期刊文献+

论精神损害赔偿中的附从性规则——僭越事实的形成、演进与破解 被引量:10

Concomitant Rules of Moral Damages:Beyond the Development,Evolution and Solution
下载PDF
导出
摘要 精神损害赔偿中的附从性规则,是精神损害赔偿中颇具独特性的规则。尽管畅行于多国精神损害赔偿实践并起着事实上的基础性作用,附从性规则却一直未能取得与其实际作用相一致的地位。精神损害附从性规则未能反映法律的内在价值,其重要地位的形成,是法律向现实妥协的结果,这注定了其永不可能跃升为精神损害赔偿的基本原则。但当纯粹精神损害的确定成为可能时,对附从性规则的突破就成为大势所趋。正确认识精神损害赔偿的附从性规则,对于《侵权责任法》确立合适的精神损害赔偿范围具有重要意义。 Concomitant rules of moral damages are deemed peculiar rules in compensating moral injuries. While prevailing in compensation for moral injuries in many countries and indeed serving as a basis of the compensation, they have never accepted the status they should have accepted. Their failure to reflect the inherent value of law and the fact that their status is determined as the result of the compromise of law with reality doom them to secondary rules. Only where pure moral injury is established can the deadlock be broken. A rational recognition of the concomitant rules of moral damages is of great significance to define the scope of compensation for moral injuries in the Tort Act.
作者 鲁晓明
出处 《现代法学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2009年第5期59-67,共9页 Modern Law Science
基金 教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目"中国侵权责任法立法疑难问题研究"(08JZD0008)
关键词 精神损害 附从性规则 法律原则 纯粹精神损害 moral injury concomitant rules law principles pure mental injury.
  • 相关文献

参考文献24

  • 1克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权法(下),焦美华译[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
  • 2潘维大.第三人精神上损害之研究[J].烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,17(1):29-37. 被引量:23
  • 3文森特·R·约翰逊.美国侵权法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
  • 4Vivienne Harpwood, Modem Trot Law (Sixth Edition). Cavendish Publishing Limited( 2005 ). p. 38.
  • 5Goodhart, The shock cases and area of risk (1953) 16 MLR 14.
  • 6张新宝,高燕竹.英美法上“精神打击”损害赔偿制度及其借鉴[J].法商研究,2007,24(5):102-113. 被引量:47
  • 7王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(第一册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:82.
  • 8邵世星.试论惊吓损害的民事责任[J].国家检察官学院学报,2004,12(5):87-92. 被引量:9
  • 9法释[2001]7号第1条第2款.
  • 10Catzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. 1,20, 81 N. W. 1003, 1009 (1900).

二级参考文献47

  • 1[1]Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts, West Group, 2000.
  • 2[2]Restatement of Torts, 2nd, §46. Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.
  • 3[3]§46. Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress(2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress(a) to a member of such person's immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or(b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.
  • 4[5]参见Supreme Court of California In Bank. 1989. 48 Cal.3d 644, 771 P.2d 814, 257 Cal.Rptr.865.
  • 5[6]参见Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980. 84 N.J. 88,417 A.2D 521.
  • 6[7]参见Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987. 534 A.2d 1282.
  • 7[8]参见831 P2d 1197 (Cal. 1992).
  • 8[9]参见Supreme Court of California, 19 Cal.3d 441, 563 P.2d 858
  • 9[10]参见Court of Appeals of California, Fifth Appellate District, 170 Cal. App.3d 975, 216 Cal Rptr 581
  • 10最高人民法院民事审判第一庭编著.《最高人民法院<关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释>的理解和适用》,人民法院出版社2001年版,第49页.

共引文献74

同被引文献105

引证文献10

二级引证文献59

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部