惩罚性赔偿研究

【作者】 余艺；

【导师】 李开国；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 一、本文的框架及主要内容研究惩罚性赔偿制度,必然涉及以下主要问题:第一,什么是惩罚性赔偿:第二,为什么需要惩罚性赔偿;第三,何种行为应当被课予惩罚性赔偿责任;第四,在判决惩罚性赔偿金时,以何种数额为适当。而在当前中国的现实情境之下研究惩罚性赔偿制度,必须思考的问题还有:惩罚性赔偿制度是否剧烈地冲突于中国现行的法学理论与法律体系,这种冲突是否不可调和;我国是否需要惩罚性赔偿制度,即除去惩罚性赔偿制度,我们是否有可能从中国现有的法律体系之中发展出能更好地兼顾自由与秩序价值的法律机制;如果我们确有必要引入惩罚性赔偿制度,何种引入方案始能合乎我国国情且尽可能保全惩罚性赔偿制度的功能优势。本文即围绕这些基本的问题展开研究。全文分为五章:一、惩罚性赔偿概论;二、惩罚性赔偿的历史发展及其当代面貌;三、惩罚性赔偿的正当性论证;四、惩罚性赔偿的制度构造;五、惩罚性赔偿的中国之路。第一章概括介绍惩罚性赔偿的含义及其核心特征、惩罚性赔偿的目的与功能,分析惩罚性赔偿的性质,整理置疑惩罚性赔偿机制的主要观点并对之作简要评析,进而总结惩罚性赔偿的本质意义,力图澄清关于惩罚性赔偿有可能的错误认知,以获得进一步研究的基础性话语平台。现代意义上的惩罚性赔偿,一般系指被告行为具有恶意、欺诈、鲁莽、轻率或者滥用权力等特性,并导致原告受有损害时,法院因此判给原告的超过原告所受之实际损害的赔偿,其基本目的在于惩罚不法行为人,并阻遏该行为人及他人在将来再次从事相同或类似之不法行为。惩罚性赔偿的核心特征主要表现在两个方面,第一,惩罚性赔偿意在惩罚不法行为人的恶劣行为,并阻遏类似行为的再度发生;从规范模式来看,它推崇事前激励;而在数额方面,它是受害人所获得的高于其实际损害的赔偿金。第二,惩罚性赔偿请求权乃依民事诉讼程序而主张,且惩罚性赔偿的支付对象为受害人。前者令其区别于私法领域传统的补偿性赔偿;后者则令其区别于刑法及行政法上的公法救济机制。最常被提及的惩罚性赔偿的目的与功能,大致可以归纳为四项,即惩罚被告;阻遏不法行为;补偿原告;鼓励私人执法。其中,唯惩罚与阻遏两项可以被视为现代惩罚性赔偿制度之本质性目的与功能,它们在提供惩罚性赔偿制度之存在根基,以及指引惩罚性赔偿制度之具体适用规则的设计方面,具有决定性的意义。而补偿或鼓励私人执法,则只是其附带性的或次位阶的功能。关于惩罚性赔偿的性质究竟为民事或刑事的问题,尚存在较大的争议。有从惩罚与阻遏之目的与功能的角度认为其具有“准刑罚”之性质者,亦有从诉讼程序及诉讼结果的角度认为其应属民事救济机制者。本文认为,在公私法划分、刑民分立的理论前提之下,试图精确定位惩罚性赔偿之性质几乎为不可能,但是,这并不应当影响惩罚性赔偿被相对准确地视为一项私法上的权利救济机制。惩罚性赔偿机制自产生之日起便一直争议不断。即使是在普遍承认惩罚性赔偿制度的英美法系国家,对惩罚性赔偿的批评也是反反复复地出现。择其要者而言,惩罚性赔偿被认为伤害了法律规范的体系性、有可能令受害人不当得利、缺乏必要的适用控制技术、有可能阻滞社会整体的经济进步,以及背离了侵权法功能的现代发展趋势。这些批评意见指出了惩罚性赔偿机制所可能带来的消极影响,但这些所谓的消极影响并非都在绝对的意义上成立,亦并非不能通过更合理的制度设计而避免,因此,它们尚不足以构成否定惩罚性赔偿制度的充分理由。总的来说,惩罚性赔偿制度乃是一项私法上的权利救济机制。它不同于高度依赖公共执法资源的公法制裁机制,而是在私人寻求权利救济的主菜单之下兼容了增进公共福祉的元素。这使得它能够以更小的社会成本更有效地实现对恶性不法行为的社会控制,同时还最大限度地保全着社会个体的基本行动自由。它亦不同于传统的私法权利救济机制,因为它突破了绝对化的公私法之功能划分,在以补偿为唯一目标的传统私法理论之中引入了显性的惩罚性因素,力图阻遏私法范畴之内的恶性不法行为。第二章考察惩罚性赔偿机制的历史与现实。从古代汉穆拉比法典、犹太律法,以及罗马法中的多倍赔偿机制,到中世纪大陆法系与英美法系在惩罚性赔偿问题上的分野,再到英美法系近代意义上之惩罚性赔偿的形成,最后再到美国法上惩罚性赔偿制度的蓬勃发展,以及现代大陆法系国家对惩罚性赔偿机制的事实性引入。在远古的汉穆拉比法典,以及作为古犹太律法之主要载体的《圣经》当中,都散见着以受害人之实际损失为计算基点的多倍赔偿规则。而作为大陆法体系之蓝本的罗马法,其中亦内含有大量关于多倍赔偿的规定。尽管发生机理、适用范围等存在差异,但在功能上它们非常类似于近现代意义上的惩罚性赔偿机制。惩罚性赔偿的思想,确实自古有之。中世纪的欧陆普通法出于强化中央集权的现实需要而在继受罗马法的过程之中有意地排除了多倍赔偿机制。此一排除,再加上17、18世纪欧洲启蒙运动所引发的理性主义思潮,最终使得法律体系化程度较高的大陆法系国家在私法领域完全拒绝了惩罚性的因素。而偏居一隅的英格兰,却出于对特定行为进行社会控制,甚至政治控制的目的,并基于英格兰人崇尚自由、厌恶强大权力体系的民族性格,而延续着多倍赔偿的发展轨迹。近代意义上的惩罚性赔偿,首见于1763年英国的Wilkes v.Wood一案。该案法官首次宣称:“陪审团有权判决比原告所受之实际损害更高的赔偿金额,损害赔偿的目的不仅仅在于补偿受害人,它也是对不法行为的惩罚,以及对将来有可能发生的同类行为的威慑,同时,它还能够表达出陪审团对该行为本身的厌恶”。而该案之所以得作出惩罚性赔偿判决的深层次原因,除了一直以来多倍赔偿思想的浸染,更重要地其实在于当时英格兰的政治背景。此后,英国普通法上又出现了一系列惩罚性赔偿判例,它们大多集中于受害人之尊严受损的情形。直到1964年,英国上议院在Rookes v.Barnard一案中开始反思民事案件中判定惩罚性赔偿的正当性,并建议将惩罚性赔偿的适用严格地限制于三种特定的类型。不过,此种限制因为过于严苛而无法适应复杂的社会现实,英国法院在实践中并未严格遵循之。多数法官仍然认为,损害赔偿之功能除了填补损害之外,对被告之惩罚,亦属必要。总体而言,英国法院对惩罚性赔偿机制的运用显得较为审慎。发端于英国的惩罚性赔偿机制,却在美国得到了长足的发展。这在很大程度上得益于美国分裂的法律文化,即美国法虽然也同英国法一样对侵权领域与刑事领域作了区分,但是在救济的提供方面,美国法仍然保留了以权利为基础进行设计的传统。美国早期的惩罚性赔偿判决也大多发生于存在故意而鲁莽地损毁他人尊严、伤害他人,导致他人精神痛苦的案件之中。尤其对于那些恃强凌弱、欺侮他人的行为,以及那些对妇女施以攻击、殴打、性骚扰等的行为,法院常常愿意通过判予惩罚性赔偿来实现惩罚与阻遏的目的,并进而维持社会秩序和共同体中的基本道德准则。偶尔,法院也试图使用惩罚性赔偿来制止种族压迫。直到19世纪,美国发生了一吵头Ｐ耘獬ブ贫鹊拇娣现?反对者基于惩罚性赔偿对公私法之基本划分的违背而主张废除惩罚性赔偿制度,而肯定者则基于实用主义的思维而主张保留惩罚性赔偿制度。这场学理上的著名争议事实上并未对司法实务中的惩罚性赔偿造成深重的影响。法院仍然会在侵权案件中基于被告的恶性行为而判予惩罚性赔偿。不仅如此,到十九世纪后期,惩罚性赔偿规则的适用逐渐自惩罚强势的社会个体转化为惩罚大型企业公司。在二十世纪最初的几十年里,惩罚性赔偿又逐渐开始在消费者保护领域扮演起重要的角色。甚至,除了适用于侵权领域,惩罚性赔偿也开始越来越多地适用于合同领域。并且,随着适用领域的扩展,惩罚性赔偿判决的数额也越来越高。惩罚性赔偿在适用领域与数额方面的持续扩张,使许多大型企业集团面临着巨大的压力,而它们也终于开始凭借强大的经济势力奋起反抗,在二十世纪八十年代发起了一场改革惩罚性赔偿制度的浪潮。