论纯粹精神损害赔偿

纯粹精神损害是指自然人于其民事权利未受侵害情况下遭受的精神利益损害。在受害人利益保护日益受到重视的大趋势下,纯粹精神利益损害赔偿成为各国精神损害赔偿制度难以回避的理论难题。纯粹精神损害存在两种类型:可推知的纯粹精神损害和可证实的纯粹精神损害。侵权责任法规定人身利益损害可以要求精神损害赔偿,意义重大,但应采取审慎的态度,建立多重限制规则避免纯粹精神损害赔偿的滥疡。     

论国家侵权精神损害赔偿数额的确定——以检察机关职能履行为视角

国家侵权精神损害赔偿制度是保障公民精神利益的重要手段和必要工具,其核心在于界定精神损害的程度和确定精神损害抚慰金的数额。检察机关在审查逮捕和审查起诉的过程中可能存在运用法律不当、审查证据存在疏忽等多方面问题,从而引发冤假错案的发生,在这一过程中可能存在国家赔偿或者精神损害赔偿的问题。本文分为四个部分,第一部分是对国家侵权精神损害赔偿制度的含义以及产生、发展进行简要的介绍,明确界定精神损害。第二部分说明国家侵权精神损害抚慰金数额确定影响因素和具体的计算方法,第三部分指明我国的国家侵权精神损害赔偿制度在理论和实践中还存在很多问题,进而提出更好建议和解决措施。     

论震惊损害赔偿

最近几年,频频出现的“惊吓费”也就是震惊损害赔偿,震惊损害属于纯粹精神损害的一种,从分类来说属于可证实的纯粹精神损害.在侵权法律空白的情况下,对震惊损害予以救济关乎侵权责任法之目的和精神.本文指出剖析震惊损害的具体类型和构成要件,研究震惊损害的责任限制对我国建立健全的纯粹精神损害赔偿体制具有重大意义.     

精神损害赔偿规则在财产侵害中的限制与适用——功能主义视角下的中德法律实践比较

在德国,因为债法改革使原来属于《德国民法典》第847条调整范畴的精神损害赔偿规则进入了法典总则的框架,所以尽管精神损害赔偿规则依据现第253条而被严格地限制了适用范围,但是财产侵害也可能因法律的特别规定或者约定等通过精神损害赔偿规则的适用而被救济。在我国,尽管《民法通则》和《侵权责任法》等并未明确拒绝精神损害赔偿规则在财害侵害领域的适用,但是以最高法院为主导的我国司法实践却对此予以严格的限制,它严格区分合同领域和侵权领域并确定精神损害赔偿规则的适用范围。由此导致的必然结果是,精神损害赔偿规则在财产侵害中的适用被原则性地排除掉了。两国法律实践在该领域内所表现出来的差异的原因在于,前者适用扩张解释的方法小心翼翼的在既有法律体系的逻辑框架内保持了法典对现实生活的适当开放并对受害人提供了充分的救济,而后者在适用限缩解释的方法时却未充分顾及既有法律体系的内在逻辑一致性。因此,即使从功能主义分析的立场出发从而发现两者在最终的调整结果上可能并不存在实质性的差异,然而结果的趋同性却不能说明违反法律体系内在逻辑的法律适用本身的正当性。     

试析我国精神损害赔偿制度——以比较法和法理角度进行剖析

随着2009年《侵权责任法》的颁布,精神损害赔偿这一法律概念再次引起了法学界的关注。根据该法第22条的规定,被侵权人对其人身权益受损、造成严重精神损害的事实可以请求精神损害赔偿。[1]那究竟何为精神损害?其赔偿机制是如何运行的?在其实际操作中是否存在着问题和弊端?单从这一条文是无法完满回答这些问题的。本文中,笔者将试图从比较法和法理角度全面剖析我国的精神损害赔偿制度,并试解决上述问题。     

