【作者】 陈春；

【导师】 温世扬；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 随着现代社会的高速发展和人际交往关系的日趋复杂,侵权行为与损害赔偿呈现出更加复杂多变的特征。一个侵权行为有可能导致多个损害后果,因此,在损害赔偿请求权上,出现了直接受害人与间接受害人(第三人)(注：以下简称“第三人”)的损害赔偿请求权之分。就精神损害而言,在整个精神损害赔偿制度中,依据受害主体的不同,可分为直接受害人的精神损害赔偿和第三人的精神损害赔偿。所谓第三人的精神损害,是指当直接受害人遭遇侵权行为并产生损害后果时,由于各种因素的存在(如第三人与直接受害人存在亲密关系,或者直接受害人的损害情形过于令人惊悚等),第三人也产生了精神上的各种不良反应,或者受到各种精神伤害和精神打击。对直接受害人的精神损害,各国往往给予极大的同情和保护。然而对于第三人的精神损害,长期以来,各国侵权法上无论立法还是实践,都比较忽视或保持一贯谨慎的态度。当然,考虑到人之社会交往的复杂性,对于第三人的精神损害,各国侵权法目前所持有的立场不是完全没有道理的。毕竟,每个人存在于社会中,形成各种各样复杂的社会关系,某一侵权行为完全有可能牵扯起无数损害后果。如果对侵权行为引起的所有精神损害后果,都要责令侵权人承担赔偿责任,则对加害人而言,未免过于严苛。但从受害人角度来说,第三人的精神损害是真实的,客观的。尽管这一损害后果与加害人的侵权行为之间仅仅存在间接因果关系,但如果没有加害人的侵权行为,第三人的精神损害完全有可能避免。如果仅因为其损害原因的“间接性”而否认对其赔偿,也未必符合侵权法孜孜以求的公平正义理念。因此,在加害人与受害人的保护之间,法律必须进行利益选择和平衡。而侵权法所能够做到的则是：合理划定第三人的范围,防止过于宽泛的损害概念,使精神损害赔偿止于当止之人。在侵权法中构建这样一个第三人精神损害赔偿的法律制度,无疑是困难而艰辛的。虽然国外有一些相关法律规则可以借鉴,但国情差异、道德伦理观的差异可能使借鉴之路未必平坦。但诚如王泽鉴先生所言,法律之沉默,不是问题之结束,而是问题之提出,也是法律思维及创造活动之开始。本文要做的是：通过研究第三人精神损害赔偿的理论基础,对第三人精神损害赔偿进行规范分析,并最终从法律上构建和完善我国的第三人精神损害赔偿制度。本文分四章,首先对第三人精神损害赔偿进行了法律界定,其次阐述了第三人精神损害赔偿的理论依据；再次对第三人精神损害赔偿进行了类型和规范分析；最后,在检讨我国现行第三人精神损害赔偿的立法及司法实践基础上,提出构建和完善我国第三人精神损害赔偿法律制度的建议。具体来说：本文的“引言”部分主要包括三个小节：一、问题的提出；二、研究意义和研究现状；三、研究方法和语义的说明。主要是简要介绍本文写作的原因与动机,阐述第三人精神损害赔偿的研究意义、研究现状以及研究方法,并就实践中较为混乱的、相似或相关的基本用语进行了说明。第一章为“第三人精神损害赔偿的法律界定”,主要分析了第三人精神损害赔偿的概念、性质、特征以及法律关系。指出：第三人精神损害赔偿包括但并不限于第三人休克损害赔偿,以及现行法律规定的受害人近亲属的精神损害赔偿。从含义而言,它隶属于广义的第三人损害赔偿,但与狭义的第三人损害赔偿大相径庭。产生第三人精神损害的事故原因可能有多种,比如惊骇案件、直接受害人因侵权致死致残等,不一而足。有人认为第三人精神损害属于直接损害,有人则认为属于间接反射性损害。而学者们进行这种法律性质甄别的原因恰恰是传统侵权法理论上,有直接损害给予赔偿,而间接损害原则上不予赔偿之习惯。但本文认为,我国侵权法理论中,有关直接损害和间接损害的分类标准本身是含混不明的,奠定在这一分类基础之上的间接损害一般不予赔偿的惯性思维和做法当然值得怀疑。何况,间接受害人的损害并不等同于间接损害,因此就实践层面而言,对第三人精神损害作出直接损害或间接损害之法律定性似乎没有太大的必要。如果理论上必须作一划分的话,不妨从行为与损害的因果关系入手,界定第三人精神损害为间接损害和反射损害。就特征而言,第三人精神损害呈现出对直接损害的依附性和相对独立性,而且损害后果存在某种不确定性,且第三人与直接受害人遭受侵害的客体往往并非同一。而第三人精神损害赔偿,则表现出诉讼保护的独立性、责任要件的复杂性、赔偿适用的严格性以及救济结果的差异性等特征。第三人精神损害属于一因多果的侵权损害,因此其赔偿中形成了加害人与直接受害人、加害人与第三人等多重法律关系,而这种多重法律关系中的具体组成要素当然不完全一致。第二章为“第三人精神损害赔偿的理论依据”,主要从经济学、社会学和法哲学角度分析了第三人精神损害赔偿的正当性问题。该章首先阐述了侵权损害赔偿责任的经济分析学观点,指出：从追求收益最大化、成本最小化的经济学角度考虑,至少确立某些第三人精神损害赔偿的法律类型是符合经济学观点的。其次,该章节分析了第三人精神损害赔偿的社会限制性因素,并分别从表层技术原因和深层社会原因方面对这些社会限制性因素进行了批判分析。最后,该章节还从法哲学角度分析了侵权法的目标价值体系,指出：当法的各种价值目标产生冲突时,必须进行价值整合,而法的价值整合的一般原则是：兼顾协调、法益权衡和维护法的安定性。对于现代侵权法来说,行为自由和权利保障、社会效率和社会公平都必须兼顾,但应该把受害人的权益保护放在首位。不过,传统侵权法原则(如间接损害原则上不予以赔偿)也不能因此完全抛弃,维护现有侵权法律制度的稳定性也不容忽视。因此一方面,我们必须在法律上呼应第三人的救济请求,但另一方面,也必须对该类问题进行精心筹划和设计,避免过分加重侵权人的责任负担。总之,该章节经过分析后得出结论：至少构建某些类型的第三人精神损害赔偿在法律上是可行的,也是正义的。第三章为“第三人精神损害赔偿的类型和规范分析”。首先是对第三人精神损害赔偿的学理分类进行了研究；其次对第三人精神损害赔偿的法律分类进行了研究,分别比较了两大法系国家以及欧盟和我国台湾地区有关第三人精神损害赔偿的法律类型,并通过借鉴学理分类和其他国家的法律分类,对我国侵权法中第三人精神损害赔偿的立法类型提出了建议,其中分类标准如下：1、从诱发原因来看,只有侵权行为(而且是侵害直接受害人的人身权益而非财产权益)导致的第三人精神损害才能请求法律救济,而违约行为引起的第三人精神损害则不能得到侵权法的保护。2、从权利主体来看,一般只有和直接受害人存在身份法律关系和感情亲密联系的第三人才可能请求精神损害赔偿。3、从损害后果来看,一般只有精神损害达到严重程度的第三人才允许提起金钱赔偿的诉讼请求。而建议采取的立法类型则包括侵害直接受害人的生命、健康、自由、配偶权益以及侵害死者人格利益所导致的第三人精神损害赔偿这五种；最后,该章节对上述五种第三人精神损害赔偿的类型进行了规范分析,界定了第三人范围、赔偿适用条件以及赔偿范围。第四章为“我国第三人精神损害赔偿法律制度的研究”。该章首先仔细梳理了我国立法与司法实践中的第三人精神损害赔偿的规定和案例,进行了有针对性的评析。就立法规定而言,列举了民事领域、经济领域、行政领域以及刑事领域有关第三人精神损害赔偿的规定。还对我国现有的各侵权法草案版本中第三人精神损害赔偿的规定进行了整理。就司法实践而言,重点列举了有关第三人精神损害赔偿的典型案例。如惊骇案件、侵害直接受害人健康权以及侵害直接受害人身份权益情况中的第三人精神损害赔偿等。其次,该章对构建和完善我国的第三人精神损害赔偿法律制度提出了建议。比如,在适用原则上,应坚持适度放开、从严控制、抚慰为主以及顺序递减的原则。在适用范围上,提出对第三人精神损害赔偿的权利主体及受害客体进行扩充等。在责任要件上,除了规定第三人精神损害赔偿的一般构成要件外,还专门强调了第三人精神损害赔偿的特殊构成要件。在法律设计上,对第三人精神损害赔偿的立法体例进行了分析,并从法条内容上对第三人精神损害赔偿进行了设计。通过上述各章的分析,本文得出以下结论：第三人精神损害,尽管与直接受害人的精神损害相比,距离加害人的侵权行为较为遥远。但面对现代社会越来越频繁出现的损害事故,完全拒绝对其赔偿,并不符合公平和正义,也有损法律的威严。对于第三人精神损害,法律要做的是,进行良好的类型设计和制度设计,合理划定第三人范围,使损害赔偿真正“止于当止之人”。现代各国侵权法上,即使对于距离损害原因更为遥远的纯粹经济损失,也不是一味地、武断地加以拒绝,更何况第三人的精神损害赔偿请求呢?因此,从这个意义上说,一方面,对某些类型的第三人精神损害进行赔偿是必要的,也是正当的。另一方面,在法律上构建某些类型的第三人精神损害赔偿也是可行的。