【摘要】：通過梳理《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》實(shí)施以來(2010-2014),司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的51個(gè)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任精神損害賠償案例,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),實(shí)務(wù)裁判中精神損害賠償數(shù)額與人身損害賠償數(shù)額相比,明顯偏低;并且,法官普遍將受害人的精神損害賠償請(qǐng)求依附于身體損害之上,“象征性”地予以賠償,其賠償金額占總賠償金額比例往往極低,甚至出現(xiàn)受害人受到嚴(yán)重精神損害但身體并未受損,賠償請(qǐng)求不予支持的個(gè)案。這突出地反映了實(shí)務(wù)裁判中一般民事侵權(quán)精神損害賠償基準(zhǔn)適用到產(chǎn)品精神損害賠償中的不足,導(dǎo)致了受害人所得賠償與其所受損害并不對(duì)價(jià),有違個(gè)案正義。對(duì)此,法學(xué)界和司法界迄今尚未有明確的解決方案。究其原因,主要在于,法學(xué)界對(duì)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第22條的分析,側(cè)重學(xué)理探討,致使理解不一,也偏離實(shí)際;而對(duì)司法界來說,該條中“嚴(yán)重精神損害”一詞,又因語意模糊,難以操作,導(dǎo)致司法適用困難�？紤]到這些因素,筆者從案例分析入手,結(jié)合《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第22條中的關(guān)鍵語義,試圖解決產(chǎn)品責(zé)任精神損害賠償基準(zhǔn)之難題。在法釋義學(xué)上,“人身權(quán)益”旨在排除財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)益,“嚴(yán)重精神損害”應(yīng)該排除輕微精神損害,突出對(duì)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任精神損害賠償背后法益—精神健康權(quán)的保護(hù)。對(duì)于如何限定“嚴(yán)重”一詞語義空間,筆者在借鑒國外的醫(yī)學(xué)基準(zhǔn)、“金錢性損害賠償數(shù)額兩倍”限額規(guī)則、表格定額方法基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合個(gè)案裁判中具體的金錢性損害賠償數(shù)額,將“嚴(yán)重精神損害”分為“一般嚴(yán)重”“嚴(yán)重”和“極為嚴(yán)重”三種程度,當(dāng)受害人遭受“極為嚴(yán)重”精神損害時(shí),數(shù)額為金錢性損害賠償數(shù)額的兩倍,“一般嚴(yán)重”精神損害等同于該數(shù)額,而造成“嚴(yán)重”程度的則介于兩者之間。一旦確定此賠償基準(zhǔn),法官裁判時(shí),就可確定產(chǎn)品責(zé)任精神損害賠償數(shù)額。為考察其科學(xué)性,論文也使用了之前的一些失敗司法案例,用此賠償基準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn),證明效果良好。
[Abstract]:By combing 51 cases of compensation for mental damage of product liability in judicial practice since the implementation of the Tort liability Law (2010-2014), the author finds that the amount of compensation for mental damage in practical adjudication is compared with the amount of compensation for personal injury. Obviously low; In addition, judges generally attach the victim's claim for moral damages to the physical damage and pay compensation "symbolically", the amount of which is often very low in proportion to the total amount of compensation. There were even cases in which the victim suffered serious mental damage but was not physically damaged and the claim was not supported. This prominently reflects the deficiency of the general civil tort mental damage compensation standard applied to the product spiritual damage compensation in the practical judgment, which leads to the compensation of the victim's income and the damage suffered by the victim being not consideration, which is contrary to the justice of the case. So far, there is no clear solution to this problem in the legal and judicial circles. The main reason lies in the fact that the analysis of Article 22 of the Tort liability Law in the field of law focuses on the theoretical discussion, which leads to different understanding and deviation from the reality. To the judicial circle, the term "serious mental damage" in this article is difficult to be applied because of vague meaning and difficulty in operation. Considering these factors, the author starts with the case study and combines the key semantics of Article 22 of the Tort liability Law to try to solve the difficult problem of the standard of compensation for mental damage caused by product liability. In legal interpretation, the purpose of "personal rights" is to exclude property rights and interests, and "serious mental damage" should exclude minor mental damage and emphasize the protection of legal interests and mental health rights behind compensation for moral damages of product liability. As to how to limit the semantic space of the word "serious", the author draws lessons from the foreign medical standard, "double the amount of pecuniary damages" limit rule, on the basis of the method of table quota. According to the specific amount of pecuniary damages in the case judgment, the "serious mental damage" is divided into three levels: "generally serious" and "extremely serious". When the victim suffers "extremely serious" mental damage, The amount is twice the amount of pecuniary damages, "generally serious" mental damage is equivalent to the amount, while the "serious" degree of the cause is somewhere between the two. Once this standard of compensation is established, the judge can determine the amount of compensation for spiritual damage of product liability. In order to investigate its scientific nature, the paper also uses some previous failed judicial cases to test the compensation benchmark and proves that the effect is good.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國計(jì)量學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄧曄,楊翔;精神損害賠償初探[J];邵陽高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

