一、案情与问题乌油污染事故赔偿责任案是一起曾经引发过全国范围大讨论的案例。案件的背景是,林某多年从事乌油生意。1997年7月某晚,林某的油罐被人打开阀门,导致乌油流失殆尽而污染了下游的农田、鱼塘,造成损失数千元。第二天林某发现后立即向公安机关派出所报案,但至1998年1月24日还没有破案。被污染的受害者向环保部门投诉,要求林某赔偿损失,林某则以乌油是因为被第三人故意打开而造成他人污染,并以本人也因乌油流失损失了五、六千元为由拒绝赔偿。环保部门对林某是否承担民事赔偿责任存在两种不同意见。第一种意见是林某不承担赔偿责任。理由是根据《水污染防治法》第55条第3款的规定:“水污染损失由第三者故意或者过失引起的,第三者应当承担责任。”这次污染事故是由第三者故意所为引起的,按照《水污染防治法》的规定,应当由第三者承担责任。环境污染的受害者只有等到公安机关破案后,再向作案的第三者要求赔偿损失,林某不承担赔偿损失的责任。第二种意见是林某应当赔偿损失。理由是虽然油罐是被第三人打开,但是林某也有过错,其一,林某的油罐存放点未经环保部门审批,违反《环境保护法》第13条建设项目环境保护管理的有关规定:“建设污染环境的项目,必须遵守国家有关建设项 First, the merits and problems Ukrainian oil pollution accident liability case has triggered a nationwide discussion of the case. The background of the case is that Lin has been engaged in oil business for many years. One night in July 1997, Lin’s oil tank was opened the valve, leading to the exhaustion of Ukraine oil and contaminated the downstream farmland, fish ponds, resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars. The next day Lin found immediately after reporting to the police station police station, but to January 24, 1998 has not yet solved the case. Polluted victims complained to the environmental protection department, asking Lin compensation for damages, while Lin Wuyou oil is because of deliberately opened by a third person to cause pollution to others, and because of the loss of Wuyou also lost five or six thousand dollars Reasons for refusing compensation. The environmental protection department has two different opinions on whether Lin assumes the responsibility of civil compensation. The first opinion is that Lin does not assume the liability for compensation. The reason is that according to the ”Water Pollution Prevention Law,“ Article 55, paragraph 3: ”Water pollution damage caused by a third party intentional or negligent, a third party should bear the responsibility. “ The pollution accident by the third Intentionally caused, according to ”Water Pollution Prevention Law,“ the third party should bear the responsibility. The victims of environmental pollution wait until the public security organs solve the case, and then to the third party for compensation for damages, Lin does not assume the responsibility of compensation for losses. The second opinion is that Lin should pay damages. The reason is that although the oil tank was opened by a third party, Lin also made a mistake. First, Lin’s tank storage point was not approved by the environmental protection department in violation of Article 13 of the ”Environmental Protection Law“ concerning the environmental protection of construction projects Provisions: ”Construction of the project of environmental pollution, must comply with the relevant state construction projects