论环境侵权惩罚性赔偿适用中的“故意”

On “Intent” in the Application of Punitive Damages for Environmental Torts

摘要: 《最高人民法院关于审理生态环境侵权纠纷案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》第6条、第7条将《民法典》第1232条规定中的“故意”解释为“具有污染环境、破坏生态的故意”。笔者提出两个问题：一是该“故意”的范围能否再扩大解释为重大过失？二是若行为具有合法性能直接排除具有“故意”吗？经过论述，笔者得出结论：《民法典》第1232条中所描述的主观“故意”仅包括直接和间接故意，对于一般过失和重大过失都应排除在外。二是行为的合法性不能当然排除适用惩罚性赔偿条款中的“故意”，由于生态环境领域的侵权行为具有特殊性，即使当事人不存在法律规定的污染环境行为或破坏生态行为，也存在对个体利益造成严重损害的可能性。

Abstract: Articles 6 and 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Ecological and Environmental Tort Dispute Cases interpret the “intent” stipulated in Article 1232 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China as “the intent to pollute the environment or damage the ecology”. The author discusses two issues: first, whether the scope of this “intent” can be expansively interpreted to include gross negligence? Second, can lawful conduct exclude the intent required for punitive damages? The conclusions drawn are as follows: first, the “intent” in Article 1232 of the Civil Code includes direct intent and indirect intent, and negligent acts, including gross negligence, shall be excluded. Second, lawful conduct cannot necessarily exclude the intent for punitive damages. Due to the particularity of the ecological and environmental field, even acts of environmental pollution or ecological damage that do not violate legal provisions may cause serious harm to individual interests.