论精神控制或情绪勒索行为的精神损害赔偿请求权  

Study on the Claim of Compensation for Mental Damage Caused by Mind Control or Emotional Blackmail

作　　者：王冠玺[1] 吴云轩 Wang Guanxi;Wu Yunxuan(Guanghua Law School,Zhejiang University,Hangzhou 310008,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院,浙江杭州310008

出　　处：《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2020年第4期203-216,共14页Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences

基　　金：浙江大学双一流优势特色学科发展计划“人工智能与法学”项目(103000*194241801/008)。

摘　　要：精神控制或情绪勒索行为的精神损害赔偿的请求权主体可分为两类。在行为仅侵害被害人的健康时,请求权人为被害人;而在行为造成被害人死亡的结果时,请求权人则为被害人的近亲属。在这两种情形下,请求权人若要主张精神损害赔偿,均须证明加害人对被害人构成侵权行为,其关键在于“责任成立因果关系”和“过错”的认定。相当因果关系理论为判断因果关系的标准,其由“条件关系”及“相当性”两部分构成。过错包括故意和过失,对前者的判断应采取主观标准,对后者的判断则应采取客观标准。在确定精神损害赔偿的范围时,首先须确认责任范围因果关系的存在,其次则应结合《精神损害赔偿解释》的规定量定精神损害赔偿的数额。In modern society,mind control and emotional blackmail occur frequently,leading to negative impacts upon the community.Due to the lack of clarity concerning the compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail in China,the interests of victims cannot be adequately protected.This paper aims to prove that,provided some requirements are met,claimants of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail are entitled to compensation in China.The subjects of claims of compensation for mental damage caused by mind control or emotional blackmail fall into two categories.When the act infringes on the victim's rights to health,the subject is the victim,who is entitled to claim for compensation according to Article 6 and Article 22 of Chinese Tort Law;however,when the victim dies,the subject is the close relative of the victim,who is entitled to claim for compensation according to Article 6 and Article 18 of the Chinese Tort Law and Article 7 of the Judicial Interpretation on Compensation for Mental Damage.In both situations,in order to claim for compensation,the subject must prove that the tortfeasor commits a tort upon the victim,the focus of which lies in the judgment of"causation in the establishment of liability"and"fault".The"adequate causation theory"is the standard of judging causation,which consists of"cause in fact"and"adequacy".With regard to the former,if the victim has not been injured or killed,and as long as mind control or emotional blackmail does not exist,then the wrongful act is the cause in fact;if the victim has been injured or killed,even if mind control or emotional blackmail does not exist,then the wrongful act is not the cause in fact.Concerning the latter,if the mind control or emotional blackmail may generally cause the damage,then the"adequacy"requirement is satisfied;if not,the"adequacy"requirement is not satisfied.To judge whether the wrongful act may generally cause the damage,the court should consider the general situation of Chinese soci

关 键 词：精神控制 情绪勒索 精神损害赔偿 因果关系 过错 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]