人身伤害案件中的第三人精神损害赔偿问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-23 16:13

【摘要】：侵权行为发生后,除了直接给被侵权人带来损害以外,往往也会导致第三人遭受损害,这种损害既有财产上的,也有精神上的。而第三人精神损害即指侵权行为对直接受害人之外的其他人造成的痛苦和不幸等非财产性损害。根据我国《侵权责任法》及相关司法解释的精神,在被侵权人死亡时,近亲属可以向侵权人要求损害赔偿。然而在司法裁判的过程中,对于相关法条的适用存有争议:包括请求权主体的范围不清,以及针对不同的致害形态又应如何处理。造成前述现象的根本原因就是对于第三人精神损害的性质未有统一结论,本文拟就以该问题为出发点,在与大陆法系和英美法系主要国家的相关制度进行比较的基础上,对有关条文进行解释,以达到充分救济受害人的目的。本文可分为如下部分:第一部分,主要是对第三人精神损害赔偿制度的概述,包括我国的立法概况及司法实践过程中存在的一些问题。此外,在该部分中还对第三人精神损害的性质进行探讨,德国法和美国法一般情形下以损害事故所侵害的权利和法益为基准,倾向将其认定为直接损害,也即第三人并不从属于先前直接受害人的法律关系中,而被视为在另一独立的法律关系中受到直接损害,此时第三人自证侵权成立的构成要件;英国法和日本法则以侵权行为的发生为基准,倾向将其认定为间接损害,也即一个侵权行为的损害结果扩展至第三人,第三人的侵权成立要件被限定在对直接受害人身上,这种观点实际上突破了债之相对性原理。除此之外,第三人虽然无需举证证明除损害以外的其他侵权责任成立的构成要件,但需要承担直接受害人的与有过失。第二部分,主要是对第三人精神损害赔偿请求权主体的争议和澄清。首先,通过对各国立法例和司法裁判的简要考察,将请求权主体的立法标准大致分为两类,包括以亲属关系为核心的形式标准和以情感关系为核心的实质标准,并对这两种标准进行比较分析。其次,结合司法实践中对请求权主体资格的争议,可以对以下两个方面进行澄清:第一,对反射损害结果的感知能力受限不应成为否认请求权主体资格的理由,对痛苦的认定标准可以采用客观标准,因此一些感知能力有缺失的人也可以获得周延地保护;第二,司法实践中应当对“近亲属”的概念做合理解释,对于有证据证明存在关系疏远事实的近亲属的请求权,法院可以不予支持,而对于与受害人关系密切但无法律上或者血缘上亲属关系的第三人,法院可以通过扩大解释的方式对其损害进行赔偿。第三部分,主要是对探讨第三人精神损害的致害形态,该章节从考察我国《侵权责任法》和相关司法解释在司法实践中的法效果入手,在比较各国立法例的基础上,结合前述对第三人精神损害性质的探讨,主要将致害形态分为致命事故和非致命事故分别进行讨论,并提出相应的救济路径。可以将致命事故中第三人的损害界定为间接损害,直接援引法律的规定。至于非致命事故中“受伤情状”引起的损害,第三人可以以损害结果对自身造成了侵权为事由提出独立的请求权,所受损害为直接损害。另外非致命事故中对第三人“身份关系”侵权问题上,除脱离监护可直接援引法律的规定以外,对婚姻关系中配偶一方提起的“性权利”的损害赔偿可置于非致命事故的模式下处理。第四部分,是对我国第三人精神损害赔偿制度的完善。首先,在请求权主体方面,实践中应肯定胎儿、幼儿以及限制行为能力人等感知能力有缺失的主体的请求权,并以情感关系主义取代现行的亲属关系主义,在否认存在关系疏远事实的近亲属的请求权同时,将与受害人存在亲密关系且切实遭受非财产损害的第三人纳入法律保护之下。其次,虽然致命事故中第三人可以直接援引法律规定主张自己遭受的间接损害赔偿,但是如若第三人向侵权人主张对自己构成的独立损害,并且能够自证侵权人责任成立的构成要件,也应当肯定其损害赔偿请求权。第三,我国侵权法关于第三人精神损害的规定还仅限于直接受害人死亡的情形,而在考察各国立法例和近年来我国司法裁判后,第三人精神损害可以逐渐扩展至直接受害人健康权和身份权等受到严重损害等其他非致命事故中。对“受伤事实”导致的损害,原则上宜与现行法态度一致,否认第三人的请求权;对“受伤情状”导致的损害,可将第三人的损害界定为直接损害,由第三人举证证明侵权责任之成立。
[Abstract]:After the occurrence of the tort, in addition to the direct damage to the infringed, it often causes damage to third people, such as the property and the spirit. And the third person's mental damage refers to the misery and misfortune of the other people outside the direct victim. When the infringer dies, the close relatives may ask for damages to the infringer when the infringed is dead. However, in the process of judicial refereeing, there are disputes about the application of the relevant law: the scope of the subject of the claim is not clear, and how to deal with the different forms of injury. The fundamental reason is that there is no unified conclusion on the nature of the mental damage of the third people. This article is based on the question as the starting point, on the basis of comparison with the relevant systems of the continental law system and the main countries of the common law system, to explain the relevant provisions so as to achieve the purpose of fully remediing the victims. This article can be divided into the following parts: first In part, it is mainly an overview of the compensation system for the mental damage of the third people, including the general situation of our country and some problems in the process of judicial practice. In addition, in this part, the nature of the mental damage of the third people is discussed. In general, the rights and legal benefits of the damage are based on the German law and the United States law. To identify it as a direct damage, that is, third people do not belong to the legal relationship that belongs to the previous direct victim, but is considered to be directly damaged in another independent legal relationship. At this time, the third party is formed by the infringement of the evidence; the British law and the Japanese law are based on the occurrence of the tort, and the tendencies are determined to be indirect. The damage, that is, the result of the damage to a tort is extended to third persons, and the elements of the infringement of the third party are limited to the direct victims. This view actually breaks through the principle of the relative nature of the debt. In addition, the third persons, although there is no need to prove the constituent elements of the tort liability other than the damage, need to be proved without proof. The second part is mainly the dispute