【作者】 高爽；

【导师】 曹险峰；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2025， 硕士

【摘要】 在我国侵权损害赔偿体系中,根据“填补损害”的要求,一般采取完全赔偿原则。当侵权责任成立,不考虑侵权人的经济情况等当事人因素,赔偿义务人需要赔偿受害人经法律评价过滤后的全部损害,对受害人进行充分的救济。从理论上看,基于“责任自负”的命题,完全赔偿原则并无不妥。但是从法政策角度而言,完全赔偿原则作为侵权损害赔偿的一般性原则,难免在个案处理中出现漏洞和僵化。当侵权人承担完全赔偿义务会使自身及其家庭陷入生存困境或丧失重新开始的机会时,如若仍坚守完全赔偿原则,对侵权人来说,法律则丧失其应有的温度,在行为自由和权益保护的平衡中过分偏向权益保护一极。在比较法中,当出现上述问题时,往往通过比较成熟的生计酌减规则予以裁判。生计酌减规则作为完全赔偿原则的例外规则,旨在缓和完全赔偿原则的僵化,平衡侵权人生存发展权和被侵权人的债权的实现。但是构建我国生计酌减规则并非简单继受比较法内容。首先,在我国,生存权和发展权的人权优先保障理念和比例原则的均衡性要求正日益深入影响我国法律体系的建构,为我国生计酌减规则构建提供正当性。如在强制执行程序中出于对债务人生存权和发展权的保护,“善意执行”理念的提出和执行豁免财产范围的变化,避免为解决“执行难”问题过分侵害债务人合法权益。同样,为给予债务人重新开始生活的机会,我国个人破产法已经提上立法日程,学者们针对如何确定自由财产范围和免责制度等问题展开广泛讨论,旨在“禁止过度”理念的要求下,平衡双方利益,被侵权人虽然具有请求损害赔偿的正当性基础,但是侵权人的生存权和发展权也不容忽视。其次,在完全赔偿原则之下构建生计酌减规则,一方面不仅有利于缓和完全赔偿原则的僵化,保障受害人生存权和发展权,而且相较于其他缓和完全原则的方案,还可避免动态系统论和可预见性规则对现有法律体系的破坏,在损益相抵和过失相抵规则之外,完善侵权损害赔偿体系。另一方面,虽然程序法中执行终结、终本执行和个人破产等程序均在保护债务人生存权或发展权,但落实到具体规则上,仍与生计酌减规则存在差异。同样,虽然司法实践中存在利用调解、过失相抵等规则达到酌减目的,但是通过变相适用其他规则并不能解决本质问题,更可能引起新的纠纷。以上,构建生计酌减规则的独立条款在我国具有必要性。最后,我国生计酌减规则在解释论的构建路径中,过于牵强。在具体构建领域,由于解释论路径对法条突破过大,结合我国实际情况和比较法内容,应明文规定生计酌减规则作为完全赔偿原则的例外规则,将侵权人经济情况作为必要考虑因素,结合其他因素,由法院酌情考量是否减轻其赔偿额,并在此基础上,明确生计酌减规则的地位,防止其滥用引发道德风险。更多还原

【Abstract】 In our country’s tort damage compensation system,the principle of full compensation is generally adopted according to the requirement of"filling the damage".When the tort liability is established,regardless of the economic situation of the infringer and other party factors,the compensation obligation should compensate the victim for all the damages filtered by legal evaluation and provide adequate relief to the victim.Theoretically,based on the proposition of"sole responsibility",the principle of full compensation is not wrong.However,from the perspective of law and policy,as a general principle of tort damages,the principle of full compensation inevitably has loopholes and rigidity in case handling.When the infringer undertakes the obligation of full compensation,it will cause himself and his family to fall into survival difficulties or lose the opportunity to start over.If the infringer still adheres to the principle of full compensation,the law will lose its due temperature for the infringer,and it will excessively favor the right protection pole in the balance between freedom of conduct and right protection.In comparative law,when the above problems arise,they are often judged by more mature livelihood discretionary rules.As an exception rule of the total compensation principle,the livelihood discretionary reduction rule aims to ease the rigidity of the total compensation principle and balance the realization of the right of the infringer to live and develop and the creditor’s right of the infringed.However,the construction of discretionary rules of livelihood in China is not simply following the content of comparative law.First of all,in our country,the concept of human rights priority protection of the right to subsistence and the right to development and the balance of the principle of proportionality are increasingly deeply affecting the construction of our legal system,providing legitimacy for the construction of discretionary rules for our livelihood.For example,in the enforcement procedure,out of the protection of the debtor’s right to survival and development,the concept of"good faith execution"and the change of the scope of the property exempt from execution are proposed to avoid excessive infringement of the debtor’s legitimate rights and interests in order to solve the problem of"difficult execution".Similarly,in order to give debtors a chance to start their lives again,China’s personal bankruptcy law has been put on the legislative agenda,and scholars have conducted extensive discussions on how to determine the scope of free property and the exemption system,aiming to balance the interests of both parties under the requirement of the concept of"prohibiting excessive".Although the infringed has the legitimate basis to claim damages,the legal basis of the law is not to be infringed.But the infringer’s right to survival and development can not be ignored.Secondly,the construction of livelihood discretionary reduction rule under the principle of full compensation is not only conducive to alleviating the rigidity of the principle of full compensation and protecting the victim’s right to survival and development,but also avoids the destruction of the existing legal system by the dynamic system theory and predictability rule compared with other schemes of the principle of full mitigation.We will improve the compensation system for tort damages.On the other hand,although the procedures of termination of execution,final execution and personal bankruptcy in the procedural law protect the debtor’s right to survival or development,there are still differences between the implementation of specific rules and the livelihood discretionary rules.Similarly,although rules such as mediation and negligence offset are used to achieve the purpose of discretion in judicial practice,the application of other rules in disguise cannot solve the essential problems and may cause new disputes.Above,it is necessary to construct the independent clause of discretionary rule of livelihood in our country.Finally,the discretionary rule of livelihood in China is too far-fetched in the construction of interpretative theory.In the specific construction field,due to the excessive breakthrough of the legal provisions in the interpretative approach,combined with the actual situation of China and the contents of the comparative law,the livelihood discretionary rule should be expressly stipulated as an exception rule to the principle of complete compensation,and the economic situation of the infringer should be considered as a necessary consideration,combined with other factors,and the court should consider whether to reduce the amount of compensation.Clarify the status of the discretionary rule to prevent its abuse and cause moral hazard.更多还原