略论精神损害赔偿之数额认定

由于自然人的情感、精神是无价的,所以涉及精神损害赔偿的案件中,要精确计算精神损害赔偿数额十分困难,在实际案件的操作中,存在损害赔偿的标准不统一、法官的自由裁量随便等问题,这些问题造成了一些案件的判决结果不合理,达不到精神损害赔偿的目的。虽然精神损害赔偿数额难于确定,但是法律却必须将它合理的量化,旨在保证司法的救济性和公平性。本文结合我国相关规则现状,认为精神损害赔偿数额认定标准应当加入地域性区分性和身份区分性规则、精神损害赔偿级别规则等。     

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     

浅议交通事故处理中的精神损害赔偿

在处理交通事故损害赔偿案件中，精神损害的赔偿逐渐成为争议的焦点。确定精神损害赔偿的数额，是一个十分复杂的问题。因此，笔者就通过分析精神损害赔偿的含义、法律依据及部分地区标准并综合考虑各种相关因素与大家共同来议议交通事故处理中的精神损害赔偿，探讨如何赔偿才能平衡各方利益，体现法律的权威性和公正性。     

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。     

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。     

A General Clause of Punitive Damages Should Be Established in China's Future Civil Code

Punitive damages have several functions that are worthy of serious research. For instance, punitive damages could help to compensate victims for moral damages suffered and offer more sufficient ex-ante compensation in cases of wrongful death or bodily injury, thus compensating for the losses suffered by victims more completely; they could punish private wrongs more effectively and provide a means of personal revenge within the law, incidentally deterring and preventing future wrongs; they could be used to correct abuses of power or status by the rich, large corporations, or the government; and they could be used to complement criminal law, etc. In order to fully realize the advantages of this institution in the Chinese society, we should expand its application in China’s tort law and carefully design the scope of its application, including the subjects to which it would be applicable and the amounts that would be allowable. In the short term, the application of punitive damages could be expanded through specific individual legislation, increase of the amounts of compensation for mental damages in individual cases or local legislation. In the long term, a general clause on punitive damages should be established in tort law in China’s future Civil Code, stipulating that “punitive damages can be applied to those who have performed tortious acts that deserve severe moral condemnation, due to the actor’s malicious intent or indifference or disregard for others’ rights.”     

我国人身损害赔偿制度的困境与超越

当代侵权行为法面临的危机在我国人身损害赔偿制度的困境中得到充分的体现,突出表现在制度功能、当事人心理和司法裁判方面,根源在于固守传统道德机理的人身损害赔偿制度无法应对现代复杂的侵权关系。解决的途径在于重新审视我国人身损害赔偿制度的功能体系、检讨精神损害和物质损害赔偿的操作方略,寻求解决危机的有效路径。     

环境损害赔偿立法框架和内容的思考

环境损害赔偿立法的必要性由现实社会关系调整的必要性和现行相关立法的不适应性所决定。我国环境损害赔偿立法宜采取实体和程序一体、行政处理与司法处理一体的立法模式,并着重规定环境纠纷处理和环境损害赔偿方面所涉及的一些特殊问题。立法框架和内容主要包括环境损害赔偿的适用条件、环境损害赔偿的范围、环境损害赔偿责任的认定、环境损害赔偿纠纷的行政处理、环境损害赔偿的司法处理等部分。环境损害赔偿立法的难点在于环境行政主管机关处理决定的法律效力问题以及因果关系推定的准确表述问题。     

德国环境损害赔偿法律问题初探

德国环境损害赔偿立法的历史悠久,其相应的法律法规较完备。针对其环境侵权损害赔偿的立法,德国理论界根据环境侵权损害赔偿责任产生的基础将之分为三类:即以容忍为前提的牺牲性责任、危险性责任和一般侵权责任。德国环境损害赔偿立法以改善受害人的法律地位、侧重人身损害赔偿以及重视对生态破坏的赔偿为主要价值取向。目前,德国正准备制定一部统一的环境损害赔偿法,德国的这一做法对于和德国环境损害赔偿立法较相似的我国来说,具有非常重要的借鉴意义。     

Recovering from research: a no-fault proposal to compensate injured research participants