改革派以惩罚性赔偿对社会经济发展的消极影响立论,要求全面改革惩罚性赔偿的适用条件及数额量定规则。这场改革运动取得了巨大的成效,美国立法及司法上均开始采取措施对惩罚性赔偿的适用作出相应的限制。在现代大陆法系国家方面,现代社会的发展完全超出了近代大陆私法所预设的理论前提,而对于私法领域频频发生的恶性不法行为,补偿性赔偿原则常常显得无能为力。于是,在惩罚性赔偿的问题上,大陆法开始出现理论上一概拒绝惩罚性赔偿与实务上通过司法判例允许超出受害人实际损失之损害赔偿的精神分裂。第三章分析为什么需要惩罚性赔偿,论证惩罚性赔偿的正当性。惩罚性赔偿是否具有普适意义上的正当性,乃是判断大陆法系国家能否及应否引入惩罚性赔偿制度的关键。尤其,当对依现代法应归属于刑事犯罪之行为的惩罚,以及对受害人之精神损害等无法精确计算之损失的补偿,这两大功能已被先后剥离于惩罚性赔偿制度之后,对此种更纯粹意义上之惩罚性赔偿的正当性探讨,将有助于摸清惩罚性赔偿制度的命门。本章从在大陆法系背景下展开惩罚性赔偿之讨论的前提入手,首先对公法与私法之划分作出反思,并认为,第一,公与私的界分并不是法律的本质特征:第二,公法与私法的划分从来就不是绝对的,并不存在一个确定的标准使得公私法的划分保持稳定的内涵;第三,既然公法与私法的精确划分无论是在理论上还是在实践上都没有可能,那么,奠基于公私法划分之上的惩罚与补偿之法律功能的划分即成为无根之木。据此,仅以公私法之划分为依据主张私法不得具有任何惩罚功能,实不足以成立。其次,强调在公私法划分之外,法律尚有更本质的追求,即达成个体自由与社会共同生活秩序之间的平衡。在厘清了上述讨论前提的基础上,本文接下来分析了传统的补偿性赔偿在维持私法秩序方面存在的明显缺陷。尤其,在策略性的侵权或违约行为,以及当事人力量悬殊情况下,一方滥用优势地位的侵权或违约行为之场合,补偿性赔偿由于无法有效地矫正当事人双方失衡的利益关系,而无法对此类行为构成足够的威慑,进而也就不可避免地会出现私法秩序维持方面的漏洞。当然,补偿性赔偿之秩序维持漏洞的存在,并不直接意味着惩罚性赔偿机制的必要性与正当性。如果我们有可能在现有的法律体系之中寻获更有效的秩序维持工具,则惩罚性赔偿机制即非必需。据此,笔者尝试列举出各种看似可行的解决方案,即刑法规制、行政法规则与惩罚性赔偿。通过对成本收益,以及各种价值元素的综合考察,本文得出的结论是,惩罚性赔偿机制乃是其中成本最小而收益最大的解决方案。在惩罚性赔偿机制从各种得以弥补补偿性赔偿之秩序维持缺陷的备选方案中胜出之后,本文运用经济分析、道德理论等分析工具,尝试从有效的秩序维持、法律的道德教育功能,以及鼓励私人执法等方面证成惩罚性赔偿相对于补偿性赔偿的比较优势,从而更进一步地证明惩罚性赔偿制度存在的必要性与正当性。第四章搭建惩罚性赔偿的制度模型,以其构成要件与数额量定为两大制度要素,就相关细节展开详细论证。在各种可行的制度设计之间权衡利弊,试图呈现一个理想化的惩罚性赔偿制度构造。本章首先讨论惩罚性赔偿的适用范围。一般而言,在侵权法领域建立一般性的惩罚性赔偿适用规则乃是大势所趋,而合同领域中应否适用惩罚性赔偿则存在较大争议。因此,本章着力于探讨合同领域之惩罚性赔偿问题:第一,梳理英美国家合同领域之惩罚性赔偿的发展史,论证在某些合同案件中运用惩罚性赔偿机制的正当性;第二,关于是否允许合同当事人自行约定惩罚性违约金条款的问题,即惩罚性赔偿得否由当事人自行约定的问题,英美法系国家与大陆法系国家态度迥然。对此,本文首先肯认其二者之不同态度因应于其各自之法律框架,均属较为适宜的处理方式;其次指出,惩罚性赔偿制度的存在并不当然地排斥约定惩罚性违约金条款,即二者理论上有在同一套法律体系之下并存的可能性。至于实际上是否应当并存,将在一定程度上取决于制度设立成本与收益的考量。关于惩罚性赔偿责任的成立要件,本章主要考察了英美法系国家(英格兰、美国、澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大)的实际规则,并通过比较分析认为,惩罚性赔偿责任成立的核心要件在于,加害人之不法行为的高度可苛责性。而“高度可苛责性”的主要表现形式有:(1)故意实施的不法行为;(2)经风险及利益评估之后作出的伤害行为;(3)具有重大过失的不法行为。此外,不法行为人之类型(普通个人、专业人员、机构)亦可成为判断行为之“高度可苛责性”的依据。除了“高度可苛责性”的核心要件之外,惩罚性赔偿责任的成立通常还涉及如下条件:原告受有损害;原告之损害与被告之不法行为之间具有因果关系;原告对于损害之形成无决定性之过错;课予惩罚性赔偿责任实属必要等等。在惩罚性赔偿之数额量定方面,本章同样考察了主要英美法系国家的实践状况,并在此基础上,以惩罚性赔偿之核心功能实现为导向,以受害人因不法行为之损害、不法行为人因不法行为之获益,以及不法行为所导致的社会性损失为主要变量,推导出一套普适性的、具有较大可预期性的惩罚性赔偿数额计算规则。随后,本章以美国为中心探讨了普通法系国家惩罚性赔偿数额量定规则的发展趋势,并运用惩罚性赔偿理论对这些趋势进行了检视,以期为将来我国的惩罚性赔偿制度设计提供借镜。最后,本章探讨了在英美法系国家尚存争议的惩罚性赔偿责任的可保性问题。该问题的核心争点在于,从责任保险理论上来说,责任保险乃为民事赔偿责任提供保险服务之机制,而惩罚性赔偿既然属民事赔偿责任的范畴,自然应该得以投保。但从惩罚性赔偿责任的目的与功能来看,允许惩罚性赔偿责任投保极有可能伤害惩罚性赔偿制度的惩罚与阻遏功能。通过对美国相关司法实践状况的考察,本文赞同“直接责任不可保,间接责任可保”的处理模式。第五章讨论中国的惩罚性赔偿之路。作为主要承继欧陆法的大陆法系国家,我国的基础民法理论亦不认可惩罚性赔偿制度。然而,现实的需要往往能够迫使立法者突破传统法律理论的束缚,发展出新的、用以解决社会实际问题的法律机制或规则。事实上,我国已经在特定领域引入了特别适用的惩罚性赔偿规则,并且也存在着更进一步引入惩罚性赔偿制度以助益于法秩序之维持的需要,唯须斟酌的问题在于如何恰当地引入之。本章首先从现行立法观察我国关于惩罚性赔偿的基本态度。目前,我国的《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》,以及最高人民法院《关于审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中已经出现了明确的“双倍赔偿”条款。此外,知识产权侵权领域亦存在着某些隐约透露出惩罚性赔偿之特质的条款。它们反映出我国并非一概排斥惩罚性赔偿机制的基本态度。只不过,这些现有的惩罚性赔偿立法条文尚存在着许多不足之处,距离充分发挥惩罚性赔偿制度的功能优势,还有很长的一段路。其后,从法律和政策的层面分析我国建立一般性惩罚性赔偿机制的必要性。我国当前的诚信缺失状况所引发的社会秩序维持需求,以及和谐社会建设对社会中各个利益集团之力量平衡的内在要求和对事前规制模式的偏好,构成了我国迫切需要在一般意义上引入惩罚性赔偿机制的两大理由。最后,鉴于我国尚缺乏普通民众切实参与司法的制度结构,以及整体上偏低的经济发展水平,本文建议我国引入一般意义上之惩罚性赔偿制度应采纳渐进式路径。其具体表现为适用领域及条件方面的渐进和数额量定方面的渐进。二、本文创新点及不足之处文章之创新系相对于问题之研究现状而言,因此笔者将首先简要勾勒惩罚性赔偿问题的国内外研究现状,以形成与文章创新点之对照。由于大陆法系与英美法系对待惩罚性赔偿的不同态度,其各自关于惩罚性赔偿的学术研究也呈现出不同的状况。总体而言,英美法系国家的相关研究较为兴盛,而大陆法系国家则是少人问津。