试论精神损害赔偿

精神损害赔偿是指因侵害人格权而产生的赔偿制度。随着社会的发展,对精神损害赔偿的理论研究就显得更为重要。本文重在分析精神损害赔偿的性质、归责原则、责任构成和责任形式.     

试析我国民法典对精神损害赔偿的规定

精神损害赔偿是指因侵害人格权而产生的赔偿制度。随着社会的发展,对精神损害赔偿的理论研究就显得更为重要。本文重在分析精神损害赔偿的性质、归责原则、责任构成和责任形式.     

违约的精神损害赔偿研究

2009年12月26日通过的《侵权责任法》第22条第一次以法律形式明确规定精神损害赔偿,充分肯定精神损害赔偿制度在我国的价值,但对精神损害赔偿制度体系而言,违约责任中能否适用精神损害赔偿在法律上并没有得到明确,我国理论界和实务界,对于是否支持违约精神损害赔偿也可谓是众说纷纭。本文将从分析否定违约的精神损害赔偿制度的观点,以及正面分析在违约精神损害赔偿理论基础两面,论证确立违约精神损害赔偿制度的可能性以及必要性。     

精神损害赔偿的若干法律问题研究

对精神损害赔偿 ,法律未作具体规定 ,各地做法不一。本文探讨了精神损害赔偿的原则、精神损害赔偿的范围、精神损害赔偿的数额 ,以期对精神损害赔偿建构一个基本框架。     

违约精神损害赔偿问题研究

违约精神损害赔偿不同于侵权精神损害赔偿.违约精神损害赔偿的法理基础在于违反了旨在保护和满足非财产性利益的合同义务.此类合同义务可以通过分析合同内容、目的以及根据诚信原则的客观解释而推导出.因此,违约精神损害赔偿方承担的是违约责任而不是侵权责任.这也决定了违约精神损害赔偿主要适用合同法而不是侵权责任法相关规则的调整.     

论违约精神损害赔偿的必要性和可行性

一直以来,我国民法规定精神损害赔偿只适用于侵权之诉而不适用于违约之诉。在合同法律关系中遭受精神损害的,当事人只能在侵权和违约发生竞合时,通过选择侵权之诉,来对违约行为引起的精神损害提供救济。但在司法实践中,违约精神损害赔偿问题却得到了突破,这表明,违约精神损害赔偿的确立是符合司法实践的,有其必要性;另外,违约精神损害赔偿也是有其存在的理论空间的,有其可行性。因此,应当确立违约精神损害赔偿制度。     

论精神损害赔偿的适用范围

精神损害赔偿是对受害人精神损害的救济和抚慰,是救济人身权利损害的重要办法,是侵权损害赔偿的重要组成部分。本文通过对精神损害赔偿的概念、功能及精神损害赔偿的范围、赔偿金原则的论述,提出要扩大精神损害赔偿的适用范围：一、贞操权侵害的精神赔偿;二、国家赔偿中的精神损害赔偿;三、配偶权侵害的精神赔偿;四、第三人精神损害赔偿;五、刑事附带民事诉讼的精神损害赔偿。     

论法人的精神损害赔偿

法人与自然人一样 ,有权请求精神损害赔偿 ,其精神损害赔偿的范围应从两个角度进行探讨 ,即从侵权行为所侵害的民事权利角度来看 ,法人的精神损害赔偿应适用于对法人的一切人格权的侵害和部分身份权的侵害 ;从损害利益的角度来看 ,法人的精神损害赔偿范围应该是精神利益的赔偿     

违约精神损害赔偿

传统理论认为精神损害只能通过侵权责任获得救济,精神损害赔偿属于侵权法范畴,不能扩展到违约责任中。但是随着社会经济的发展,在我国的司法实践中出现了许多关于违约精神损害赔偿的案件。为保护当事人的合法权益,国外许多国家、国际性立法文件均肯定了在特定情形下对违约行为所致精神损害的赔偿,然而我国立法却没有明确规定违约精神损害赔偿制度。有鉴于此,本文将对其内容做详细阐述。     

