飞机起降产生噪声损害周边居民人身、财产安全,由此导致机场噪声纠纷频发. 从我国立法与判例来看,相邻关系与环境污染责任均可被适用,但由于相邻关系解决此类纠纷存在明显缺陷,以环境污染责任作为解决路径更为合理. 检索相关司法案例发现,法院倾向于判决机场直接承担侵权责任. 学术界尚未对噪声污染损害的责任主体达成一致,但普遍认为不应将机场排斥在责任主体范围外. 不可否认,机场对机场噪声污染的发生具有不可推卸的责任. 机场作为飞机起降的管理与服务平台,有能力控制噪声污染,负有一定管理职责且对其服务过程享有经济利益,噪声污染责任的发生往往由于机场未能履行减噪义务、未能合理安排起降时间等原因造成,因此,机场承担噪声污染责任具有正当性. 但是,需要明确的是,机场并不能直接承担噪声污染责任. 《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》明确规定污染者和第三人承担环境污染责任,但是,机场本身并不排放噪声,不是污染者,不论述航空公司的排污行为、不分析机场的管理职责与减噪义务,直接由机场承担噪声污染责任,不符合环境污染责任的构成要件. 同时,噪声由飞机产生,机场不履行管理义务并不是噪声污染发生的唯一原因,机场也不能适用《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第68条的规定,不能以第三人身份承担侵权责任. 航空公司所有的飞机直接引发噪声污染,根据自己责任法理,联系污染者负担原则,航空公司理应承担噪声污染责任. 航空公司直接产生噪声污染,机场不适当履行义务的行为为损害发生创造条件,二者有成立帮助侵权的可能性,利用版权帮助侵权的法律规定与学理,确定帮助侵权的一般要件,机场噪声污染符合该要件. 帮助侵权本属共同侵权的范畴,根据共同侵权的主观主义立场,机场与航空公司应具有相同或类似的主观过错,但环境污染责任并不要求污染者具有主观过错,主观主义立场违背无过错责任的立法意旨,阻碍机场与航空公司成立帮助侵权. 共同侵权的客观主义立场不要求共同过错,机场与航空公司在行为上关联引发噪声侵权,无须证明航空公司主观过错,与侵权法规定相符,在客观说下,机场与航空公司成立帮助侵权. 目前,我国立法既承认主观说,也承认客观说,这一态度为机场与航空公司成立帮助侵权提供依据. 为证明机场与航空公司之间构成帮助侵权,须证明以下内容:(1)机场具有主观过错.(2)存在航空公司排放噪声的行为与机场的帮助行为.(3)存在机场噪声损害的事实. (4)上述行为要件与损害结果存在因果关系.
Noise generated by aircraft take-off and landing damages the safety of personal and property of the surrounding residents, resulting in frequent noise disputes against airports. Judging from our country's legislation and precedents, adjacent relations and environmental pollution liability can be applied. However, adjacent relations has obvious defects in solving such disputes. It is more reasonable to take the environmental pollution liability as a solution path. Retrieving relevant judicial cases, courts tended to decide that airports assume tort liability directly. Academia has not yet reached an agreement on the subject responsible for noise pollution infringement, but it is generally believed that airports should not be excluded from the scope of the subject of liability. It is undeniable that airports have an inescapable responsibility for the occurrence of airport noise pollution. As a management and service platform for aircraft takeoff and landing, airports have the ability to control noise pollution, have certain management responsibilities and enjoy economic benefits in its service process. The occurrence of noise pollution liability is often caused by airports failure to fulfill their noise reduction obligations, fail to rationally arrange takeoff and landing time and so on. Therefore, it is justifiable that airports undertake tort liability resulting from damages of noise pollution. However, it needs to be clear that airports are not directly responsible for noise pollution. The Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that the polluter and the third party shall bear the responsibility for environmental pollution. However, airports do not emit noise and are not polluters. It is not concordant with the constitutive elements of environmental pollution liability if airports bear environmental pollution liability directly regardless of the airlines ’pollutant discharge behavior, airports' management responsibility and the duty to reduce noise. At the same time, noise is generated by aircrafts. Failure of airports to fulfill their management obligations is not the only reason for noise pollution. Airports cannot apply the provisions of Article 68 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Tort Liability and cannot assume tort liability as a third party. Airlines should bear the responsibility of noise pollution according to their own liability principle and the polluter pay principle. Airlines directly produce noise pollution, airports inappropriately fulfill obligations and create conditions for damages, both have the possibility to constitute contributory infringement, using provisions and theory of contributory infringement of copyright to determine the general conditions of contributory infringement, airport noise pollution infringement meets these conditions. Contributory infringement belongs to the category of joint tort. According to the subjectivism position of joint tort, airports and airlines should have the same or similar subjective fault, but the environmental pollution liability does not require polluters to have subjective fault. Subjectivism position violates the legislative intention of strict liability and hinders the constitution of contributory infringement of airports and airlines. The objectivism standpoint of joint tort does not require joint fault. Both behavior of airports and airlines contribute to noise infringement without proof of subjective fault. It is consistent with the provisions of tort law. At present, China's legislation not only recognizes the subjectivism, but also recognizes the objectivism, which provides a basis for the constitution of contributory infringement of airports and airlines. In order to prove contributory infringement between airport and the airline, the following must be proved: (1) the airport has subjective fault. (2) the behavior of discharge noise of airline and the behavior of helping. (3) noise pollution damages. (4) there is a causal relationship between the above behavior and damages.