在相关研究的内容方面,英美法系国家与大陆法系国家的侧重也有所不同。具体而言,英美国家在经历了19世纪的惩罚性赔偿存废之争后,其主流的学术观点已不再认同惩罚性赔偿有违法律划分基本理论的观点,因此,其目前的惩罚性赔偿研究集中在惩罚性赔偿的合宪性问题、惩罚性赔偿的适用规则设计问题方面。其中,尤以惩罚性赔偿之具体适用规则的讨论为多。事实上,英美国家现阶段的这些研究,乃是在惩罚性赔偿机制的运用呈现出扩张态势的前提下,对其作出适当修正的努力。它们几乎都是出于限制惩罚性赔偿之消极影响,以更妥善地发挥其功能优势的目的。可见,英美国家的惩罚性赔偿制度已经经历了,从最初自然产生,到学理上的存废论争,到司法适用上的持续扩张,再到依据实践中所暴露出的问题对之进行修正的过程。其惩罚性赔偿研究可以说是相当兴盛的,只不过,以一个大陆法系国家的眼光来看,这些研究大多各执一点,并围绕相关判例,局部展开,而较少出现系统性的梳理和整体上的把握。这当然与英美的判例法特性有关,甚至可以说是判例法体系之下必然的一种学术研究状态。有所不同的是,目前大陆法系国家关于惩罚性赔偿的研究还大多集中在惩罚性赔偿的性质、惩罚性赔偿是否应当存在,以及对本国法院所作出的超过受害人实际损失的损害赔偿判决应当作何理解等问题上,较少涉及惩罚性赔偿机制的积极社会功能、惩罚性赔偿的制度结构等更具体的问题。这在很大程度上是因为大陆法系至今尚未完全摆脱承认惩罚性赔偿制度的理论障碍,而此种情况下的具体规则研究只能是无根之木。尽管大陆法系国家的惩罚性赔偿制度研究基本上都还停留在其理论上之正当性方面,不过,在大陆法系国家内部,其研究侧重也已出现了分化。比如我国大陆和台湾地区,由于已经通过民事特别法零散地引入了惩罚性赔偿机制,因此出现了较多实际适用方面的讨论。但是,目前的研究仍然缺乏从一般理论上突破惩罚性赔偿制度之引入障碍的努力。相对于上述研究现状,本文的创新主要体现在以下几个方面:第一,全面梳理惩罚性赔偿的发展史,探寻惩罚性赔偿思想的起源、英美法上惩罚性赔偿制度的流变及其现代发展实况、以及大陆法排斥惩罚性赔偿的起点与因缘:第二,整理现代大陆法系国家相关于惩罚性赔偿的司法判例、立法尝试及学术研究,分析其对待惩罚性赔偿制度的实际态度,指出当前大陆法系国家存在着理论上排斥惩罚性赔偿,而司法实践中却不得不基于功能主义思维而运用惩罚性赔偿的分裂;第三,针对大陆法系国家引入惩罚性赔偿的理论障碍,系统论证了惩罚性赔偿的正当性与必要性。从厘清传统公私法划分之真实意义入手,强调法律的秩序价值,并以此为前提细致分析了大陆法系传统补偿性赔偿原则在维持良性私法秩序方面的缺陷,以及弥补其缺陷的方式选择。主要运用经济分析方法详尽论证了惩罚性赔偿制度在私法秩序维持方面的比较优势;第四,系统地整理了主要英美法系国家惩罚性赔偿机制实际适用的具体规则,并以最大限度地实现惩罚性赔偿制度的优势功能、限制其消极影响为标准,对这些具体规则进行了检视与整合,最后归纳出了笔者认为较为理想的惩罚性赔偿制度构架;第五,分析了我国应在一般意义上引入惩罚性赔偿机制的特殊必要性,以及在当前社会状况下引入一般性惩罚性赔偿机制将有可能面临的困难和有可能引发的负面影响,提出我国引入惩罚性赔偿制度应采纳渐进式路径的初步构想。在论文的写作过程中笔者虽已倾尽所能,但由于资料、时间、能力等方面的限制,最后定稿的论文还是存在着缺憾:第一,本文是以一个大陆法系国家的立场来研究惩罚性赔偿制度,因此行文过程中更加偏重于化解大陆法系国家对于承认惩罚性赔偿制度的心理障碍,而对英美国家惩罚性赔偿制度发展过程中的曲折、争议等呈现得不够完满,尤其,对目前惩罚性赔偿制度最为发达的美国相关状况的论述尚欠丰满,有待强化;第二,中国部分的研究只是刚刚起步,由于经验材料的缺乏,笔者很难对我国引入惩罚性赔偿制度的具体操作方法做极细致的阐述,而只在确认惩罚性赔偿机制之必要性的前提下,提出了应当采纳渐进式的引入路径。更具体的分析与论证,尚有待司法实践过程中的试错及相关经验的累积。更多还原

【Abstract】 Ⅰ. The framework and primary content of the articleThe research concerning punitive damages includes necessarily main questions as following: (1) what is the punitive damage? (2) why do we need punitive damages? (3) what kinds of conducts should be awarded punitive damages? (4) whether the quantum of punitive damages is appropriate? And under the reality of China, we also must think further: (1) whether the punitive damage system will conflict with our legal system and legal theories? And whether the confliction is unsettle? (2) whether we indeed need the punitive damage system? (3) if we need, how should we to induce it in order to comply with our reality and to retain its advantages?The article researches the punitive damage system around above basic questions, which is divided into five parts: (1) the overview of punitive damages; (2) the history and reality of punitive damages; (3) the justification of punitive damages; (4) the system design of punitive damages; (5) the Chinese approach of punitive damages.The first part introduces the definition, the core characters, the objectives and functions of punitive damages, analyzes the nature of punitive damages, summarizes and comments the main viewpoints which doubts the punitive damage system, and then concludes the natural means of punitive damages, which endeavors to clarify some wrongful understandings about punitive damages, and gains fundamental platform of further research.Modern punitive damages are damages, other than compensatory damages, awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similar