论侵犯名誉权的民事责任及其抗辩事由

行为人因为过错而非法侵害他人的名誉权 ,依法应承担民事责任。侵犯名誉权与一般民事侵权在构成要件和责任承担方式上均有所区别。行为人虽侵害他人名誉权 ,但为了平衡社会公共利益 ,也可能享有减轻或免除民事责任的抗辩事由。     

新闻报道侵权构成要件的探讨

一、新闻报导侵权中的过错我国民事侵权责任采取过错原则,也就是说,实施侵权的行为人主观上有过错是其承担侵权责任的必要条件。没有过错就不构成侵权。依照民法理论,行为人主观过错,是指行为人决定自身行为时的心理状态。这可分为故意和过失.故意,就是行为人预见到自己行为的结果,并仍然希望它发生或听任它发生。记者若明知其报道与事实不符,发表后会给他人名誉权或其他人格权造成损害,而仍希望或听任     

关于新闻报道侵害名誉权的几个问题

一、如何认定因新闻报道侵害名誉权的构成要件侵害名誉权是一般侵权违法行为的一种,其构成也须同时具备四个要件,即行为人主观上有过错,行为的违法性,损害事实的客观存在和侵权行为与损害结果有因果关系.由于名誉权的侵害行为与一般的其他侵权行为表现形式不同,它具有以下特征:     

共同危险行为争议问题探讨

共同危险行为是广义共同侵权行为的重要类型。共同危险行为人主观方面为分别过错或者共同过错,但没有致人损害的意思联络。其客观要件不应强调数行为时空上的“同一性”,而应考虑其“时空关联性”,以其是否具有造成同一损害的危险性与可能性为认定标准。共同危险行为中的因果关系,在客观事实层面应为择一的因果关系,对于“加害部分不明”的数人侵权不宜定性为共同危险行为;从构成要件的层面而言应为推定的因果关系,应允许行为人通过证明自己的行为与损害结果之间不存在因果关系而免责。     

模拟法庭

认定某人行为是否构成对他 人名誉权的侵害,应当根据受害 人确有名誉损害的事实、行为人 行为违法、违法行为与损害结果 之间有因果关系,以及行为人主观上有过错来认定。 本案系由艾滋病误诊引出的名誉权官司。能否认定某军医大学第一附属医院侵害了原告的名誉权,即根据上述四个方面来作出判断。 名誉权的损害事实是指某特定人的名誉受到了行为人实施的行为的损害。     

行政处罚适用的主观过错条件

适用行政处罚是否要求被处罚人具备主观过错条件,即在行为人不具备主观过错的情况下可否对其适用行政处罚,理论界和司法实践部门的同志争议颇多。笔者就此谈点个人看法。 目前对行政处罚的主观条件问题,有多种不同的观点,其中主要有:1、行为人具有主观过错是行政处罚不可缺少的主观要件;①2、一般采用过错责任标准,例外情况下无过错也应受到行政处罚,②即主观过     

侵害名誉权的认定

如何认定侵害名誉权，是审判实践面临的重要问题。侵害名誉权作为侵权行为的一种，其民事责任的构成要件通常包括四个方面的内容：即行为必须具有违法性；必须具有损害事实的存在；违法行为与损害结果之间必须具有因果关系；行为人必须有过错。但侵害名誉权的责任构成在这四方面上又具有其自身特点。因此其认定标准与一般侵权行为的认定标准也就不可能完全相同，有必要予以专门研究。一、侵害名誉权行为的违法性判断侵权行为违法性的标准只能是违反法律规范。侵害名誉权的行为，只有违反了民法通则第101条的规定，即对公民或法人进行了侮辱…     

浅议侵权责任的构成要件中违法行为和过错的界定与区分

侵权责任的构成要件是指侵权行为人承担侵权责任所要具备的条件,是司法审判人员认定行为人是否应当承担侵权责任的判断依据,也是当事人主张或抗辩的法理依据。然而不管是各国法律和司法实践还是国内学界都在构成要件上有诸多争议,尤其是针对违法行为与过错的界定以及是否具有区分的必要有不同的见解。本文从对基于此问题的观点学说进行对比和分析,简要的分析了三要件说的法律价值。     

免责事由在第三人侵权场合的应用——以行为人为免责对象探讨

免责是指针对侵权人而言的侵权民事责任的免除或减轻,权且称之为狭义免责。本文探讨的问题是：不考虑被侵权人自身因素,假定侵权加害结果实质是由第三人过错造成,但从外观上表现为行为人＂打击＂所致或行为人承担特殊法定责任。在此情形下,行为人能否以是第三人过错的免责事由向被侵权人提出抗辩,从而要求免除或减轻自己的责任？     

