【作者】 姚岷；

【导师】 裴丽萍；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 经济法， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 惩罚性损害赔偿是英美法系国家在民事损害赔偿判例中普遍采用的一项制度,而大陆法系国家基于其传统的民事责任理论,对惩罚性损害赔偿制度一直予以摒弃。然而伴随着社会经济生活的发展及两大法系融合之趋势,惩罚性损害赔偿制度在两大法系出现了不同的发展态势。美国对惩罚性损害赔偿制度作出反思,并逐渐限制其过度适用;大陆法系的部分国家则出现了肯定惩罚性损害赔偿的作法,如日本、中国、及我国台湾地区。而我国由于民法典的起草,对惩罚性损害赔偿制度更是掀起一股理论研究热潮。惩罚性损害赔偿制度的研究主要是一个理论问题,本文的研究重点,就是要在理论上证明此制度的合理性,从而肯定其存在的价值。在介绍此制度历史发展概况的基础上,本文对惩罚性损害赔偿制度本身的合理性进行了多角度的分析。从法理学的角度分析,惩罚性损害赔偿具有补偿、惩罚及威慑这三项社会功能,而此制度的价值依据正在于人类社会需求的正义;从经济学的角度分析,“行为的成本与收益”概念,证成了惩罚性损害赔偿的社会功能,惩罚性损害赔偿正是通过提高潜在侵害人的行为成本从而对侵害行为起到事先的预防,通过提高受害人的行为收益,从而激励受害人的诉讼行为,进而加强法律的威慑功能;而从历史学的分析角度来看,从近代民法到现代民法的发展趋势、私法公法化的走向,证成了惩罚性损害赔偿的合理性――即其社会需求性。而与此同时,对大陆法系固守成规的“民刑竣别”思想的反思;对补偿性赔偿原则现代局限性之剖析等,也为惩罚性损害赔偿合理性的论证清除了传统理论设置的障碍。除了自身存在的合理性之外,惩罚性损害赔偿同样能够在侵权行为法和合同法的发展中寻求到可以适用的理论依据。侵权行为法自身功能的发展轨迹表明,惩罚性损害赔偿是侵权行为法预防功能的需求及体现;而在合同法领域,合同法的诚实信用原则、正义原则是适用惩罚性损害赔偿的理论依据。本文分析了惩罚性损害赔偿制度与相关制度,如补偿性损害赔偿、精神损害赔偿、行政罚款及刑事罚金的相互关系,这有利于对此制度更深入的了解和把握;<WP=4>同时对我国关于惩罚性损害赔偿的立法进行了检讨,并提出了建议,我国应在侵权行为法领域扩展适用,而在合同法领域限制惩罚性损害赔偿的适用。固然,惩罚性损害赔偿制度存在有一定的缺陷,并且其适用会带来一些社会消极影响。但是,既然已经证成制度的存在具有理论合理性,那么我们应该做得不是去吹毛求疵的否定,而是应该考虑如何设计并完善此制度,发挥惩罚性损害赔偿积极的社会功能。更多还原

【Abstract】 Punitive Damages have been widely adopted by Anglo-American Legal System in civil cases, but Continental Legal System has always given a denial to Punitive Damages, based on the traditional theory about civil liability. Nevertheless, with the development of society and economic, and with the syncretic trend of two different Legal Systems, there have been different developing situations of Punitive Damages between Anglo-American Legal System and Continental Legal System. In America, Punitive Damages has been criticized and limited. But in some civil law countries, Punitive Damages has been admitted and adopted, such as Japan, Chinese Mainland and Taiwan Province of China. On the other hand, there has been an upsurge of doing research on Punitive Damages in our country again during these several years because of the drafting of Civil Law Code in China. The research on Punitive Damages is mainly a theoretic problem, so finding the rationalities of Punitive Damages and affirming its merits are the emphasis and purpose of this dissertation. In order to accomplish this purpose, this dissertation analyzes the rationalities of Punitive Damages from three different points of view, based on the introduction of the history and development of this system. At first, from the point of Jurisprudence, Punitive Damages have three kinds of social function, such as retribution, punishment and deterrence, and the justice needed by the human beings is the merits of Punitive Damages System. Secondly, from the point of Economics, the social functions of Punitive Damages are proved by the economic concept “the cost and income of behavior”. On the one hand, Punitive Damages can prevent the infractions in advance just by improving the cost of potential infractions; on the other hand, Punitive Damages can spirit up the civil actions and then enhance the deterrent function of law by improving the income of victims. At last, from the point of History, the rationality of <WP=6>Punitive Damages, which is the requirement of society, can be proved by the historical development of Civil Law. At the same time, the criticism of traditional theories of Continental Legal System and the analysis of limitation of Compensatory Damages are helpful for proving the rationalities of Punitive Damages.Besides the rationalities of this system, we also can find the academic reasons in Tort Law and Contract Law, which can be used to prove that Punitive Damages should be adopted. Firstly, the development of Tort Law can prove that Punitive Damages System is the requirement of deterrent function of Tort Law. Secondly, in Contract Law, the rules of good-faith and justice are the academic elements of the application of Punitive Damages. This dissertation also analyzes the relationships between Punitive Damages and some other related systems, such as Compensatory Damages, non-pecuniary loss, penalty and criminal fine. These analyses are helpful for us to understand the Punitive Damages System deeply and correctly. And then, this dissertation also reviews the legislation of Punitive Damages in our country and suggests that the legislation should widen the application of Punitive Damages in Tour Law but limit the application in Contract Law.Certainly, there are still some defects of Punitive Damages System, and its application will also bring some negative effects to the society. But since we have found the rationalities of Punitive Damages, the only thing that we should do is thinking how to design and perfect this system, and how to exert its positive functions, but not to negate it completely.更多还原