【作者】 邓冰宁；

【导师】 马新彦；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 美国法语境下，第三人精神损害赔偿责任（bystander liability）指的是，与受到严重身体损害的直接受害人具有密切亲属关系的第三人（原告），可以就因知悉事故的发生而蒙受的严重精神损害，向有过失的侵权行为人（被告）主张的金钱损害赔偿责任。第三人精神损害赔偿责任具有两大突出特点。一方面，第三人精神损害赔偿责任大大拓展了被告应负的保护性义务的范围。在典型的第三人精神损害赔偿责任案件中，存在两重侵权之债和三方当事人：行为人、直接受害人和原告，由于行为人的过失行为直接侵害的是直接受害人，原告是在事故发生后才蒙受的精神损害，对于行为人和直接受害人之间第一重的侵权之债而言，原告即为“第三人”，故在第二重侵权之债中，行为人需要直接向原告承担的责任被称为第三人精神损害赔偿责任。另一方面，第三人精神损害赔偿责任的赔偿对象是纯粹的精神损害，不包括原告本人蒙受的任何身体损害，也不包括原告因蒙受精神损害而导致的其它身体损害。美国侵权法体系中，第三人精神损害赔偿责任由于具有特殊的规范性逻辑和独立的救济对象，从而享有独立的基本侵权责任形式的地位，并未被与其相类似的因过失直接造成他人精神损害赔偿责任、向直接受害人承担的损害赔偿责任、向直接参加者承担的损害赔偿责任、向配偶承担的抚慰责任以及不当死亡责任所涵盖。历史上，美国法曾经基于特定理由拒绝救济一切纯粹精神损害，随后在认可向被告故意造成的纯粹精神损害提供救济之后，又基于相同或相似的理由拒绝向第三人精神损害提供救济，这些否定第三人精神损害赔偿责任的大同小异的理由，相应的，随后又被美国各州以与支持向被告故意造成的纯粹精神损害提供救济的理由之间具有高度的相似性的、支持第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度的理据所一一驳斥。随着科学技术的发展，特别是与科学技术的发展相适应的司法审判技术的发展，对于可救济性问题的判断技术日臻成熟，侵权法的救济范围随之不断扩张，并最终囊括第三人精神损害。在美国法向第三人精神损害提供救济之后，又以高度精密的法学技术，在一个个复杂的个案中设计和规划了精巧的运行机制，从而在案之后的半个多世纪时间的丰富司法实践中，成功预防了所有否定第三人精神损害赔偿责任时所顾忌的不利结果，并以成熟和完善的第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度充分印证了支持这一制度的正当性基础理论的正确性。一方面，美国第三人精神损害赔偿责任通过设计精密的构成要件，不仅确保了第三人精神损害本身满足具有可救济性的规范性纯粹精神损害所要求的严重性和可预见性，而且无论通过可预见性规则还是“危险区域”理论，都要求被告的行为是违反法律义务的不法行为，并以此依托维护了被告的不法行为与第三人精神损害之间的规范性联系，从而使第三人精神损害赔偿责任具有侵权法规范所固有的连贯性，具备了民法的内源性正当性基础。另一方面，美国法院又遵循其实用主义传统以第三人精神损害赔偿责任实现了维护正常家庭关系、传统婚姻家庭观念和司法效率的功利主义目的，并且援引汉德公式证成了第三人精神损害赔偿责任的法经济学正当性基础，第三人精神损害赔偿责任也因此具有了民法的外源性正当性基础。美国法通过构成要件的特殊要求确保原告享有的真实诉权的功能在于，保证原告蒙受的损害与被告的侵权行为之间具有关联性，进而确保侵权责任的可预见性。本文进行实证考察的目的在于论证下述三个结论：（1）同时性知悉要件和紧密的亲属关系要件本身与是否客观存在精神损害并无必然联系；（2）美国法通过宽严相济的构成要件成功维护了侵权责任的可预见性；（2）美国法中惩罚性赔偿制度成功在被告具有故意和不计后果心态的案件中有效填补损害。我国的司法实践中，虽然依据最高人民法院的司法解释和指导意见，在十余年间救济这种损害，但是这种侵权责任制度并没有为《侵权责任法》所认可。这就导致责任成立和责任承担两方面的规定含混不清，不仅不利于完善地救济受害人，也可能迫使行为人承担不公平的侵权责任。美国法在近半个世纪的时间里，几经探索，终于形成了体系完整，逻辑清晰，具体规则具有极高的确定性和可操作性的、完善的第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度。通过实证研究方法对美国第三人精神损害赔偿责任进行研究，完整地展现该制度的全貌和历史沿革过程，结合我国实际情况进行批判性借鉴，不仅有利于构建体系完备、逻辑统一的中国第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度，也为进一步完善《侵权责任法》铺平了道路。本文以美国第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度的实然状态为研究中心。通过对于大量判例的实证考察，完整地展现美国各州中第三人精神损害赔偿责任构成要件的全貌；通过历史考察的方法，揭示美国第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度的发展脉络和一般规律；通过对于大量判例的实证考察，分析和解答美国司法实践中确立第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度的正当性基础问题。在对美国法进行细致研究的基础上，本文将结合我国司法实践和理论研究的最新成果，立足于我国国情，设计和论证符合我国现实需要的第三人精神损害赔偿责任制度，重点解决侵权责任成立阶段构成要件的设计，并为侵权责任承担阶段具体责任的计算提供参考因素。更多还原

【Abstract】 In American tort law, bystander liability refers to a form of pecuniary liabilitywhich defendant incurs for the reason that he inflicted serious physical injuries to thevictim, to whom the plaintiff that simultaneously perceived the accident and receivedserious emotional distress accordingly is closely related.There are two salient characteristics in bystander liability, namely, the expansionof legal duty and pure emotional loss. One aspect could be safely observed in a typicalbystander case, in which two levels of torts and three parties are involved, in contrastto a common tort case, in which only one level of tort and two parties. This bizarremodel of bystander liability could be dissembled into two levels of torts. For one level,the defendant tortuously hurts the victim, which results in serious physical injury. Theplaintiff is a total bystander, the safety of whom normally does not concern him.However, it is the other level that actually matters, for the bystander liability is thenormative relation between the defendant and the plaintiff in essence. The otheraspect depicts that neither physical injury nor physical injury resulted from emotionaldistress of the plaintiff is required or recovered.Thanks to its peculiar formalism and independent function, bystander liabilityenjoys the status of a basic tort liability, which manifests its particular normative logicand distinguished method of remedy that is not covered by any other torts alike, suchas negligent conduct directly inflicting emotional harm on another, direct victim,active participant, action by one spouse for harm caused by tort against other spouseand wrongful death.Historically, American courts used to deny any remedy to any pure emotionaldistress, let alone bystander