conduct in the future. And they may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. The core characters of punitive damages display in following two aspects: (1) the meaning of punitive damages is to punish wrongdoers and deter them and others like them; (2) the claim of punitive damages will be satisfied by civil proceedings, and the punitive damage should be paid to victims directly. The former make punitive damages distinguishing with compensatory damages. And the latter make them distinguishing with remedy mechanisms which lie in public law.The objectives and functions of punitive damages which frequently be mentioned can be summarized as following four items: (1) punish defendants; (2) deter similar misconducts; (3) compensate victims; (4) encourage law enforcement. Among them, only the two of punishment and deterrence can be considered as natural functions of modern punitive damage system, which are decisive in that they can provide roots of the punitive damage system and introduce the specific rules design of the punitive damages system. And the other two of compensation and encouraging law enforcement can only be treated as supplementary functions.The question whether the nature of punitive damages is civil or criminal is disputable. Some believe it is quasi-criminal based on its functions of punishment and deterrence, and some maintain it is civil based on its proceedings and lawsuit result. The article observes that under the theoretical premise of precisely division of public and private law, we almost cannot determine the nature of punitive damages precisely, but this should not prevent us to treat them as a right-remedy mechanism which lies in private law.The punitive damages system has been disputable continually from its establishment. Primary criticisms about punitive damages are that they infringe the symmetry of the law; they may provide the plaintiff with an undeserved "windfall"; there’s no necessary controlling measures to regular the application of punitive damages; they may hinder our economy from improving; they deviates from the modern development tendency of functions of tort law. It is true that these criticisms point negative influences which the punitive damage system may bring, however, the criticisms aren’t absolute truth, nor they cannot be prevented by reasonable system design. So, we cannot deny the punitive damage system based on these criticisms.Generally, the punitive damage system is a right-remedy mechanism which lies in private law. It distinguishes with the punishment mechanisms which lie in public law and depend largely on public materials of law enforcement. Instead, it contains some factors which may help to improve public interests while provide individuals with a method to remedy their rights. It also distinguishes with traditional right-remedy mechanism of private law, because it breaks the absolute division of public and private law, and introduces obvious punitive factors to deter outrageous conducts.The second part observes the history and reality of punitive damages. Form the multiple damages in the Babylonian Hammurabi Code, the early Jewish Damages Law and the Roman law, to the divergence between Civil Law and Common Law about