损害的含义

罗马法谚:无损害即无赔偿。损害在侵权法上具有重要的意义,它即是侵权行为的成立要件,也是确定赔偿责任范围的依据。但是对损害的概念下一个精确的定义是困难的。从立法上来看,除奥地利民法典对损害作了一个宽泛的定义外,几乎再没有哪个国家的法典对损害的概念做出一个定义。损害是与权利和利益相对应的一个概念,是因他人的加害行为或可归责于某人的事件使民事主体遭受到的不利益。损害的含义应当从两个方面来把握,第一是作为事实存在的损害,第二是在法律上可予赔偿的损害。前者是认定侵权行为和损害赔偿责任的前提,而后者是确定损害赔偿范围的依据。     

环境侵权与环境侵害--兼论环境法的使命

随着人们对环境问题关注程度的提高,环境侵权也受到了学界和实务界的高度重视。环境法学界有不少学者都对环境侵权的概念作过认真的疏解,但学者们所定义的环境侵权行为的具体内容、受害主体、侵犯客体三个基本问题上存在明显的分歧并与侵权行为法理论、侵权行为法相矛盾。环境侵权是侵权行为法范畴内的概念,是因生产和生活行为侵害环境并因而对他人的人身权、财产权等权益造成损害的行为。环境侵权是环境侵害的一个组成部分,甚至只是一个小部分。     

论“故意”在侵权行为法中的意义

侵权行为法是民法的一个重要领域。在该领域中 ,各国都是以过错责任主义作为一项基本的责任原则。由于在过错的两种形态中 ,故意要重于过失 ,因此一般认为 ,故意在侵权行为的构成中 ,从而在整个的侵权行为法中是一个并不重要的概念。然而 ,故意的概念却在英美和大陆两大法系中得到实实在在的运用 ,并发挥着重要的作用。本文对此进行了一些探讨 ,并对我国侵权行为法在这方面的现状提出了自己的看法。     

特殊侵权行为概念之存废

一般侵权行为和特殊侵权行为的划分,是大陆法系侵权行为法对侵权行为的基本划分。但是,随着时代的发展,一般侵权行为与特殊侵权行为的概念区分已经不能适应现实需要,同时特殊侵权行为的内涵的不确定性阻碍了理论界对其进行进一步研究的可能性,并且在实践中对特殊侵权行为的概念的运用造成了侵权法理论体系的混乱。因此,应在立法上和理论上大胆地抛弃两者的概念区分,以更加科学的侵权行为类型化技术来取代之。     

法人精神损害亦应赔偿

一、精神损害赔偿的概念近年来我国理论界和实务界较为普遍的认识是，所谓精神损害是指由于加害人侵权行为给受害人造成精神上的痛苦或致其精神利益受到的损害。现代侵权行为法的损害概念是建立在社会学、法学、法律技术学、现代身心医学、社会心理学等学科基础上的，因此有其丰富的内涵，但就其在法学上实质意义而言，是指对民事主体权利的侵害而致其减损。丧失。法律上所确认的权利是以权利主体的利益为基础的，而所谓利益是民事主体的多种需要在法律上的反映，精神方面的具体需要内容便构成了精神利益。精神损害是侵权行为对权利主体精神…     

论抛掷物致人损害的归责原则

高楼抛掷物致人损害是一类特殊的侵权行为。本文对抛掷物致人损害侵权行为的概念和特征、其归责原则、责任人的确定、法律责任承担等问题作了探讨。本文认为,处理该类案件时,应当首先对相关人员进行侵权行为的推定,进而适用无过错责任原则,由被推定的行为人承担损害补偿责任。而被推定的侵权行为人的范围应当是建筑物中一定范围内有可能抛掷该物的住户,并且由这些住户承担按份责任。     

