:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:人身侵害之損害概念
書刊名:國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者:陳聰富 引用關係
作者(外文):Chen, Tsung-fu
出版日期:2006
卷期:35:1
頁次:頁47-110
主題關鍵詞:損害賠償損害概念損害計算差額說侵權行為人身損害慰撫金損害賠償機能DamageRight to damagesPersonal injuryFunction of tort liabilityDifferentiated amount theoryReal loss theoryNormative concept of damagePains and sufferingTort law
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(12) 博士論文(3) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:12
  • 共同引用共同引用:434
  • 點閱點閱:71
損害賠償爲民事責任最重要之法律效果,無論侵權行爲法或契約法,加害人所負之責任,大致上均爲損害賠償責任。在侵權行爲構成要件上,無論實務或學說,均認爲損害爲侵權行爲損害賠償請求權成立要之一。然而,何謂「損害」?損害之概念爲何?我國學說上之探討較少。 我國關於損害賠償之規定,採取德國法上之回復原狀原則,損害賠償請求權之機能,基本上在於填補損害。因而實務上經常出現「無損害,即無賠償」之見解。然則在現代社會,損害賠償請求權之機能,是否僅限於損害填補之功能?損害賠償請求權,作爲原本權利之繼續,如何發揮權利保護之機能,係屬學說上應予探討之問題。 本文參酌德國與日本學說對於損害概念之見解,整理分析我國法院對於損害本質的概念,以及損害賠償機能的轉變。我國損害賠償法之損害概念,依據實務見解,並未固守差額說之立場。對於損害之本質,依據法院判決觀察,無寧係採取具體損害說,並具有規範的損害概念。換言之,損害賠償之對象,並非依據差額說,以被害人實際發生之財產上不利益爲賠償對象,而係以物之受害、及身體健康受損害本身,作爲損害賠償之對象。至於差額說,至多作爲損害計算之參考。對於損害賠償之項目,最高法院目前具有擴大化之現象,以充實損害概念之內涵。損害賠償請求權之機能,在我國法院實務上,己經發生轉變。損害填補,已非損害賠償請求權之唯一功能。藉由損害概念之轉變,損害賠償請求權具有權利保護之機能,並藉以實現公平正義之理念。傳統意義之損害是否存在,對於損害賠償請求權之成立,已經無關緊要。重要者爲,被害人之權利是否受到侵害,以及加害人是否因而獲得不當得利。損害賠償請求權作爲原本權利之繼續,其所擔負之功能,應與法律保護權利或利益,所追求之公平正義相一致。
The damages are the aim of tort lawsuits for most plaintiffs in personal injury cases Nonetheless, the concept of damage is far from clear under the tort law It might denote the real loss suffered by the injured party, but it might indicate the pecuniary difference between the amount of the plaintiff’s financial condition after a specific accident and that prior to the accident The latter Differentiated Amount Theory was prevalent in both academic fields and court decisions in the past. The Differentiated Amount Theory, however, has been greatly challenged by both the theorists and the courts due to its inherent drawbacks when dealing with some special cases As a result, other theories including the Real Loss Theory and the Normative Concept of Damage Theory were encouraged by both theorists and courts. This paper employed German and Japanese articles on damages to analyze Taiwanese relevant court decisions. It revealed that the Differentiated Amount Theory has been removed from the court practice for a long time, especially in recent court decisions. Instead, the Normative Concept of Damage Theory has been emphasized by many court decisions that dealt with some special cases on damages This article thoroughly reviewed Taiwanese court decisions and indicated the trend of the court decisions in terms of the legal policy on the award of damages in personal injury cases.