multiple damages in middle ages, to the establishment of punitive damages in Common Law and vigorously development of punitive damages in American law, and to the actualintroduce of punitive damages in modem Civil Law.The Babylonian Hammurabi Code, the Bible and the Roman law all containprecursors to the modern remedy of punitive damages. Although their theory and applyingscope are different, the functions of multiple damages are very similar with modernpunitive damages. Based on this, we can conclude that the idea concerning punitivedamages has existed from ancient age.In order to strength central power of new governments, the Jus Commune had refusedto accept multiple damages. And England had continually used multiple damages to control certain conducts. At some extent, the acceptance may attribute to its nationalcharacter of venerating freedom and hating strong power system.The punitive damages awards in modern sense firstly appeared in English case ofWilkes v. Wood. In the case, the chief judge held that a jury have it in their power to give damages for more than the injury received. Damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but likewise as a punishment to the guilty to deter from any such proceeding for the future, and as proof of the detestation of the jury to the action itself. After the case, a series of punitive damages judgments concerning infringing dignity of victims had awarded. Until 1964, England’s House of Lords severely had limited the availability of punitive damages in Rookes v. Barnard. However, the limitation was too strict to comply with social reality. So, it had not been obeyed by English courts. Generally speaking, the application of punitive damages by English courts is careful.The punitive damage system which initiated in England has largely developed in America. This may attribute to the schizophrenic American legal culture at large extent. Like the English law, the realms of tort and criminal law have been divided, but unlike the English law, the remedial rights-based jurisprudence is still alive. In early American punitive damages cases, courts frequently premised awards on conduct that smacked of willful and wanton indignities. And courts frequently assessed punitive damages against bullies who oppressed the physically weak and socially powerless. Courts also awarded punitive damages to female plaintiffs for assault and battery, rape, and sexual harassment. Judges and juries used the remedy not only to punish and deter sexual assault and harassment, but also to keep the social peace and uphold community mores. Some courts attempts to use punitive damages as a means to stem racial violence. Nineteenth-century judges and juries predicated punitive damages awards on the willful and gross disregard of a plaintiff’s rights. