产品责任精神损害赔偿基准之研究

发布时间：2018-12-12 15:09

【摘要】：通过梳理《侵权责任法》实施以来(2010-2014),司法实践中出现的51个产品责任精神损害赔偿案例,笔者发现,实务裁判中精神损害赔偿数额与人身损害赔偿数额相比,明显偏低;并且,法官普遍将受害人的精神损害赔偿请求依附于身体损害之上,“象征性”地予以赔偿,其赔偿金额占总赔偿金额比例往往极低,甚至出现受害人受到严重精神损害但身体并未受损,赔偿请求不予支持的个案。这突出地反映了实务裁判中一般民事侵权精神损害赔偿基准适用到产品精神损害赔偿中的不足,导致了受害人所得赔偿与其所受损害并不对价,有违个案正义。对此,法学界和司法界迄今尚未有明确的解决方案。究其原因,主要在于,法学界对《侵权责任法》第22条的分析,侧重学理探讨,致使理解不一,也偏离实际;而对司法界来说,该条中“严重精神损害”一词,又因语意模糊,难以操作,导致司法适用困难。考虑到这些因素,笔者从案例分析入手,结合《侵权责任法》第22条中的关键语义,试图解决产品责任精神损害赔偿基准之难题。在法释义学上,“人身权益”旨在排除财产权益,“严重精神损害”应该排除轻微精神损害,突出对产品责任精神损害赔偿背后法益—精神健康权的保护。对于如何限定“严重”一词语义空间,笔者在借鉴国外的医学基准、“金钱性损害赔偿数额两倍”限额规则、表格定额方法基础上,结合个案裁判中具体的金钱性损害赔偿数额,将“严重精神损害”分为“一般严重”“严重”和“极为严重”三种程度,当受害人遭受“极为严重”精神损害时,数额为金钱性损害赔偿数额的两倍,“一般严重”精神损害等同于该数额,而造成“严重”程度的则介于两者之间。一旦确定此赔偿基准,法官裁判时,就可确定产品责任精神损害赔偿数额。为考察其科学性,论文也使用了之前的一些失败司法案例,用此赔偿基准进行检验,证明效果良好。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：中国计量学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】