德国法中痛苦抚慰的惩罚性辨析_兼评我国_侵权责任法_第22条.pdfVIP

20 10 12 D ec. 2010 8 6 P resentday L aw Science V o l. 8 N o. 6 * ) ) ) 兼评我国5侵权责任法6第 22条 李 升 ( 中北大学政法学院, 山西 太原 0 30051) 当许多人还在笃信传统的公私法划分, 而拒绝 认损害赔偿责任之惩罚性的时候, 德国的司法实 践却已经悄然偏离了这 一信仰文章以联邦最高法院的一系列判决为例, 证明德国在人格权损害赔偿案件中 已经引进了惩罚性, 进而厘清作为惩罚性赔偿主要指标的侵害方因素从这 个角度出发, 对我国的精神损害 赔偿制度的惩罚性进行了比较研究, 阐明了侵害人格权的精神损害赔偿具有惩罚性功能的必然性 痛苦抚慰金; 惩罚性赔偿; 精神损害赔偿; 人格权 D9971 1 A 1672-769X ( 2010) 06-0115-07 O n the P un itive C ha racte ristics of Schmerzensge ld in the Ge rman Law L I Sheng (Inst itute of P olit ics and L aw, N orth Un iv er sity of Ch ina, Ta iyuan, Shanx i 030051, Ch ina ) A bstract: W h ile m any p eop le st ill be lieve in the trad it iona l d istinction betw een the public and private law and refuse to recognize the pun itive dam ages, the G erm an legal practice h as already de- v iated from the princ iple qu iet ly. T he author endeavo rs to rev iew a series of the decisions o f the G er- m an Suprem e Court and to reveal the fact that the Court has a lready introdu ced the pun itive dam ages in the course o f the cases w ith regard to personal right. The m ost mi portant em otional features of the pun itive dam ages should be detected in those court rulings. The T race o f those features could also be found out in the dom est ic dam age of m ental in jury, wh ich is necessarily supposed to be bo th