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, the doctrine’s application shifted away from powerful individuals to large corporations. And during the initial decades of the twentieth century, punitive damages gained an expanded role in consumer protection. Even, beside to be used in tort cases, punitive damages have more and more been used in contract cases. Furthermore, with the expansion of applying scope, the quantum of punitive damages award became higher than before. And many large corporations have felt heave pressure because of the continually expansion of punitive damages, which make them starting a reform campaign in the 1980’s. The reformers claimed a fundamental reform of the rules of punitive damages concerning the applying conditions and the quantum-assessment based on the negative influence of punitive damages to social economic development. The campaign gained large success and relevant legislation and judicature of America have begun to restrain the application of punitive damages by some measures.As far as modern Civil Law is concerned, with development of modern society, the theoretical premises established by private law of Civil Law have been outdating. And some outrageous conducts which should be regulated by private law have beyond the principle of compensatory damages. Thus, we can find the schizophrenic attitude of Civil Law towards punitive damages, that is, compensatory demands and noncompensatory reality.The third part analyzes the reasons why do we need punitive damages, that is, discusses the justification of punitive damages. Whether the punitive damage is commonly just is a key criterion to judge whether Civil Law countries should introduce it. The discussion about the justification of punitive damages may help us to comprehend punitive damages.This part begins the discussing premise needed to research punitive damages further under Civil Law background. Firstly, the division of public and private law has been reconsidered, and the conclusion is that in fact, we cannot divide the law into public law and private law precisely. So, we cannot deny the punitive damage system only based on the theory of law-division. Secondly, the article maintains that beside the division of public and private law, more natural pursue of the law is to balance the freedom of individuals and the order of society.Based on the above premises, the article then analyzes the obvious incompetence of traditional principle of compensatory damages with regard to constructing and maintaining good orders of society. In order to make up for the incompetence of compensatory damages, we may use criminal law, administration law or punitive damages. After economic analysis and comprehensive survey, the article concludes that punitive damages can be considered as an optimum instrument. And then, the article summarizes the advantages of punitive damages comparing with compensatory damages, and proves further the justification of punitive damages by using several analytic tools.The fourth part attempts to establish a model of the punitive damage system, and discusses detailed rules of punitive damages around two fundamental aspects, the constitutive requirements and quantum-assessment of punitive damages. By the discussion, the part wants to provide an ideal model of the punitive damages system.About the applying scope of punitive damages, generally, the application of punitive damages to tort cases is considered reasonable, and it is a common tendency. But it is disputable whether punitive damages can be used in contract cases. So, this part focuses on the application of punitive damages to contract cases.With regard to the constitutive