National advisory committees have considered the obligations owed to research participants in the event of research-related injuries. These committees have repeatedly concluded that injured research participants are entitled to compensation for their injuries, that the tort system provides inadequate remedies, and that the United States should adopt no-fault compensation. But because the advisory committees have made no concrete proposals and have taken no steps toward implementing no-fault compensation, the United States continues to rely on the tort system to compensate injured research participants. This Article argues that recent legal developments and a transformation in the global research landscape make maintaining the status quo morally indefensible and practically unsustainable. Recent legal developments exacerbate the longstanding difficulties associated with the tort system as a method of compensation; nearly every injured research participant will have difficulty recovering damages, and certain classes of injured research participants--those in federal research and those abroad--are prevented from recovering altogether, resulting in substantial unfairness. In the past ten years, many of the countries substantially involved in research have mandated systematic compensation. By not mandating compensation, the United States has become a moral outlier and risks having its noncompliant research embargoed by foreign ethics committees, thereby delaying important biomedical advances. This Article examines alternative compensation mechanisms and offers a concrete no-fault compensation proposal built on systems already in place. The proposed system can be implemented in the United States and countries around the world to help harmonize various national compensation systems and to more equitably and effectively make those injured by research whole.     

Damages for pain and suffering in tort law

Legislation enacted between 2002 and 2005 by each Australian State and Territory reformed and partially codified the common law of personal injuries. This column examines the nature and history of damages for pain and suffering and analyses the approach taken by different Australian jurisdictions to compensation for non-economic loss. Non-economic loss is generally composed of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and loss of enjoyment of life (some jurisdictions, eg New South Wales, also include disfigurement, and loss of expectation of life). Several jurisdictions have imposed thresholds that a claimant must meet as a prerequisite to suing for damages at common law.     

论我国行政补偿制度的原则与范围

行政补偿制度是因行政机关的合法行为、合法行为的附随效果或公法之无因管理行为等给相对人造成损失,从而进行补偿的行政法律制度。补偿原则与范围等是行政补偿制度构建的基础性问题。从我国的制度构建需要出发,行政补偿原则应当包括公民权益保护原则、依法补偿原则等,补偿范围则因补偿领域的不同而有所不同。     

国际投资仲裁中的精神损害赔偿研究

国际公法领域的精神损害赔偿具有悠久历史,但在国际投资法领域,精神损害赔偿则是一个新兴话题。鉴于投资条约的特殊建构,投资者固为投资者-国家仲裁体制中的申诉者,因此,申诉者成为国际投资仲裁中精神损害赔偿请求的最常见主体。但这并不意味着,固为被申诉方的国家没有寻求精神损害赔偿的可能性。晚近以来的国际投资仲裁实践均表明,这两种类型的精神损害赔偿均有发生的可能,为此,有必要结合已有案例,研究国际投资仲裁中精神损害赔偿的合法依据,并在此基础上对相关未决问题进行尝试性解释。     

从个体到社会：国外损害赔偿法的发展

近代损害赔偿法存在一个发展的过程,对于这一过程进行梳理,可以明晰损害赔偿法发展的脉络,为我国损害赔偿法提供借镜。近代损害赔偿法最初以过错责任为基点,随着社会发展渐次导入无过错责任,又至社会保障与损害赔偿相融合,其中损害赔偿范围也发生了扩张。     

Civil liability of private security: Enforcer of moral obligations to right legal wrongs

The private security industry in the United States now has approximately twice as many personnel as does the public police. Private Security personnel have authority over the liberty, and sometimes the lives, of customers and employees. Often they exercise this awesome responsibility with little if any background and training. In most instances private security personnel are not considered law officers or peace officers and are, therefore, not bound by the same rules and regulations that apply to public police. More and more frequently, untrained or minimally trained, and basically unqualified security officers are taking actions against customers and employees which are excessive and unreasonable. Without the Constitutional protections which would be available if the act were committed by a public police officer, the only recourse for a private individual against reckless and wanton conduct on the part of private security personnel is a civil action, seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused or injuries received. The courts have found that companies and their security personnel have an obligation to be reasonable in their investigations of suspected criminal violations by employees and customers. Failure to conduct a proper and reasonable investigation will open the individual directing the investigation, and the company authorizing it, to liabililty for the injury their improper actions have caused. Civil liability suits have become the moral enforcer for improper and excessive conduct by private security personnel.