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the rapid development of modern society and increasingly complex interpersonal relations, and infringement and damages compensation show even more complex and changeable characteristics. A violation could lead to multiple injurious consequences, therefore, in the right of damage compensation, the direct victim and the indirect victim (The third person) (Note:hereafter refers to as the third person) began to appear. Speaking of the mental damage, the entire spiritual damage compensation system based on the different victims can be divided into direct victim’s spiritual damage compensation and the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. The so-called the third person’s mental damage is, when the direct victim suffers a infringement and consequences for damage, because a variety of factors (for example the third person and the direct victim has the intimate relation, or the direct victim’s harm makes one too be frightened and so on), the third person also has various spiritual adverse reactions, or receives various forms of mental injury and spiritual attack. Various countries often give the enormous sympathy and protection to the direct victim’s mental damage. However, for a long time, the torts, whether legislative or practice, are relatively neglected and remain cautious for the moral damage to the third person.Certainly, considering of the complexity of social interaction, for the third person’s moral damage, the standpoint which various countries’ tort laws has is not entirely unjustified. After all, each person lives in the society, forms various complex social relations, one tort has the possibility to bring innumerable damage consequences completely. If the perpetrator must assume liability of compensation for all moral damage caused by the violations, it is too harsh for an offender. However, from the perspective of the victim, the third person’s spiritual damage is real and determined. Although between this harm consequence and infringement of the perpetrator merely is an indirect causality, but if not the perpetrator’s tort, the third person’s spirit harm completely has the possibility to avoid. If only because its damage reason is "indirect" then to deny its compensation, it may not be inconsistent with the concepts of fairness and justice of the tort law. Therefore, the law must make a benefit choice and balance in protecting the inflicter or victim. And the tort law can do is:delimit the third person’s scope reasonably, prevent the too broad harm concept and cause the spiritual damage compensation stop each person that should be prevented.To construct this kind of the legal regime for the third person’s spiritual damage compensation in the tort law is certainly difficult and arduous. Although other country has some related legal rules to use for reference, but the national condition difference and the moral ethics view’s difference possibly cause the path which uses for reference to be not necessarily smooth. But as Mr. Wang Zejian statement, the law of silence is not the end of the problem, but the appearance of the questions, is also the beginning of legal thinking and creationary activities. What this article can do is, by studying theory foundation and threshold analysis of the third person’s spirit damage compensation, to build and improve our country’s legal system of the third person’s spirit damage compensation.This article is divided four chapters, the author first carries out a legal definition about the third person’s spirit damage compensation