requirements, the article surveys specific rules of main Common Law countries (England, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada), and concludes by comparing analysis that the core constitutive requirements of punitive damages is that the misconducts of defendants are highly reprehensible. And the appearances of "highly reprehensible" can be summarized as following: (1) deliberate conducts; (2) evaluative conducts; (3) inadvertent conducts. Besides, the types of defendants (individual defendants, professional defendants or institutional defendants) may be treated as a criterion to determine whether a conduct is highly reprehensible. Except the above core constitutive requirement, the constitution of punitive damages also needs other conditions, such as, victims suffer actual damages; causation between damages and misconducts; there’s no decisive fault of victims to induce damages.In determining the amount of punitive damages, the article infers a group of calculating rules which are general, and may improve the predictability of the amount of punitive damages according to the core functions of punitive damages by using three main variables, that is, damages suffered by victims, interests gained by wrongdoers, and social losses induced by wrongful conducts. Then, the article observes the developing tendency of rules concerning the amount of punitive damages in Common Law countries, and surveys the tendency by using theories of punitive damages.Finally, the part discusses the insurability of punitive damages which is disputable in Common Law countries. About this issue, the article approves the disposal model of "direct liabilities are not insurable, and vicarious liabilities are insurable" by observing relevant judicial practices in America.The fifth part researches the Chinese approach of punitive damages. As a Civil Law country, our fundamental theories of civil law also refuse to accept the punitive damages system. However, the objective needs of reality can often obligate the legislators to break these traditional restrains and develop new legal mechanisms or rules to solve social problems. In fact, our country has introduced some rules of punitive damages which apply specially in particular fields. And we indeed need to introduce the punitive damage system to help the maintenance of legal order. The only question we should think carefully is that haw to introduce the system appropriately.This part firstly observes the general attitude of us to punitive damages from present legislations. There are clear provisions of "double damages" in Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protecting Consumers’ Rights and Interests and the relevant judicial explanation. Besides, there are some provisions which indistinctly display the nature of punitive damages at some extent in intellectual property cases. From them, it can be found that we don’t refuse punitive damages in any event. But these present provision is defective and far away from using completely the advantages of punitive damages.Then, the article analyzes our special necessity of introducing the general punitive damage system from levels of law and policy. Firstly, the situation of deficiency of good faith needs to be