英国对精神打击的法律救济及其改革进展被引量：2

Legal remedies against nervous shock in England and the reform and progress

下载PDF

导出

摘要精神打击是指自然人因精神上遭受严重打击或者持久刺激而导致的,独立于身体权、健康权等权利损害的且非一般可容忍的可辨别性损害。英国对精神打击所致损害的法律救济经历了复杂演变过程,在此过程中一系列规则得以创立。英国法律委员会对精神打击救济问题也做出了一系列的努力,最终形成了一个改革方案,但是这个方案却没有得以通过。精神打击法律救济中实际上关系到受害人权益救济和行为自由保护的冲突与协调这一侵权法中的基本矛盾。在协调二者的关系时必须通过一系列制度设计找到利益平衡的支点。探寻精神打击的法律救济条件和限制机制应该是理论研究和司法实践解决的重要问题。 Nervous shock is an identifiable and not tolerable damage of a natural person suffered after a serious blow or a lasting stimulation, which independent of the body right, the health right and other rights. The legal remedies against nervous shock in England have experienced a complexed process of evolution; a series of rules had been eatablished in this process. Law Commission has paid a lot of efforts, and formed a reform program ultimately, but the program was rejected. The legal remedies against nervous shock related to the basic contradiction between rights relief of victims and the freedom of action. It is important to find the fulcrum of interest balance during the course of coordinating their relation. Finding the requirements and limiting mechanism are the important question of theoretical research and judicial practice.

作者管洪彦

机构地区中国人民大学法学院

出处《政法论丛》 2011年第1期96-102,共7页 Journal of Political Science and Law

关键词精神打击损害英国法法律救济利益平衡 Nervous shock damages England law legal relief reform interest balance

分类号 D912.1 [政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献21

1王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社2009年版.
2[英] 约翰·库克.侵权行为法[M].(5).北京:法律出版社,2003.
3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
4[德] 克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权法(下)[M].焦美华译.张新宝校.北京:法律出版社,2001.
5鲁晓明.论纯粹精神损害赔偿[J].法学家,2010(1):122-135. 被引量：42
6[澳] 彼得·凯恩(Peter Cane).阿蒂亚论事故、赔偿及法律[M].王仰光等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
7Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas(1888)13 App CAS 222.
8Dulieu v White & Sons[1901] 2 KB 669.
9Mark Lunney and Len Olipant:TORTS LAW,Text and Materials(3 rd):Oxford university press,2008.
10Hambrook v Stokes[1925] 1 KB 141.

二级参考文献54

1孙加锋.依法保护死者名誉的原因及方式[J].法律科学（西北政法大学学报）,1991,13(3):56-58. 被引量：22
2[1]Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts, West Group, 2000.
3[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.
4[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.
5[5]参见Supreme Court of California In Bank. 1989. 48 Cal.3d 644, 771 P.2d 814, 257 Cal.Rptr.865.
6[6]参见Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980. 84 N.J. 88,417 A.2D 521.
7[7]参见Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987. 534 A.2d 1282.
8[8]参见831 P2d 1197 (Cal. 1992).
9[9]参见Supreme Court of California, 19 Cal.3d 441, 563 P.2d 858
10[10]参见Court of Appeals of California, Fifth Appellate District, 170 Cal. App.3d 975, 216 Cal Rptr 581