宋某诉李凯强人身损害赔偿案分析

发布时间：2018-06-24 20:36

本文选题：公平原则 + 公平责任归责原则　；参考：《兰州大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 公平是人类追求的价值目标,是社会不断进步的推动力。公平原则作为民法的基本原则,是民事主体在民事活动中的基本价值取向,也是法律在解决当事人之间的纠纷时所应达到的最终目标。而公平责任归责原则是作为民法基本原则的公平原则在侵权法领域的体现,它的适用有利于解决适用过错责任归责原则和无过错责任归责原则所产生的不公平,符合法律维护社会公平正义的价值的要求。本文从李凯强案的判决出发,分析说明李凯强无过错,进而论述李凯强应承担公平责任但不应承担精神损害赔偿责任,并阐述对本案引发的法律思考,为本案也为类似的案件提供一点借鉴。本文分为三大部分：第一部分：案例简介及案件的争议。此部分叙述了李凯强案的案情及法院的判决,并得出本案的三个争议点：李凯强在这起人身损害赔偿纠纷中是否存在过错；案件应适用公平原则还是公平责任归责原则；李凯强是否应对宋某承担精神损害赔偿责任。第二部分：对案件的争议从理论上进行分析。此部分在认定李凯强无过错的基础上,论述公平原则的含义、适用；公平责任归责原则的含义、构成要件以及公平原则和公平责任归责原则的区别,进而得出本案应适用公平责任归责原则而不是公平原则。此部分还进一步论述精神损害赔偿的含义、价值、精神损害赔偿的构成要件,以此得出在这起人身损害赔偿纠纷中李凯强不应对宋某承担精神损害赔偿责任。第三部分：本案引发的思考。从以下几方面分析本案引发的思考：一是完善公平原则和公平责任原则适用的思辨。二是关于精神损害赔偿的立法启示：我国精神损害赔偿的立法现状、精神损害赔偿的立法完善。
[Abstract]:Fairness is the value goal pursued by human beings and the driving force of social progress. The principle of fairness, as the basic principle of civil law, is the basic value orientation of civil subject in civil activities and the ultimate goal of law in resolving disputes between parties. The principle of imputation of fair liability is the embodiment of the principle of fairness as the basic principle of civil law in the field of tort law. Its application is helpful to solve the unfairness arising from the application of the principle of imputation of fault liability and the principle of imputation of liability without fault. In line with the law to safeguard the value of social equity and justice. From the judgment of Li Kaiqiang case, this paper analyzes and explains that Li Kaiqiang has no fault, and then discusses that Li Kaiqiang should bear fair liability but not mental damage compensation liability, and expounds the legal thinking about this case. For this case also provides a reference for similar cases. This paper is divided into three parts: the first part: case introduction and case dispute. This part narrates the case of Li Kaiqiang and the judgment of the court, and draws three controversial points of this case: whether Li Kaiqiang has fault in the dispute of compensation for personal injury, whether the case should apply the principle of fairness or the principle of imputation of fair liability; Whether Li Kaiqiang should undertake compensation liability for moral damage to Song Mou. The second part: the dispute of the case from the theoretical analysis. This part discusses the meaning and application of the principle of equity, the meaning of the principle of imputation of fair responsibility, the elements of constitution and the difference between the principle of equity and the principle of imputation of fair responsibility, on the basis of determining that Li Kaiqiang is not at fault. Then it is concluded that the principle of imputation of fair liability should be applied in this case, not the principle of fairness. This part also further discusses the meaning, value and constitutive elements of mental damage compensation, so as to draw the conclusion that Li Kaiqiang should not bear the liability for spiritual damage compensation to Song in this dispute of personal injury compensation. The third part: the thinking caused by this case. The following aspects are analyzed: first, to perfect the fair principle and fair responsibility principle. The second one is the enlightenment of legislation on compensation for mental damage: the present situation of legislation of compensation for mental damage and the perfection of legislation of compensation for mental damage.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D920.5

【相似文献】