2 禹紅櫻;淺議精神損害賠償范圍[J];邵陽高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期

3 ;在哪些情況下可以請(qǐng)求精神損害賠償[J];云南農(nóng)業(yè);2001年12期

4 徐雙喜;淺析精神損害賠償?shù)倪m用條件[J];中州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期

5 李瑞清 ,梁永旺;淺談精神損害賠償[J];中國市場(chǎng);2001年03期

6 景龍;曉軍;;無故遭人詛咒可否請(qǐng)求精神損害賠償[J];農(nóng)家之友;2001年05期

7 王春娣;;論精神損害賠償?shù)娜舾蓡栴}[J];法制現(xiàn)代化研究;2001年00期

8 宋漢林;略論精神損害賠償?shù)倪m用范圍[J];安陽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年01期

9 何謙;淺議違約與精神損害賠償[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年07期

10 高邊;丈夫遇車禍喪失性功能 妻子獲精神損害賠償[J];道路交通管理;2002年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 盧嘉亮;;精神損害賠償?shù)睦碚摐\析[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

2 高文英;;國家賠償制度中精神損害賠償?shù)慕⒑屯晟芠A];修憲之后的中國行政法——中國法學(xué)會(huì)行政法學(xué)研究會(huì)2004年年會(huì)論文集[C];2004年

3 李小紅;;再論我國精神損害賠償制度的立法完善[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二○○九年第3輯）[C];2009年

4 高建明;;國家精神損害賠償量化模式研究[A];全國法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

5 王衛(wèi)江;;消費(fèi)者精神損害賠償論[A];首屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2000年

6 鄭偉;;淺述精神損害賠償[A];第二屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2001年

7 張宏星;梁根科;;淺談精神損害賠償[A];中國法醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)司法精神病學(xué)專業(yè)委員會(huì)第一次全國司法精神病學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2002年

8 倪永飛;王暾;;試論人身損害賠償案件中殘疾者和死者精神損害賠償?shù)拇_定[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2005年

9 盧臘根;;完善精神損害賠償范圍的立法建議[A];規(guī)劃·規(guī)范·規(guī)則——第六屆中國律師論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2006年

10 王建林;伍玉聯(lián);楊孝平;;論類型理論下國家精神損害賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的構(gòu)建——以H省102份案例為樣本的實(shí)證分析[A];全國法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問題研究（下冊(cè)）[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉曉霞;精神損害賠償[N];河北日?qǐng)?bào);2000年

2 劉仁文;論人身傷亡的精神損害賠償[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2000年

3 德生;精神損害賠償?shù)膸追N情形[N];亞太經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2000年

4 馮玉璋;淺談精神損害賠償[N];經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

5 居方祥;法人能否成為精神損害賠償?shù)臋?quán)利主體[N];經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

6 劉玲;淺論精神損害賠償[N];今日信息報(bào);2008年

7 江蘇省揚(yáng)州市廣陵區(qū)人民法院 鞠偉;違約中精神損害賠償?shù)南拗埔?guī)則[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

8 鷹遠(yuǎn);立法確定精神損害賠償體現(xiàn)社會(huì)進(jìn)步[N];貴陽日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

9 本報(bào)記者 王畢強(qiáng);國家精神損害賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上限：年平均工資5倍[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)觀察報(bào);2009年

10 毛國平;法人違約精神損害賠償之我見[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2374792