changed in order to maintain good social orders. Secondly, in construction of harmonious society, we need to balance different powers held by different interest groups and need to prevent disputes before produced.Finally, because we have no some judicial systems by which common people can indeed take part in the procedures of judicature and our economic development level is relatively low, the article suggests that we should adopt an evolution approach to introduce the general punitive damages system. Specifically, it can be divided into two aspects, that is, evolution of applying scope and conditions and evolution of quantum-assessment rules.Ⅱ. The innovations of the article and its insufficienciesA. The innovations of the article(1) Combs through the development history of punitive damages, observes the origin of the idea of punitive damages, the evolution and reality of punitive damages in Common Law, and the reasons why Civil Law refused punitive damages;(2) Reorganizes relevant cases, legislative attempts, and academic research concerning punitive damages in Civil Law countries; analyzes actual attitudes of them to punitive damages and points that Common Law countries hold a schizophrenic attitude to punitive damages of refusing punitive damages in theory and applying punitive damages in judicial practice;(3) For removing the theoretical barriers of Civil Law countries to introduce the punitive damage system, proves systematically the justification and necessity of punitive damages. Beginning with defining clearly the real meaning of division of public and private law, emphasizes the order value of law. And based on this, analyzes the insufficiencies of the principle of compensatory damages to maintain a good order under private law. By primarily using the method of economic analysis, specifically proves the advantages of punitive damages to maintain a good order under private law;(4) Systematically reorganizes the specific applying rules of punitive damages of main Common Law countries. Surveys these rules by using the criterion of realizing the advantages of punitive damages and limiting its negative influences. And then, summarizes an ideal systematic framework of punitive damages;(5) Analyzes special necessity of us to introduce the punitive damage system and the difficulties we may encounter. Then, suggests that we should adopt an evolution approach to introduce the punitive damage system.B. The insufficiencies of the article (1) Because the article stands in a Civil Law country to research punitive damages, the research stresses in removing the psychological barrier of Civil Law countries to accept the punitive damage system. Thus, the discussion of the development process of punitive damages in Common Law countries is slightly insufficient, which needs to improve further.(2) The research of punitive damages in China is just started. Because of short of empirical materials, it is difficult to design precise applying rules of punitive damages of us. Thus, the article can only suggest that we should adopt an evolution approach to introduce punitive damages after maintaining the necessity to introduce it. And the further analysis and proof may need the accumulation of practical experiences.更多还原