《侵权责任法》第16条之我见——对残疾赔偿金与死亡赔偿金的解读

《侵权责任法》第22条规定了精神抚慰金,第16条规定了残疾赔偿金与死亡赔偿金,而没有规定被扶养人的抚养费请求权。由于＂两金＂在性质上属于精神抚慰金,所以,＂两金＂与精神抚慰金不得主张;尽管＂两金＂与被扶养人的抚养费性质不同,理论上似乎可以并用,但由于＂两金＂在赔偿标准上采取了＂遗失利益损害赔偿＂的计算方法,使对受害人及其家庭的救济达到了如同没有发生侵权损害一样,所以,被扶养人的抚养费亦不可以与＂两金＂并用。     

我国引入惩罚性赔偿的理论障碍批判

惩罚性赔偿是英美法上的一个特有制度, 我国在引入这一制度过程中出现了理论障碍, 认为它混淆了公法与私法的划分, 违背了民事责任的补偿性原则, 与罚金和罚款的功能相同, 并使受害人获得了不当得利。其实, 这些理论障碍是值得商榷的: 公法与私法的划分向来就不是泾渭分明的, 也就没必要追求两者的精细划分并以此作为反对惩罚性赔偿的理由; 民事责任的补偿性原则在现代社会需要进行修正, 惩罚性赔偿可以弥补民事责任预防不足的缺陷且具有罚金和罚款不可替代的功能; 法律设定惩罚性赔偿金的目的是在保护弱者合法权益的基础上更好地实现完全补偿原则, 与不当得利制度的设立宗旨并不矛盾。     

侵害品种权法定赔偿数额的司法决策因素检视及因应

品种创新是种业振兴的关键,识别侵害品种权法定赔偿的司法决策因素,以提高品种权司法保护水平,进而激励育种创新,实有必要。以2002-2023年侵害品种权适用法定赔偿的案例为样本,分析其时空特征,建立多元回归模型,探究法定赔偿数额的参考因素与影响因素。结果表明：侵害品种权法定赔偿适用“泛化”且判赔额较低,提高法定赔偿上限的立法举措效果甚微;法定赔偿参考因素缺乏量化标准,维权合理开支定位不清;锚定效应、审判经验等因素对司法决策影响显著。为提高品种权司法保护质效,建议采取如下措施：通过严格适用法定赔偿,消除举证责任障碍,降低证明标准,以克服法定赔偿“泛化”适用;通过确立赔偿数额计算标准和规则,另行计赔维权合理开支,以避免裁判的主观性;通过提高司法决策信息质量,提升法官素养,提供司法决策空间,以减少锚定效应,保证裁判的公平性。     

施工质量责任引发损害赔偿问题的思考

在建设工程中由于施工质量原因而侵犯房屋所有人财产、人身权利,并引起一系列与民事损害赔偿相关的法律问题多有出现。但对于民事责任的承担,由于没有一部统一的法律调整双方当事人权利义务,因此在实践处理中存在较大的任意性。结合实践,依据相关的法律、法规、司法解释提出解决有关问题的应适用的法律。     

论合同解除与违约金责任的适用关系

依解释论,合同解除后不能再要求承担违约金责任,只能要求承担赔偿损失责任;依立法论,则应当允许在合同解除后依约定要求承担违约金责任,且违约金责任应优先于赔偿损失责任适用。     

《侵权责任法》改革医疗损害责任制度的成功与不足

《侵权责任法》对医疗损害责任制度进行了成功的改革,主要表现在统一适用医疗损害责任的案由、对医疗损害责任进行科学分类、确定适合国情的归责原则体系、统一适用人身损害赔偿标准等方面,正确地处理了受害患者、医疗机构和全体患者之间的利益关系。《侵权责任法》对医疗损害责任制度的改革也存在一些不足,如没有规定举证责任缓和原则,没有规定医疗损害责任鉴定制度等,应当通过司法解释等方法予以补充完善,以协调好受害患者、医疗机构和全体患者之间的利益关系,保护好各方利益。     

试析我国劳动合同法的惩罚性赔偿制度

我国《劳动合同法》中的赔偿制度中既有补偿性的赔偿规定,也有惩罚性赔偿规定。惩罚性赔偿在立法宗旨和法律适用上都不同于补偿性赔偿。在用人单位违法时,其承担惩罚性赔偿责任的规定突显了我国《劳动合同法》的立法特色,这一特殊的法律责任对我国的法制建设及劳动合同关系必然产生巨大的影响。     

A Method for Computing the Fraction of Attributable Risk Related to Climate Damages

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the regulation of CO₂ emissions from new motor vehicles^{( 1 )} shows the need for a robust methodology to evaluate the fraction of attributable risk from such emissions. The methodology must enable decisionmakers to reach practically relevant conclusions on the basis of expert assessments the decisionmakers see as an expression of research in progress, rather than as knowledge consolidated beyond any reasonable doubt.^{( 2,3,4 )} This article presents such a methodology and demonstrates its use for the Alpine heat wave of 2003. In a Bayesian setting, different expert assessments on temperature trends and volatility can be formalized as probability distributions, with initial weights (priors) attached to them. By Bayesian learning, these weights can be adjusted in the light of data. The fraction of heat wave risk attributable to anthropogenic climate change can then be computed from the posterior distribution. We show that very different priors consistently lead to the result that anthropogenic climate change has contributed more than 90% to the probability of the Alpine summer heat wave in 2003. The present method can be extended to a wide range of applications where conclusions must be drawn from divergent assessments under uncertainty.     

继续性合同解除制度探析

继续性合同解除制度无须采用终止、解除二元模式,可沿用现有解除概念,但应区分一时性合同与继续性合同的解除效力、条件。继续性合同解除条件规范应采取一般性规定与特殊性规定结合方式,赋予当事人更大解除自由,同时从实体和程序上予以相应限制。继续性合同解除原则上无溯及力,在确定损害赔偿范围时须注意对可得利益的界定。     

Punitive Damages in China: Evolution and Application

Abstract

The revised Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers (Consumer Protection Law), which sums up nearly twenty years of the evolution of Chinese punitive damages regulations, sets out a model system of punitive damages. These are in essence a special kind of penalty under a dual public-private legal system in which the punitive and deterrent functions of public law are realized through the mechanism of private law. Their application should be guided by the public law principle that the penalty should be proportionate to the offence. The question of whether the penalty is appropriate arises in the application of the two forms of punitive damages prescribed in the Consumer Protection Law—whether used separately or together, or in conjunction with or independently of fines or financial awards. The application of the new punitive damages regulations may overlap with the application of China’s Food Safety Law and Tort Liability Law.