论精神损害赔偿制度

自然人作为人类社会一切价值体系的基础,其精神世界当然是法律所应着力关注的对象,逐步加强对人的精神利益的保护,体现社会的人文关怀,是现代法律文明的发展趋势之一;精神损害赔偿制度是民法中的一项重要制度,我国的《民法通则》初步确立了精神损害赔偿制度,表明了立法理念对精神损害赔偿这一部分的重视,但随着社会的深入发展,以及人们对精神生活质量的追求,现行的精神损害赔偿制度已经远远不能适应需求,从法律体系的完善到适用范围的扩大,精神损害赔偿制度迫切需要改革。     

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: the view from the bench and the jury box

Civil jury instructions are inconsistent in defining what constitutes noneconomic damages, which may include pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life (LEL), among other injury sequelae. This inconsistency has been manifested recently in court decisions that have considered whether LEL should be treated as a separate element of noneconomic damages, distinct from pain and suffering. This paper reviews the case law on this issue and also describes a jury simulation experiment. Mock jurors awarded damages after they received instructions on noneconomic damages in which LEL was (1) not identified as a distinct element of damages; (2) defined as an element of damages distinct from pain and suffering, but participants awarded a single amount for noneconomic damages; or (3) defined as a distinct element of damages, and participants awarded separate amounts for LEL and pain and suffering. Instructions about LEL resulted in larger awards, but only when mock jurors also made a separate award for that element of damages.     

旅游法上惩罚性赔偿的正当性分析--兼论旅游精神损害赔偿的可替代性

惩罚性赔偿是旅游合同违约损害赔偿的一个重大突破。鉴于精神损害在旅游合同中具有特殊地位,旅游惩罚性赔偿弥补了以往精神损害赔偿在违约责任中得不到支持的遗憾。结合旅游活动的自身特点,进一步探讨惩罚性赔偿与精神损害赔偿在旅游违约中的正当性、可替代性具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。     

我国产品责任制度:守成与创新

相对于《产品质量法》有关产品责任的规定,《侵权责任法》第五章既有守成的一面也有诸多创新规定,在解释上不可完全适用特别法优先的原则或新法优先的原则,而是要将两个法律的相关规定有机结合起来进行系统的解释,方能正确适用。《侵权责任法》没有对产品责任中的"损害"进行重新界定,产品自身的财产损失不属于产品责任的"损害";精神损害赔偿适用于产品责任案件,惩罚性赔偿规定的适用有待最高人民法院作出更具有可操作性的司法解释。     

德国法中痛苦抚慰金的惩罚性辨析——兼评我国《侵权责任法》第22条

当许多人还在笃信传统的公私法划分,而拒绝承认损害赔偿责任之惩罚性的时候,德国的司法实践却已经悄然偏离了这一信仰。文章以联邦最高法院的一系列判决为例,证明德国在人格权损害赔偿案件中已经引进了惩罚性,进而厘清作为惩罚性赔偿主要指标的侵害方因素。从这个角度出发,对我国的精神损害赔偿制度的惩罚性进行了比较研究,阐明了侵害人格权的精神损害赔偿具有惩罚性功能的必然性。     

More than the sum of its parts? Itemizing impairment in civil cases

Purpose. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether making multiple damage awards influenced civil mock jurors' assessments of those damage awards. Specifically, how does making one decision for pain and suffering damage awards versus two decisions (one for mental pain and suffering and physical pain and suffering) versus four decisions (one for loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical disability/impairment) influence overall non‐economic damage awards. Methods. One hundred twenty undergraduates from a psychology participant pool read a case vignette that included information regarding four types of injuries that the plaintiff endured: loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical disability/impairment. Participants were randomly assigned to render either one award for pain and suffering, two awards (one for physical pain and suffering and one for mental pain and suffering), or four awards (one for each pain and suffering element). Results. Results indicated that participants who rendered four awards provided significantly higher overall non‐economic damage awards than participants who provided one overall award. The variability of damage awards also increased as the number of damage awards increased. Conclusions. Itemizing non‐economic damage awards into distinct injury categories can lead to an increase in overall non‐economic awards. Members of the legal arena should be cautioned against itemizing damages to prevent variability in non‐economic awards.     

