完善人格物精神损害赔偿的思考
|
摘要
人格物概念最初源自美国玛格丽特·简·拉丹教授于1982年在文章《财产权与人格》中的阐述。自此开始,我国学界对人格物的研究与关注热度不断上升。在人格物受侵害时,一般对其采取精神损害赔偿的方式进行救济,当前面临的困境主要有:立法规定与司法解释间存在鸿沟;精神损害赔偿的司法适用存在局限;缺乏可参考的赔偿标准。故完善人格物的精神损害赔偿至少需要从如下几方面入手:在立法中明确人格物适用精神损害赔偿;细化人格物的具体认定标准;限制人格物精神损害赔偿的范围;设立具体可参考的精神损害赔偿标准。
The concept of personality object originated from Professor Margaret Jan Ladin's article on the Property Rights and Personality in 1982. Since then,the research and attention on personality object has been increasing in our academic circles. When the personality object is infringed,it is generally remedied by the way of compensation for mental damage. The main problems facing the current situation are: the gap between the legislative provisions and the judicial interpretation; the judicial application of the compensation for mental damage is limited,and the compensation standard is lack. Therefore,it is necessary to improve the compensation for the mental damage of the personality objects from the following aspects: in the legislation,it should be clear that the compensation for the mental damage is applicable to the objects with personality,and the specific standards of the identification of the human objects,the compensation for the mental damage of the personality object should be limited,and the standard for the compensation for mental damage should be made.
The concept of personality object originated from Professor Margaret Jan Ladin's article on the Property Rights and Personality in 1982. Since then,the research and attention on personality object has been increasing in our academic circles. When the personality object is infringed,it is generally remedied by the way of compensation for mental damage. The main problems facing the current situation are: the gap between the legislative provisions and the judicial interpretation; the judicial application of the compensation for mental damage is limited,and the compensation standard is lack. Therefore,it is necessary to improve the compensation for the mental damage of the personality objects from the following aspects: in the legislation,it should be clear that the compensation for the mental damage is applicable to the objects with personality,and the specific standards of the identification of the human objects,the compensation for the mental damage of the personality object should be limited,and the standard for the compensation for mental damage should be made.
引文
[1]冷传莉.论民法中的人格物[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:60.
[2]徐国栋.现代的新财产分类及其启示[J].广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005(6):49-53.
[3]毛德龙.具有人格象征意义的纪念物品的界定[EB/OL]. http://www. law-lib. com/lw/lw_view. asp?no=4135,2016-06-21.
[4]章瑜婧.论人格物的侵权责任[J].佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2012(6):36-38.
[5]唐德华.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》的理解与适用(第2版)[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2015:256.
[6]庞晓燕.关于民事精神损害赔偿几个问题的探讨[J].陕西青年职业学院学报,2013(3):65-68.
[2]徐国栋.现代的新财产分类及其启示[J].广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005(6):49-53.
[3]毛德龙.具有人格象征意义的纪念物品的界定[EB/OL]. http://www. law-lib. com/lw/lw_view. asp?no=4135,2016-06-21.
[4]章瑜婧.论人格物的侵权责任[J].佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2012(6):36-38.
[5]唐德华.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》的理解与适用(第2版)[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2015:256.
[6]庞晓燕.关于民事精神损害赔偿几个问题的探讨[J].陕西青年职业学院学报,2013(3):65-68.