过错与违法性的关系

侵权行为,系侵害他人权利或利益的违法行为。随着社会的文明与进步,在侵权行为法中,过错与违法性成为了侵权行为法中的核心概念,它直接决定了一般侵权行为的构成要件,并对侵权行为的归责体系具有重要意义。这两个概念在西方历史渊源久长,又由于它们高度抽象化且在各国侵权法中含义各有损益,从而形成了各派学说。于是,违法性是否应该与过错相区别而作为构成要件的一部分的争论已经延续了数个世纪。然而侵权行为法的发展,又使它们的关系日渐复杂化。     

高空抛物侵权案的民事法律思考

高空抛物侵权行为是指行为人从高层建筑上抛掷物品,致人损害的行为。因在实践中无法确定具体行为人,又无统一的法律依据,在理论界与实践中引起了热烈的讨论。本文通过对高空抛物行为特征的分析,就当前理论争议焦点进行深入研究,得出了该侵权行为的归责原则与责任承担方面的相应结论。认为高空抛物侵权行为应在侵权法中单独设立相关法条,并采用过错推定原则,将建筑物全体使用人推定为侵权行为人,承担连带责任,能证明自己无此行为的除外。     

论第三人纯粹精神损害赔偿

第三人纯粹精神损害赔偿制度起源于英国，直到今天已经有了长足的发展，但仍然是民事侵权行为法上一个争议颇多的领域。本文首先对第三人纯粹精神损害进行概念界定，然后分析了第三人纯粹精神损害赔偿制度在我国的立法状况，并提出了立法意见，最后构建了适合我国的第三人纯粹精神损害赔偿制度。     

侵犯受教育权的精神损害赔偿问题探析

受教育权是具有民事权利属性的宪法基本权利。本文认为应对侵害受教育权案件中造成的精神损害,可以通过民事途径加以救济,并建议在侵权行为法的制定过程中将其写入立法,这在理论和实践上对解决该问题均有重要意义。     

Moral theories of torts: Their scope and limits: Part I

One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis — for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and reject the view that tort law is best understood as falling either within the ambit of the principle of retributive justice, a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility, or an ideal of fairness inherent in the idea that one should impose on others only those risks others impose on one. The second part of the paper distinguishes among various conceptions of corrective or compensatory justice and considers arguments — including previous arguments by the author himself — to the effect that tort law is best understood as rooted in principles of corrective justice. This paper argues that although the use of principles of justice may render defensible many (but by no means all) of the claims to repair and to liability recognized in torts, it cannot explain why we have adopted a tort system as the approach to vindicating those claims. Some other principle — probably not one of justice — is needed to explain why it is that the victims claims to repair is satisfied by having his losses shifted to his injurer — rather than through some other means of doing so. The paper concludes that the law of torts cannot be understood — in the sense of being given a rational reconstruction — under any one principle of morality.     

《民法典》环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度之功能剖辨

《民法典》侵权责任编第1232条规定的环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度,是一项新增制度.从内在机理审视,惩罚主义理论或功利主义理论均难以为环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的"惩罚"功能提供理论支撑.从规则体系审视,若赋予该制度"惩罚"功能,则错置了侵权责任的保护客体,混同了生态环境保护中私法机制与公法机制,忽视了"环境损害"救济法律机制体...     

Moral theories of torts: Their scope and limits: Part II

One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis - in the sense of rational reconstruction based on alleged moral principles - for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and reject the view that tort law is best understood as falling either within the ambit of the principle of retributive justice, a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility, or an ideal of fairness inherent in the idea that one should impose on others only those risks others impose on one. The second part of the paper distinguishes among various conceptions of corrective or compensatory justice and considers arguments — including previous ones by the author himself — to the effect that tort law is best understood as rooted in principles of corrective justice. This paper argues that although the principles of justice may render defensible many (but by no means all) of the claims to repair and to liability recognized in torts, it cannot explain why we have adopted a tort system as the approach to vindicating those claims. Some other principle — probably not one of justice — is needed to explain why it is that the victim's claim to repair is satisfied by having his losses shifted to his injurer — rather than through some other means of doing so. The paper concludes that the law of torts cannot be understood — in the sense of being given a rational reconstruction — under any one principle of morality.     