liability. Not until the intentional infliction of emotionaldistress retained its legitimate title in the hierarchy of tort law, did courts give aserious consideration to the possibility that the bystander could qualify herself for adecent plaintiff as appropriate as those who were directly affected by tortuous act, ifnot more than. Unfortunately, it was the same or at least similar justifications，towhich courts had resorted in order to support their denial of all pure emotional distress,that played as formidable foes in front of bystander liability. Eventually, due to theprosperity of science especially the rapid development of psychology, the judicialtechnology grasped a golden chance to evolve accordingly, which gave a rise to thelong due expansion the scope of duty that included the bystander liability with reliable and practical means of evaluation. In more than half a century since the Dillon case in1968, American courts devised and adopted miscellaneous ingenious mechanism tosuccessfully ensure that the remedy to plaintiffs not rendered at the cost of thefreedom of defendants, which itself suffices a good case in point that bystanderliability is not a chimera that cannot be leashed.On one hand, the coherence of bystander liability, which is strictly required bythe internal justification of tort law, is safely guaranteed by the highly sophisticatedprima facie elements. To be specific, the normative requirement of severity andforeseeability of injury and wrongfulness of the act of defendant are all thoroughlyaccommodated within the institution of bystander liability. On the other hand, with thedeeply rooted background of legal pragmatism, American courts activate bystanderliability to achieve several utilitarian goals like to maintain normal familialrelationship, to preserve the traditional concept of marriage and family and to servethe efficiency need of judicial branch. Some courts even adopt Hand formula topresent bystander liability a law and economics stand. All those attempts function asthe external justification of bystander liability in comparison to its internalcounterpart.The prima facie elements of bystander liability serve with a single purpose, thatis, to test plaintiff’s substantive claim, which labours to satisfy the requirement ofcoherence that is the prerequisite to the foreseeability of liability. A empirical researchof American cases would reveal:(1) the simultaneous perception and close relativerequirement have nothing to do with the objectivity and truthfulness of emotionaldistress;(2) the foreseeability of liability is well ensured by elaborate patterns ofinstitutional designs;(3) punitive damages is a much better alternative tocompensatory damages in cases that defendants act being malicious, wanton orreckless.As for the Chinese legal practice of bystander liability, although over decadeslower courts granted remedy to plaintiff according to the interpretation and instructiveopinions from the Supreme Court, this kind of tort liability has not been officiallyrecognized by the Chinese Tort Liability Law yet, which could not be commented asnothing else but a pity. Not only dose the blankness of Chinese tort law lead to thetragedy of genuine plaintiff being deliberately ignored, but also probably set themistreatment towards defendant in motion whenever courts decide to exploit theirdiscretion. A comparative study on the American bystander liability can be of constructive value to reverse the current distortion and perfect the Chinese TortLiability Law.This dissertation is concentrated on the actual status of American bystanderliability，which is conducted in order to offer a brief view of the picture as a whole bymeans of empirical study of real cases, with the purpose to ascertain the actualjustifications acknowledged by American courts relying on historical induction, andaiming at the innovation and optimization of Chinese Tort Liability Lawimplementing a survey both on the newest theoretical accomplishment and judicialtrends. Finally, this dissertation will present the specific institutional design basing onour domestic reality, focusing on the localization of constitutional elements and themethod to reach the amount of damages.更多还原