侵害名誉权的认定

<正> 我国《民法通则》规定:"公民、法人享有名誉权"(第101条),人民法院受理的侵害名誉权方面的案件日渐增多,司法实践提出的重要问题之一,就是根据什么认定侵害名誉权。本文拟就此作简要论述。侵害名誉权作为侵权行为的一种,其民事责任的构成要件通常有四条:行为必须具有违法性;必须有损害事实;违法行为与损害后果之间必须存在因果关系;行为人必须有过错。认定侵害名誉权的根据也就是这四条,其中一、二两个要件是最主要的根据,也是本文重点讨论的问题。至于其它两条要件或两个根据的讨论,另作专文探讨。     

证券虚假陈述及民事责任确定之我见

证券虚假陈述是一个内涵和外延十分复杂的概念 ,必须加以清晰界定 ,这是确定其民事责任的先决条件。证券虚假陈述民事责任可以从侵权行为法和合同法双向理解 ,就损害赔偿而言 ,适用侵权责任规则比较直接和简便 ,但举证责任方面要有利于受害人。合同法规则在某些虚假陈述的案件中具有优越性 ,必要时应赋予受欺诈人通过侵权法和合同法救济的选择权。     

海上人身伤亡案件的法律适用

海上人身伤亡案件受害人有权选择请求加害方承担违约或侵权责任。违约或侵权行为是否构成应根据民法通则、海商法、合同法、劳动法等法律法规确定。违约责任以严格责任为一般原则,海商法规定承运人对旅客承担过错责任不合理。一般侵权行为归责原则为过错责任,而特殊侵权行为为无过错责任。现行的关于海上人身伤亡赔偿的法律、行政规章和司法解释对赔偿范围、损失计算、责任限制的规定标准不一,相互不协调,应予修正。     

科学与法律领域的真相

审判过程并非仅仅是为了"查明真相"。自从美国的法律系统开始使用科学证人以来,法律领域就面临着混乱的局面。自从Frye规则到Daubert标准再到Kumho Tire标准,乃至发展为修改后的《联邦证据规则》702条,尽管法律系统经历了上述诸多努力,人们仍然不会相信法律系统能够从科学信息中获得预期的收益。科学主张和理论或真或假,它们的真或假是一个客观的问题。法律裁决可以断定法律真理为真,也可以断定"所谓的科学真理"为真。只有科学命题所描述的自然界现象和事件的性质——而非有关证据可靠性的法律裁决,也非法庭上的论证和交叉询问——能够证明真的科学命题为真,证明假的科学命题为假。     

Legal Truths and Falsities*

This paper has a two‐pronged thesis. First, laws should be understood as making factual claims about the moral order. Second, the truth or falsity of these claims depends as much on the content of the law as on whether the lawmaker has political authority. In particular, laws produced by legitimate authorities are successful as laws when they guide subjects' behavior by giving subjects authoritative reasons for action. This paper argues that laws produced by legitimate authorities accomplish this task (i) by being on their own sufficient to change the moral state of affairs, which (ii) thereby generates for people new moral reasons to act that they can read right off of the legislation.     

论网上侵权纠纷当事人的确定

随着互联网的发展和广泛应用,网上侵权纠纷也大量发生。由于网上侵权纠纷当事人具有虚拟性、匿名性、隐蔽性、全球性和广泛性等特征,查找侵权人和查明当事人的真实身份往往存在着极大的困难,给当事人的确定带来了巨大的挑战。对于网上侵权纠纷的当事人,可以通过网页、账户密码、用户注册资料、IP地址、第三方证明、电子签名、暗记等方法来进行查找和确定。虽然网上侵权行为的实施均需借助网络服务提供者提供的网络服务,但不能一刀切地将网络服务提供者列为被告并追究其侵权责任,而应根据其提供服务的性质、是否存在过错等具体情形来确定网络服务提供者的诉讼地位。     

The Ad That Changed Libel Law: Judicial Realism and Social Activism in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

The 1964 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan transformed libel law by extending constitutional protection to the publication of false and defamatory statements about public officials made without actual malice, that is, without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Less well recognized is the decision's advancement of advocacy advertising and unhindered news coverage as a means to counter racism in the United States. Civil rights history, increasing visibility of advocacy advertisements and the Court's reliance on thin legal precedent suggest the decision embodies judicial realism and social activism.     

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.     

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.     

从侵权角度看保险人的恶意拒赔——以美国保险法中的恶意侵权为例

在美国,保险人没有合理的基础却恶意地拒赔或拖赔被保险人的索赔时,可以适用恶意侵权责任对其进行规制。该责任是以合同中当事人应善意而公平交易的默示约定为基础的,它于合同之外而构成独立的侵权责任。恶意侵权责任最早见诸于第三方保险之中,其后扩展到第一方保险,表现为保险人将自己的利益凌驾于被保险人之上而拒绝赔付保险索赔或者拒绝与第三方原告进行和解,因而造成被保险人的损失。在责任范围上,恶意侵权责任包括保险金、律师费、精神损害赔偿和惩罚性赔偿等。尽管还没有得到完全一致的认可,但是保险人的恶意侵权责任在美国已经得到了长足的发展,对于我国实践也有借鉴意义。