论过失导致的纯粹精神损害——以美国法为中心的考察被引量：10

On Pure Mental Harm Caused by Negligence

导出

摘要在美国法上,过失导致的纯粹精神损害经历了一个从不赔偿到赔偿、赔偿范围逐渐扩大的发展历程。在判例法上,"影响规则"、"危险区域规则"、"旁观者规则"和"特殊关系规则"等的发展,一方面使美国的精神损害赔偿与身体上的损害逐渐发生分离,另一方面则使精神损害的赔偿从直接受害人扩大到第三人。美国《侵权法重述》也顺应了这样一种发展趋势,特别是第三次《侵权法重述》对判例作了很好的总结。美国法上的经验,在我国《侵权责任法》刚刚颁布并且仅仅对精神损害作出了概括性规定的今天,对于如何解释和适用该法律具有重要的意义。 In American Law, mental harm caused by negligence has experienced a process from non-compensation to compensation, and the scope of compensation becomes wider and wider. In case law, the development of impact rule, zone of danger rule, by-stander rule and pre-existing relationship rule has gradually divorced compensation for mental harm from physical injury on one hand; and extend the compensation from direct victim to the third party. The Restatement of Torts, particularly the Third Restatement, has also conformed to this trend of development and consequently, made an appropriate summary of case law. Today in China, in a situation when tort law has just been promulgated but provided only a general stipulation on mental harm, American experience is of great significance in terms of the ways to explain and apply our tort law.

作者周琼

机构地区华中科技大学法学院

出处《环球法律评论》 CSSCI 北大核心 2010年第5期67-77,共11页 Global Law Review

关键词纯粹精神损害影响规则危险区域规则旁观者规则特殊关系规则

分类号 D923 [政治法律—民商法学] D971.2 [政治法律—法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献36

1Robert L. Rabin, Emotional Distress in Tort Law: Themes of Constraint, Vol 44 Wake Forest Law Review (2009).
2Harvey Teff, Causing Psychiatric and Emotional Harm, Hart Publishing (2009) , front matter.
3Robert L. Rabin, Emotional Distress in Tort Law: Themes of Constraint, 44 Wake Forest Law Rev/ew(2009).
4Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co. 45 N.E. 354 (N. Y. 1896).
5Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R.B.. Co, 47 A.383 (N.J. 1900).
6Batalla v. State of New York,214 N. Y. S. 2d 330(N. Y 1961 ).
7Richard A. Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts (8th ed. ), Espen Publisher (2003), p. 775.
8William L. Prosser, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort, 37 MICH. L. REV. (1939).
9"The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty", in The. Yale Law Journal, 113(2004).
10Marc A. Franklin, Robert L. Babin and Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternaelves Cases and Materials (8th ed. ) , foundation press 2006, p. 1122.

二级参考文献46

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.