and then describes the theoretical basis of the third person’s spirit damage compensation. Third, the author conducts the type and normative analysis of the third person’s spirit damage compensation. Finally, the author proposes that should construct and consummate our country’s the legal regime of the third person’s spirit damage compensation by reviewing the legislation and judicial practice of the third person’s spirit damage compensation in our country.Specifically speaking:In this paper, the "Introduction" section includes three subsections:First, the questions’derivation; Second, the significance and situation of research; Third, research methods and semantic description. In this part the author briefly introduces some of the major reasons and motivation for writing this article, elaborates the present research significance, situation as well as research methods of the third person’s spiritual damage compensation, and compares and explains some more chaotic, approximate, or the related basic terminology on the practice.Chapter 1 is titled as "the legal definition on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation", the author mainly analyzes the third person’s spiritual damage compensation in concept, nature, characteristic as well as legal relationship. And points out:the third person’s spiritual damage compensation includes but not limited to the third person’s spiritual damage compensation in nervous shock as well as the direct victim’s close relative’s spiritual damage compensation in China’s current law. From the meaning, it is part of a broad sense of the third person’ damages, but it is completely different for the narrow sense of the third person’s damages. The cause of the accident for the third person’s spiritual damage has many kinds, such as the shock cases, or direct victim died or became handicapped in an infringement and so on. Some people think that the third person’s mental damage belongs to a direct injury, but others think that it is indirect, reflective damage. The reason to differentiate its legal nature for scholars is one traditional theory in tort laws, namely the direct damage can be given the compensation, but the remote damages do not be compensated in principle. But the author believes that in China’s Tort Law classification standard on direct damage or indirect damage is vague, so the habitual thinking and practices for the indirect damages do not be compensated based on this classification standard is certainly dubious. Moreover, the damage of indirect victims is not the same as indirect damage, so on the practice, it is not completely great necessity to make a division of direct or indirect damage on the third person’s moral damage. If must make the division theoretically, might as well from causality between the behavior and harm, define the third person’s spiritual damage as the indirect damage or the reflective harm. On the characteristics, the third person’s moral damage shows some dependence and the relative independence on the direct damage. And for the object suffering violation, the direct victim and the third person show some non-identity. Then the third person’s spiritual damage compensation displays some characteristics:such as independence in the lawsuit protection, complexity in responsibility elements, strictness in the compensation application as well as the difference in the relief result. The third person’s spiritual damage is "one cause—multi fruit", therefore there is a multiple legal relationships in the compensation for the inflicter and direct victim as well as inflicter and indirect