破解“同命不同价”中难题的理论路径.doc

破解“同命不同价”难题的理论路径 　　摘 要：现行人身损害赔偿的司法解释关于城乡差别的死亡赔偿标准引发了 社会 对“同命不同价” 问题 的质疑。现行人身损害赔偿的司法解释对死亡赔偿系采取“继承丧失说”解释我国有关 法律 规定中的死亡赔偿制度，认为死亡赔偿金是对未来收入损失的赔偿，其性质是财产损害赔偿，而不是精神损害赔偿，所以“继承丧失说”是导致“同命不同价”问题的 理论 根源。“死伤损害说”是批判包括“继承丧失说”在内的人身损害差额化赔偿的一种理论学说。该学说主张将死伤本身作为损害加以把握，将生命被剥夺本身作为一项概括的非财产损害，且对体现生命价值的非财产损害赔偿，应努力地实现类型化和定额化。摒弃死亡赔偿的“继承丧失说”，转而以“死伤损害说”实行死亡赔偿金城乡一体的定型化，是破解“同命不同价”难题的理论路径。 　　关键词： 死亡；赔偿；路径 　　Abstract: The different compensations for the death of non-farmers and farmers provided in the Judicial Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation have provoked a heated debate on the issue of “similar lives but with different values.” Indeed, the existing Interpretation assumes the doctrine of “loss of inheritance” to construct the death compensation provided in relevant laws. It considers that death compensation is for the loss of future earnings, which falls within the ambit of property loss compensation rather than moral injury compensation. Theoretically, the problem of “similar lives but with different values” results from the doctrine of “loss of inheritance.” The doctrine of “damage of death and injury” is opposed to “loss of inheritance” and other theories that admit that different sort of people should be compensated differently. It maintains that death or personal injury per se is a sort of damage and deprival of life is a non-property loss in general meaning. While making compensation for a non-property loss, what one should endeavor to do is to classify losses and ascertain a fixed sum for the specific damage. Thus, the doctrine of “loss of inheritance” should be deserted and the doctrine of “damage of death and injury” be validated so as to enable farmers to obtain the same compensation as that provided for non-farmers, which is a proper way in legal theory to crack the hard nut of “similar lives but with different values.” 　　Key Words:death; compensation; path 　　 　　“生命权是宪法价值的基础和核心，集中体现了人的价值与尊严”［1］。作为基本人权的生命权对于任何人来说都是平等的。从法律层面上讲，法律应当对人的生命价值给予充分关注，在权利上给予充分保障，只有这样才能体现人与人的平等