Court Rejects Claim for CNY 80,000 in Cofferdam Damage Dispute
A Chinese court has dismissed a claim for compensation of CNY 80,000 brought by the owner of a small hydropower station against a transport development company. The plaintiff alleged that the construction of a bridge cofferdam caused water levels to rise, reducing power generation. After multiple rounds of litigation, the court ultimately found insufficient evidence to prove causation between the cofferdam and the claimed losses.
The dispute arose from a road reconstruction project in Eastern China City. The transport company, as the project developer, built a new bridge called Shanzao Bridge and constructed temporary cofferdams in the river during 2007. The Pithead Power Station, a hydropower plant located upstream, claimed that the cofferdams raised the water level by 0.4 meters between January and April and again from July to August 2007, causing a reduction of about 1 million kilowatt-hours of electricity generation. The plaintiff, Mr. Lai, who owned the power station, sought compensation of CNY 80,000 from the transport company. The transport company denied liability, arguing that the cofferdams were built later and removed quickly, and that any reduction in generation was due to lower rainfall and other factors.
During the hearings, the plaintiff presented photographs, a letter from a local hydropower association, power generation records for 2006-2008, a rainfall data sheet, and a price approval document. The transport company submitted evidence showing the actual construction timeline and argued that the new cofferdam was the same height as the old one. The plaintiff also introduced a cross-section drawing of the power station building in the retrial, but the court found it lacked authentication and could not prove that the new cofferdam was higher. The court noted that the hydropower association’s opinion was from a private group and had no legal force.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof. The evidence did not demonstrate that the cofferdams raised the water level by 0.4 meters or that the alleged rise caused any specific reduction in power output. In fact, monthly generation data showed that in several months when cofferdams were present, the power station actually generated more electricity than in the same months of other years. The court concluded that there was no direct causal link between the cofferdams and the claimed losses. Both the first-instance and appellate courts rejected the claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
The legal analysis centered on the principle that a party asserting a claim must provide credible evidence to support each element of the cause of action. In tort cases, the plaintiff must prove both the occurrence of damage and a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and that damage. Here, the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish either the fact of water level rise or a direct relationship between the cofferdam and reduced generation. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s own records showed inconsistent generation patterns, which undermined the claim. The retrial court confirmed the earlier rulings and dismissed the new evidence as unreliable.
This case highlights the importance of clear, objective evidence in civil disputes involving complex causation. Property owners and businesses seeking compensation for alleged interference must present reliable data, expert opinions, or other admissible proof to link the defendant’s actions to specific quantifiable losses. The court’s consistent rejection of the claim underscores that mere speculation or informal assessments will not satisfy the legal standard. For parties involved in construction projects, maintaining careful records and avoiding assumptions about upstream impacts can help prevent similar disputes.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.