victim. Then the concrete component elements in this multiple legal relationships certainly are not completely consistent. In addition, in the theory basis of the third person’s spirit damage compensation, the author analyzes the validity of the third person’s spirit damage compensation from the economic, sociological and the law philosophy angle and draws the following conclusion:at least, constructing certain types of the third person’s spirit damage compensation is feasible and just in our country’s law system.Chapter 2 is titled as "the theoretical basis on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation", the author mainly from the economic, sociological and the law philosophy angle analyzes validity question of the third person’s spirit damage compensation. First, the author describes the economical analytics viewpoint on the tort liability, and points out:from the economic angle in pursuing income maximization and cost minimization, at least establishing some of the legal type of the third person’s spiritual damage compensation is in line with the economic viewpoint. Secondly, the author analyzes the social restrictive factor of the third person’s spirit damage compensation and respectively has a criticalness analysis from the surface layer technology reason and in-depth society reason aspect to these social restrictive factor. Finally, the author studies the goal value system of tort law from the law philosophy angle and points out, when each kind of value goal of the law has the conflict, we must carry on the value conformity, and the general principle on the law’s value conformity is to reconcile these goals and balance law profit as well as maintain law stability. For the modern tort law, the behavior freedom and right protection, social efficiency and social justice must be balanced, but it should give top priority to protect the rights of the victims. However, the traditional tort law principles (such as remote damages do not give compensation in principle) can not completely abandon, and maintaining the stability of the existing tort law system should not be overlooked. So on the one hand, we must echo the relief request of the third preson in the law, but on the other hand, this kind of problem must be carefully planned and designed to avoid excessive increase of liabilities of the infringer. In short, the author concludes after analysis:at least to construct some certain types of the third person’s spirit damage compensation is legally feasible and just.Chapter 3 is titled as "the type and normative analysis on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation". First, the author analyzes the theoretical type of the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. Second, the author analyzes the legal type of the third person’s spiritual damage compensation, and compares the legal type of the third person’s spiritual damage compensation in the common law system and civil law system, European Union as well as Taiwan of China, then the author puts forward a proposal for our country’s council type on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation by profiting from the theory classification and other national legal classification. The classified standard is as follows:1. from the initiation reason, only the third person’s spiritual damage compensation caused by an infringement but not breaches a contract (moreover violating the personal rights, not property rights of the direct victim) can request the legal relief.2. from the subject of rights, only when the indirect victim having the status legal