>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Lu Yaodong v. Yongda Company
陆耀东诉永达公司环境污染损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort ★ ; Civil-->Deleted Cause of Action
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 11-01-2004
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 5,2005

Lu Yaodong v. Yongda Company
陆耀东诉永达公司环境污染损害赔偿纠纷案

Lu Yaodong v. Yongda Company
(Dispute over Compensation for Damages Caused from Environmental Pollution)

 

陆耀东诉永达公司环境污染损害赔偿纠纷案

 【裁判摘要】
[Judgment Abstract] 根据民法通则一百二十四条和环保法第四十一条的规定,行为人的照明灯光对他人的正常居住环境和健康生活造成环境污染危害的,行为人有责任排除危害。
Under Article 124 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 41 of the Environmental Protection Law, any one whose illuminating light causes environmental pollution detriment to others' normal residential environment and healthy living shall have the obligation to eliminate the detriment. 
BASIC FACTS 原告:陆耀东,男,36岁,住上海市浦东新区。
Plaintiff: Lu Yaodong, male, 36, dwelling at Pudong New Area, Shanghai City. 被告:上海永达中宝汽车销售服务有限公司。住所地:上海市浦东新区。
Defendant: Shanghai Yongda Zhongbao Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd., domiciled at Pudong New Area, Shanghai City. 法定代表人:何红兵,该公司总经理。
Legal Representative: He Hongbin, general manager of the company. 原告陆耀东因与被告上海永达中宝汽车销售服务有限公司(以下简称永达公司)发生环境污染损害赔偿纠纷,向上海市浦东新区人民法院提起诉讼。
Lu Yaodong, the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Pudong Court) against Shanghai Yongda Zhongbao Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yongda Company) due to a dispute over compensation for damages caused from environmental pollution. 原告诉称:原告在被告经营场所的隔壁小区居住。被告经营场所东面展厅的围墙边,安装着三盏双头照明路灯,每晚七时至次日晨五时开启。这些路灯散射的强烈灯光,直入原告居室,使原告难以安睡,为此出现了失眠、烦躁不安等症状,工作效率低下。被告设置的这些路灯,严重干扰了居民的休息,已经违反从2004年9月1日起上海市开始实施的《城市环境装饰照明规范》的规定,构成光污染侵害。请求判令被告停止和排除对原告的光污染侵害,拆除该路灯,公开向原告道歉,并给原告赔偿损失1000元。审理中,原告将请求赔偿损失的金额变更为1元。
Lu Yaodong alleged that,He lived in a residential quarter adjacent to Yongda Company's business place. Beside the bounding wall of the exhibition hall in the east of Yongda Company's business place, there installed three twin-head illuminating road lamps which were turned on from 7 o'clock every evening to 5 o'clock on the morning of the next day. The strong lamplight emitted from these road lamps and shined into his apartment, made him hard to fall asleep. He suffered from some symptoms such as insomnia, worry and discomfort, and his work efficiency became very low. The road lamps installed by Yongda Company seriously disturbed residents' sleep. Hence Yongda Company violated the “Rules on Urban Environmental Decoration and Illumination” which came into force in Shanghai Municipality on September 1, 2004, and its act constituted an illuminant pollution infringement. Lu Yaodong pleaded the court to order Yongda Company to stop and eliminate the illuminant pollution infringement upon him, to dismantle these road lamps, to make a public apology to him, and to compensate 1000 Yuan of losses to him. In the hearing, Lu Yaodong changed his claim for compensation into 1 Yuan. 原告陆耀东提交以下证据:
Lu Yaodong submitted the following evidence: 
1. A contract of Shanghai Municipality on distribution or sale of the settle-down house or affordable house, which proves Lu Yaodong's apartment was adjacent to Yongda Company's business place; 1.上海市安居房、平价房配售合同一份,用以证明陆耀东的居室与永达公司的经营场所相邻;
2. Two photos taken on the evening of August 30, 2004. One is about the road lamps in question which were turned on, and the other is about the exterior wall of Lu Yaodong's apartment. These photos prove the brightness of the involved road lamps which were turned on and the extent of brightness on the exterior wall of Lu Yaodong's apartment; 2.2004年8月30日晚间拍摄的涉案路灯开启状态以及陆耀东居室外墙的照片 2张,用以证明涉案路灯开启后的亮度以及陆耀东居室外墙受照射的程度;
3. A segment of the video records shot in Lu Yaodong's apartment about the lamplight from the involved turned-on road lamps, which proves that the lamplight irradiating from the involved road lamps into the apartment was too dazzling at night; 3.在陆耀东居室内拍摄的涉案路灯开启后灯光射入情况的录像片段,用以证明在夜间目视情况下,射入居室的涉案路灯灯光非常刺眼;
4. Two news reports from http://www.people.com.cn and http://www.enorth.com.cn about illuminant pollution, which prove that illuminant pollution will cause negative effects to human health; 4.“人民网”、“北方网”上关于光污染的报道2篇,用以证明光污染会对人体健康造成负面影响;
5. The text of the “Rules on Urban Environmental Decoration and Illumination”, which proves that the lamplight of the involved road lamps into Lu Yaodong's apartment has reached the standard of “obstructive light” and “illuminant pollution” as referred to in the Rules. 5.《城市环境装饰照明规范》文本,用以证明涉案路灯的灯光对陆耀东居室的照射已达到该规范所指的“障害光”和“光污染”标准。
Yongda Company argued that, the road lamps in question were installed by Yongda Company for illumination of the external environment of its own business place, and were a necessary equipment for its business operations. They were installed in Yongda Company's own business place, and Lu Yaodong had no right to interfere with. The power of each road lamp was only 120 watts, which would not cause illuminant pollution, nor was it possible to injure the right of Lu Yaodong or cause any actual damage to him. The road lamps not only illuminated the external environment of Yongda Company's own business place, but also actually facilitated the residents living in the adjacent residential quarter to walk at night. Even so, Yongda Company had cut off the electrical source of the road lamps in question after knowing that Lu Yaodong had brought a lawsuit so as to maintain a desirable relationship with the neighborhood residents, and warranted that it would no longer use the road lamps in question. Hence Yongda Company did not agree to Lu Yaodong's litigation claims. 被告辩称:涉案路灯是被告为自己的经营场所外部环境提供照明安装的,是经营所需的必要装置,而且是安装在被告自己的经营场所上,原告无权干涉。该路灯的功率每盏仅为120瓦,不会造成光污染,不可能侵害原告,更不会对原告造成什么实际的损害结果。该路灯不仅为被告自己的经营场所外部环境提供了照明,事实上也为隔壁小区居民的夜间行走提供了方便。即便如此,为搞好企业与临近居民的关系,被告在得知原告起诉后,已经切断了涉案路灯的电源,并保证今后不再使用,故不同意原告的诉讼请求。
...... 被告未提交证据,对原告提交的证据,被告质证认为:对证据1无异议,证据2、3不能证明涉案灯光已构成光污染,也不能证明该灯光妨害了原告,证据4与涉案灯光无直接关系,证据5的真实性无异议,但无法证明涉案灯光的亮度已超出该规范规定的“障害光”、“光污染”标准。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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