加拿大侵权法中的转承责任

加拿大侵权法中,转承责任不是一种独立的责任形式,但却采用严格责任归责,被告与侵权行为人之间必要关系的建立是转承责任的前提。这与英美法和法国法的规定相似,与德国法、日本法和我国台湾地区的规定不同。加拿大侵权法中关于雇主和雇员、本人和代理人等有关转承责任的规定,为我国转承责任归责原则的确立提供了有益的借鉴。     

Procreative torts: enhancing the common-law protection for reproductive autonomy

Roe v. Wade's twenty-fifth anniversary is likely to herald widespread scholarly commentary on the decision's continued vitality and the future of abortion in the United States. However, if such commentary focuses solely upon the constitutional dimensions and political aspects of a woman's right to privacy, an important dimension of this right will be overlooked. Few commentators have considered the extent to which tort law safeguards a woman's interest in reproductive autonomy. In this article, Professor Northern argues that the interest in reproductive autonomy has not yet received the full protection to which it is entitled and that tort law is poised to evolve distinct causes of action for the interference with procreative autonomy interests. Professor Northern begins with an overview of the medical and psychological literature on abortion-related risks. She goes on to discuss current trends in abortion malpractice litigation. The author then reviews the three basic types of malpractice causes of action--battery, negligence, and lack of informed consent--and explores their application to abortion malpractice claims. The focus of the article then shifts to the development of specialized procreative torts, and Professor Northern contends that courts should go beyond previous decisions to redress any substantial interference with procreative autonomy. Finally, the author asserts that legislative alternatives to the common-law development of procreative torts, such as right-to-know statutes, are less protective of women's interests. Professor Northern concludes that tort law could and should be used to more fully protect women's interests in procreative autonomy.     

产品代言人侵权责任论纲——来自三鹿事件的启示

产品代言人利用公众的信赖通过代言营利,让其承担侵权责任具有合理性。产品侵权责任的构成要视是否符合一般侵权责任的构成要件而定。应当改变产品代言人侵权的现行法律规制模式,把产品代言人侵权视为特殊侵权对待。法院可以民法通则第106条第二款之规定作为产品代言人代言侵权的法律依据。     

论侵权责任法草案二次审议稿的侵权行为一般条款

《侵权责任法》如何规定侵权行为一般条款,是极为重要的问题。我国《侵权责任法草案》对此曾经做了不同的规定,至二次审议稿提出了一个较为独特的文本,即第2条"侵害民事权益,应当承担侵权责任。"这个与众不同的侵权行为一般条款,实际上采纳的是最新的侵权行为一般条款的立法模式,但存在一些缺点。在作出改进后,可以作为具有中国特色的侵权责任法的核心条款,起到统帅全文的作用。     

惩罚性赔偿制度在侵权法中的基础及其适用

惩罚性赔偿制度的出现和发展有其深厚的理论根基和时代背景 ,在侵权法中 ,它是各种基本功能相互间不断矛盾碰撞和协调发展的必然产物。本文以侵权法基本功能的演变为楔入点 ,着重在这一大背景下分析适用惩罚性赔偿制度的重要性 ,并结合国外立法经验对我国惩罚性赔偿制度的构建提出了立法建议     

作为行政侵权客体的精神权利

精神权利作为行政侵权的客体经历了一个不予承认到给予承认,从最初的采取限定主义原则到后来的非限定主义原则的过程,而且精神损害赔偿范围有不断扩大的趋势。我国的行政侵权制度并未否定精神损害赔偿,只是很不完善。在我国建立行政侵权精神损害的赔偿金制度是必要的,为了切实地保障行政侵权中的精神权利,应当遵循全部赔偿的原则,而且要对赔偿数额进行量化。