期刊論文
1.西原道雄(1966)。人身事故における損害賠償額の法理。ジュリスト,339。  延伸查詢new window
2.吉村良一(1980)。ドイツ法における財産的損害概念。立命館法學,150-154。  延伸查詢new window
3.西原道雄(1965)。生命侵害、傷害における損害賠償。私法,27。  延伸查詢new window
4.西原道雄(1967)。損害賠償額の法理。ジュリス卜,381。  延伸查詢new window
5.潮見佳男(1989)。財産的損害概念についての一考察--差額説的損害観の再検討。判例評論,687。  延伸查詢new window
6.潮見佳男(1991)。人身侵害における損害概念と算定原理。民商法雑誌,103(5)。  延伸查詢new window
7.潮見佳男(1991)。人身侵害における損害概念の算定原理。民商法雑誌,103(4)。  延伸查詢new window
8.Leebron, David(1989)。Final Moments: Damages for Pain and Suffering Prior to Death。N. Y. U. L. Rev.,64,256-262。  new window
9.王澤鑑(20050400)。損害賠償法的體系、請求權基礎、歸責原則及發展趨勢。月旦法學,119,126-138。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.王澤鑑(1982)。民法學說與判例研究。台北:三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.王澤鑑(1983)。民法學說與判例研究。台北:三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.加藤雅信(2002)。事務管理、不當得利、不法行爲。東京:有斐閣。  延伸查詢new window
4.史尙寬(1983)。債編總論。史尙寬。  延伸查詢new window
5.吉村良一(1990)。人身損害賠償の研究。日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
6.宗宮信次(1968)。不法行爲論。東京:有斐閣。  延伸查詢new window
7.淡路剛久(1984)。不法行爲における權利保障と損害の評價。東京:有斐閣。  延伸查詢new window
8.幾代通(1987)。不法行爲。東京:筑摩書房。  延伸查詢new window
9.曾世雄(1986)。損害賠償法原理。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.曾隆興(1996)。現代損害賠償法論。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.黃立(1999)。民法債偏總論。台北:元照出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
12.楠本安雄(1984)。人身損害賠償論。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
13.潮見佳男(2002)。不法行爲法。東京:信山社。  延伸查詢new window
14.(1997)。Clerk & Lindsell on Torts。London:Sweet & Maxwell。  new window
15.Dobbs, Dan、Hayden, Paul(1997)。Torts and Compensation。St.Paul, Minn.:West Publishing CO.。  new window
16.Glannon, Joseph(1995)。The Law of Torts。Aspen Law & Business。  new window
17.Abraham, Kenneth(1997)。The Forms and Functions of Tort Law。New York:The Foundation Press, Inc.。  new window
18.Horton, Rogers W. V.(2001)。Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective。Springer-Werlag/Wien。  new window
19.Buckley, William、Okrent, Cathy(1997)。Torts and Personal Injury Law。New York:Delmar Publishers。  new window
20.邱聰智(2000)。新訂民法債編通則。臺北:輔仁大學法學叢書編輯委員會。  延伸查詢new window
21.孫森焱(2004)。新版民法債編總論。台北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
22.鄭玉波(1983)。民法債編總論。台北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.山口成樹(1998)。人身損害賠償と逸失利益(總論)。新現代損害賠償法講座。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
2.五十嵐清(1989)。死者の人格權。人格權論。東京:一粒社。  延伸查詢new window
3.好美清光(1974)。慰謝料請求權者の範圍。現代損害賠償法講座(7),損害賠償之範圍與額之算定。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
4.岡本詔治(1998)。人身事故損害賠償のあり方。新現代損害賠償法講座。  延伸查詢new window
5.高橋真(1998)。損害概念。新現代損害賠償法講座。  延伸查詢new window
6.陳聰富(2004)。美國懲罰性賠償金制度。侵權歸責原則與損害賠償。台北:元照出版公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.陳聰富(2004)。情緒悲痛與損害賠償。因果關係與損害賠償。台北:元照出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
8.黃茂榮(1985)。技術性眨値、交易性貶値。民事法判解評釋。台北:植根法學叢書。  延伸查詢new window
9.潮海一雄(1997)。相續構成と扶養構成。新現代損害賠償法講座。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
10.澤井裕(1992)。未就勞年少者の死亡損失。石田喜久夫、西原道雄、高木多喜男先生還歷紀念論文集。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
11.齋藤修(1998)。慰謝料に關する諸問題。新現代損害賠償法講座。東京:日本評論社。  延伸查詢new window
12.Schwartz, Gary(2001)。Damages under US Law。Unification of Tort Law: Damages。Hague:Kluwer Law International。  new window
13.Honore, Tony(1995)。The Morality of Tort Law。Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law。Oxford:Clarendon Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE