论文部分内容阅读
2号国道附近居民、上班族等作为一审原告,认为噪音、振动、PM2.5等大气污染物超过忍受限度,危害身体健康、造成精神损害等,侵害其人格权和环境权,因而以人格权为依据,向裁判所提起2号国道延伸工事的禁令请求和损害赔偿请求,一审裁判所支持部分损害赔偿请求,驳回禁令请求。对此,当事人双方均不服并提出上诉。二审裁判所经审理认为,2号国道引起噪音经测定超过65db(白天屋外)、40db(晚上屋内),但对忍受限度做出两种不同判断:没有超出禁令所要求的忍受限度,但已经超出了损害赔偿所对应的忍受限度。因此,二审裁判所不支持禁令请求,但变更一审损害赔偿判决,命令被告赔偿原告3500万日元。
Residents of the No. 2 national highway, office workers, etc. as the first instance plaintiff that the noise, vibration, PM2.5 and other air pollutants exceed the tolerance limit, endangering their health, causing mental damage, infringement of their personality and environmental rights, and thus personality rights As the basis, to the referee filed a No. 2 national highway extension of the ban requests and damages claims, the first instance tribunal to support part of the damages request, reject the ban request. In this regard, both parties refused to accept and appealed. The hearing of the judgment of the second instance considers that the noises caused by the No. 2 National Highway have been measured over 65db (outside the house) and 40db (inside the night), but make two different judgments on the limits of endurance: the limit of endurance required by the prohibition has not been exceeded but it has exceeded Compensation limits corresponding to the endurance. Therefore, the second instance tribunal did not support the ban request, but changed the judgment of first instance damages and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff 35 million Japanese yen.