and clarification of the main body of the claim for the compensation for mental damage of the third party. First, through a brief investigation of the legislative and judicial decisions of various countries, the legislative standards of the subject of the claim are roughly divided into two categories, including the formal standards of kinship as the core and the emotional closure. We can make a comparative analysis of the core standards and compare the two standards. Secondly, we can clarify the following two aspects according to the dispute on the subject qualification of the right of request in judicial practice. First, the limitation of the perception of the reflection damage results should not be the reason to deny the subject qualification of the claim right, and the criteria for the identification of the pain can be made. With objective criteria, some people who have lack of perception can also obtain the protection of the circumference. Second, in judicial practice, the concept of "close relatives" should be explained reasonably, and the court can not support the right of request for close relatives with evidence that there is a distant relationship. The third people who are legally or consanguineous relatives can compensate their damage by expanding the explanation. The third part is mainly to discuss the damage form of the mental damage of the third people. This chapter starts with the investigation of the legal effect of the tort liability law of China and the relevant judicial interpretations in the judicial practice, and compares the legislation of various countries. On the basis of the example, combined with the discussion of the nature of the mental damage to the third people, this paper mainly divides the damage form into the fatal accident and non fatal accident, and puts forward the corresponding remedy path. It can define the damage of the third people in the fatal accident as indirect damage and directly invoke the provisions of the law. As to the non fatal accident, " The damage caused by the condition of injury, the third people may cause the infringement to themselves by the result of the damage and put forward an independent claim for the cause, and the damage is directly damaged. In addition, in the non fatal accident, the third party's "identity relationship" infringement, in addition to the direct invoking of the law, can be referred to the spouse in the marriage relationship. The damage compensation for "sexual rights" can be dealt with in the mode of non fatal accident. The fourth part is the perfection of the compensation system for mental damage of third people in our country. First, in the subject of the right of request, in practice, the right to request the subject of the fetus, the child and the person who restrict the behavior ability and so on, should be affirmed with the emotion. By replacing the current kinship doctrine with the current kinship doctrine, the third persons who deny the close relatives' claim to the fact that there is a distant relationship are under legal protection. Secondly, although third of the fatal accidents can be directly invoked by the law to assert themselves. Compensation for damage, but if third people claim to the tortfeasor an independent damage to themselves and the constitution of the liability of the infringer, the right to claim damages should also be affirmed. Third, the provisions on the mental damage of the third persons in the tort law of our country are limited to the cases of the death of the direct victims. After national legislation and the judicial referee of our country in recent years, the mental damage of third people can be gradually extended to other non fatal accidents, such as the right to health of the direct victims and the right of identity and so on. In principle, the damage caused by the "injured facts" should be in accordance with the current law, denying the claim of the third party, and guiding the "injury situation". Damage can be defined as direct damage to the third party and the third person shall prove the establishment of tort liability.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】