relationship and the sentimental intimate relation with the direct victim can request the spirit damage compensation.3. from the harm consequence, only the indirect victim with severity energetic harm can request the lawsuit for money compensation. And the legislation type includes following five kinds:the third person’s spiritual damage compensation caused by violating the direct victim’s the right of life, healthy, freedom, spouse as well as the dead’s personality benefit. Finally, the author makes the normative analysis on the above five third person’s spiritual damage compensation, and limites the third person’s scope, the compensation condition as well as the compensation scope.Chapter 4 is titled as "our country’s legal regime research on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation". The author first carefully arranges our country’s legislation and judicial practice for the third person’s spiritual damages compensation including some stipulations and cases, and makes targeted analysis. On the legislative provisions, the author lists the provisions about compensation for the third person’s moral damage in the civil field, economic field, the administrative domain as well as the criminal domain. And also elaborates some stipulations of present five tort law draft about the third person’s spiritual damage compensation in our country. On the judicial practice, the author mainly lists some typical cases on the third person’s spiritual damage compensation, Such as in shock cases, by violating the direct victim’s life or health as well as identity and so on. Next, the author gives advice to constructed and perfect our country’s legal regime for the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. For instance, in the application of principle, should insist on an appropriate open, strict control and should stress primarily appeasement as well as decrease progressively in turn. In the applicable scope, should expand the subject of the right and the object suffering infringement for the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. In the elements of responsibility, should stipulate the general elements and special elements for the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. In the legal design, should choose a legislative mode or style and design legal provision of tort law for the third person’s spiritual damage compensation.Through the above-mentioned analysis of the various chapters, the author draws the following conclusions:the third person’s spiritual damage, although compares with the direct victim’s damage, is away from perpetrators’ violations to be more remote. However, in the face of modern society increasingly frequent incidents of damage, completely refusing its compensation is not consistent with social fairness and justice, but also may undermine the authority of law. For the third person’s moral damage, what the law needs to do is to design a good system and legal type and divide reasonably the scope of the third person thus to truly prevent the damage compensation for those people should be prevented. Modern States’ tort laws can not blindly and arbitrarily refuse the purely economic losses’ compensation even if they are away from reason of damage more remote, let alone the third person’s spiritual damage compensation. Therefore, in this sense, on the one hand, some types of the third person’s moral damage compensation are necessary and justified. On the other hand, it is also feasible to construct our country’s some types of the third person’s compensation for moral damage in the legal system.更多还原