【作者】 秦佳；

【导师】 屈茂辉；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 死亡赔偿金在性质上不同于精神损害赔偿和“逸失利益”,“扶养丧失说”和“继承丧失说”都存在着弊端。自死亡赔偿金产生以来,其性质一直处于频繁变革的状态,立法上虽然多部法律、司法解释、行政法规都有涉及死亡赔偿金的规定,但是普遍存在死亡赔偿金的称谓和内涵不一致,由于基本法内容缺位司法解释喧宾夺主,不同案件类型法律与司法解释之间相互矛盾,城乡差异导致死亡补偿金受偿不一,死亡赔偿金数额偏低等现象。死亡赔偿金虽也具有慰抚功能,但性质上主要是对死者生命价值的一种补偿以及对致害人的惩罚。在这里,死亡赔偿金本身已经是死亡赔偿金请求权人的财产,而不是死者的遗产。在死亡赔偿金的这一性质指导下,死亡赔偿金请求权基础也应当相应修正,“继承主义”和“固有损害主义”中的双重受害人说均无法回答死者求偿的矛盾,由此可见,死亡赔偿金是基于死者死亡而丧失的身份权的救济,采“固有损害主义”中的死者近亲属直接受害说为宜。由于死亡赔偿金请求权人基于侵权行为享有独立的赔偿请求权,死亡赔偿金请求权在性质上属于一种债权,其内容是死亡赔偿金请求权人请求侵害人给付死亡赔偿金。我国现阶段死亡赔偿金确定因素比较混乱,统一死亡赔偿金标准实为必要。在确立死亡赔偿金数额时,应当赋予死亡赔偿金请求权当事人的主体资格;应当是依据死者的余命计算;对于余命的计算应当分段对待;应当考虑过失相抵的问题;关于国籍问题不可千篇一律地统一数额;在死亡赔偿金案件审判过程中,法官应当重视调解的作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 The death indemnity is different from the spirit damage compensate and "leisurely loses the benefit" in nature; "the nurture loses said" and "inherits loses said" all have limitation. Since the appearance of the death indemnity, its nature is continuously under frequent transformation; although there is much enactment, judicial interpretation, administrative rules and regulations involving the death indemnity, it is general that the name and the connotation of the death indemnity is inconsistent; because the content of the fundamental law vacancy judicial interpretation, and since there is contradiction between cases of different type and judicial interpretation, and the city and countryside difference, it causes the different compensation of the death indemnity and the phenomenon that the death indemnity amount is somewhat lowed. Although the death indemnity has the function of consoles, it’s in nature mainly to compensate the life value of the dead people, and the penalty to the one who injures the death. Here, the death indemnity itself is already the property of the people who has the right to call for the compensation; the death indemnity is not the inheritance. Under the construction of this nature of the death indemnity, the basic of the requesting right of the death indemnity also need to be revised correspondently; the dual victim said in both "inherits" and "the inherent harm principle" can not reply the dead asks the contradiction of the compensation asked by the died person, thus it can be seen, the death indemnity is the relief based on the lost of the right of the status power caused by the death, therefore it is suitable to pick the said of close relatives’direct injury in "the inherent harm principle". Because the person who has the right to call for the compensation has the independent compensation which is based on the injury of the right, the right of requesting the death indemnity in nature belongs to the right of the creditor, the content of which is the person who has the right to call for the compensation request the person who made the injury to give the death indemnity.The elements of the existing death indemnity are in the chaotic situation in our country, the establishment of the unified death indemnity standard is necessary. When establish death indemnity standard, we must entrust with the death indemnity request power litigant’s main body qualifications; The death indemnity amount computation must be rests on the death person“odd life”; Regarding the nationality question may not stereotyped the unified amount must consider contributory negligence the question; we must partition the computation regarding odd life computation; The death indemnity case places on trial in the process, judge mistakes the function which mediates.更多还原