Why we must end insurance discrimination against mental health care

In this Policy Essay, Representative Patrick Kennedy argues that insurance discrimination against those suffering from mental illness constitutes a serious and often overlooked deficiency of the modern American health care system. While the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was an important step toward resolutions of this issue, many loopholes remain that allow insurance companies to deny much-needed coverage to those suffering from such illnesses. This Essay details how improving access to health insurance for the mentally ill is not only socially beneficial, but also economically sound; the cost of instituting mental health parity is far outweighed by the costs that employers bear because of the reduced productivity of untreated mental illness sufferers. Representative Kennedy recommends that these problems may be addressed by additional mental health policy legislation--specifically, the proposed Paul Wellstone Act.     

Dealing with mentally ill domestic violence perpetrators: A therapeutic jurisprudence judicial model

People suffering from mental illness are increasingly referred to the domestic violence court. Yet the typical diversion programs available, including batterer's intervention programs, are inappropriate for those with serious mental illness. As a result, the Miami-Dade Domestic Violence Court has developed a new approach for dealing with this population that applies mental health court techniques in domestic violence court. This article will describe and discuss this pioneering model. It also will situate this model within the context of other problem-solving courts and discuss how the court uses principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper presents some preliminary data that describe the social and legal characteristics of 20 defendants in the Domestic Violence Mental Health Court followed over a two year period between 2005 and 2007.     

论物的损坏与精神损害赔偿的关联--一种功能主义的诠释

在“物”具有情感寄托功能和人身象征功能的基础上 ,精神损害赔偿机制仅仅适用于人身权受侵害的情形显然不当 ,为了保持民法制度功能的协调 ,为了实现民法最大化保护人之利益的功能 ,民法应当在物的损坏与精神损害赔偿之间建立关联。不过 ,出于法律确定性的需要 ,此处的“物”应当是所有权的客体 ,而且其具备的上述两个功能应当得到生活世界公众的普遍认可     

环境正义:环境法学的范式转移

正义是弥久常新的议题,随着"环境时代"的到来,正义也被赋予新的含义,环境正义成为环境时代的正义范式。环境是社会建构的,环境问题的真正根源是社会关系和社会结构的非正义性。环境正义主张所有地区与人群包括弱势群体有免于遭受环境损害的自由,有对干净的土地、空气、水和其他自然环境平等享用的权利,经由社会资源的公平分配达致可持续发展以提升民众的福祉。因此,环境法学研究应当走出"全称命题"与"重自然轻人类"的传统路径,其范式应当转移到环境正义议题。     

Therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health tribunals: changing patterns of demand and its impact

For decades the mental health system has been ‘in crisis,’ with too little funding, too much demand and fragmented services. In England and Wales, decisions made concerning the care and treatment of those suffering from a mental disorder is governed by the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended) (MHA 1983). Detention under the legislation is fraught with conflict; patient and clinical views are often at odds. Mental health tribunals enable patients to seek a review of their case and the legality of their detention. This paper argues that with the increased use of formal detention under the MHA 1983, the caseloads of mental health tribunals have similarly risen. Whether it is possible to advance therapeutic benefit to psychiatric patients attending tribunals is open to question. While mental health tribunals have a role to play in generating a positive psychological impact on an applicant, there is a risk that time and resource pressures may inhibit the adoption of a therapeutic approach. This paper considers the key drivers that are currently pushing detention rates up, the impact this is having on mental health tribunal caseloads and whether it is possible to bring therapeutic jurisprudence to the patient.