2017.01.13-0001 開庭court | Yunlin District Court

Image

Format

jpg

License

Creative Commons Licence

Creator(s)

Contributed date

December 31, 2020 - 2:22am

Critical Commentary

The fifth court hearing was a black Friday for the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge wanted the discussion to proceed from the first plaintiff and the first defendant, and so on, one after another. Although it is a strange way to approach problems of causality in a case of industrial pollution, the defendants’ lawyers were very happy with that.

Furthermore, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request to have Prof. Chan Chang Chuan (NTU College of Public Health) testify as an expert at the bar, despite the fact he had conducted a lot of excellent epidemiological research on the case. For the sake of neutrality, the judge prefered to ask two other experts, although they had not conducted research on the case.

2017年1月13日,星期五,於雲林地方法院第五次開庭。

對原告律師們來說,是個黑色星期五。法官希望從第一原告和第一被告開始討論,然後再一個又一個地以此類推,以這種怪異的方式處理工業污染案件中的因果關係問題,但是被告律師卻對此感到非常滿意。

再者,法官駁回了原告要求台大公衛學院詹長權教授作為專家出庭作證。儘管事實上,詹教授已發表大量且出色的流行病學相關研究。為保持中立,法官傾向詢問另兩名專家,即使他們尚未對此案有所研究成果。

20170112-0001 開庭

Presiding Judge Jiang Dezhong:(Left of the picture) essential facts, injurious behavior, unlawful damage result, causality

Defendant: We certainly agree with the judge's suggestion.

Plaintiff: We cannot prove the pollution contribution of every company. My claim is that the defendant’s company caused the pollution together.

Source

20170112 開庭

Group Audience

Cite as

Paul Jobin, "2017.01.13-0001 開庭court | Yunlin District Court", contributed by Tim Schütz, YING FENG ,TAI and Paul Jobin, Disaster STS Network, Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography, last modified 9 April 2021, accessed 22 January 2022.