of irrigation water at the lower reach shall be ensured to measure up to the water quality standards for farmland irrigation.” Article 29 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China (for trial implementation) provided that: “The discharge of sewage must be up to the State standards.” However, without the approval of any department, the Hua'nan Gold Mine Bureau of the Ministry of Metallurgical Industry changed the route of the Willow River, and drew the river water into the dock. In its productive operations, without taking any prevention measures, the No. 1025 Gold Mining Ship used river water in washing and gold mining, and discharged the tailing water which seriously exceeded the standards into the riverway of the Willow River. Volumes of the tailing water carrying suspensions flew down the river, causing the clog of the feed canal of Chunyang Village, pollution of the paddy fields and decrease of the paddle yield. Therefore, the defendant should assume the direct liability for the caused water pollution. According to Article 124 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 41 北大法宝,版权所有(1) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, the plaintiff's request for the defendant to assume the civil liability and make compensation for losses should be supported. 桦南县人民法院审理认为,《中华人民共和国水污染防治法》第五条第一款规定,“一切单位和个人都有责任保护水环境”;第二十九条

曾经瘦过你也是厉害

规定:“向农田灌溉渠道排放工业废水和城市污水,应当保证其下游最近的灌溉取水点的水质符合农田灌溉水质标准”。《中华人民共和国环境保护法》(试行)第二十九条规定,“排放污水必须符合国家的标准。”但是,冶金工业部桦南金矿局未经任何部门批准,将柳树河改道,引河水入船坞。“1025”号采金船在生产过程中,未采取任何防治措施,用河水冲洗采金,又将严重超标准的尾矿水排入柳树河道,致使大量带有悬浮物的尾矿水沿河而下,造成春阳村引水渠堵塞,水田污染,水稻减产。对此,被告应负造成水污染的直接责任。原告根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百二十四条水污染防治法来自北大法宝四十一条第一款的规定,要求被告承担民事责任,赔偿损失,应予支持。
In conclusion, on November 20, 1987, the People's Court of Hua'nan County ruled as follows: 综上,桦南县人民法院于1987年11月20日判决如下:
The paddy yield of the plaintiff would decrease by 37,848.4 kg in four years, and if the amount was calculated by 0.50 yuan per kg, the total loss would be 18,924.2 yuan; the total loss in laborer and vehicle costs for dredging up the silt in the polluted paddy fields in four years would be 65,472 yuan; and the total loss in cost for dredging up the silt in the main and branch channels and the barrage in four years would be 3,528 yuan. In a grand total, the plaintiff would suffer a loss of 87,924.2 yuan, which should be compensated for and paid off in a lump sum by the defendant after this judgment took effect. 原告4年水稻减产37848.4公斤,每公斤计价0.50元,共计损失18924.2元;4年清除水田被污染的的淤泥损失人工费和车工费,共计65472元;4年清除主渠、支渠和拦河堤淤泥,共计损失3528元。以上使原告4年共损失87924.2元,由被告负责赔偿,判决生效后一次付清。
The litigation costs for the trial of first instance, 2,029 yuan, should be paid by the defendant. 一审诉讼费用2029元,由被告负担。
Against this judgment of first instance, the defendant appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Jiamusi City, on the grounds that: it should assume certain liability for the nonstandard discharge of sewage in the process of gold mining, but should be only liable for the losses incurred by the plaintiff due to the yield reduction and laborer cost after the deduction of losses caused by other facts, rather than all losses incurred by the plaintiff. 被告不服一审判决,向佳木斯市中级人民法院提出上诉。理由是:承认对采金过程中超标准排污应负一定责任,但不能承担原告的全部损失,只应承担扣除其他因素所造成的减产、用工损失。
JUDGMENT 
Through the trial of second instance, in the opinion of the Intermediate People's Court of Jiamusi City, when hearing this case, the court of first instance had fully considered the grounds of the appellant, and when calculating the losses, had deducted the natural pollution, volume of sewage discharge allowed by the state and area of silt below three cm at a rate of 15.07 percent. The facts found by the original trial court were clear, the right and wrong and the liabilities were evident, the application of law was correct, and the appeal grounds of the appellant should not be supported. According to Article 151 (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, on January 30, 1988, this court of second instance ruled to dismiss the appeal and sustain the original judgment. 佳木斯市中级人民法院二审认为,一审人民法院在审理该案时,已充分考虑了上诉人提出的理由,在计算损失时,已扣除15.07%的自然污染和国家容许排污量及3公分以下的淤泥面积。原审法院认定事实清楚,是非、责任分明,适用法律正确,上诉人的上诉理由不予支持。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法(试行)》第一百五十一条第一款第(一)项的规定,于1988年1月30日判决驳回上诉,维持原判。
The litigation costs for the trial of second instance, 2,026 yuan, should be paid by the appellant.

 二审诉讼费用2026元,由上诉人负担。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese