“损害赔偿法理”之反思——以酒店采光侵权案为素材  

Subject:Reflexion on Jurisprudence of Damage and Compensation——Taking The Tort Case of Hotel Lighting as An Example

作　　者：纪建文[1] JI Jianwen(School of Law,Shandong University of Finance and Economics,Jinan Shandong 250014,China)

机构地区：[1]山东财经大学法学院,山东济南250014

出　　处：《法学论坛》2022年第4期52-60,共9页Legal Forum

摘　　要：从《中华人民共和国民法典》有关侵权责任的规定中抽象出来的“有损害即应有赔偿”的逻辑不仅不利于权利理论的精细化,也不利于正确的引导实践。借助于一个虚拟的酒店采光侵权案,重申了权利的相互性视角,认为此类案件中问题的实质应为:避免较严重的损害,应由权利的市场价值来决定谁将最终拥有权利。但这并不意味着利益受损的当事人一定会起诉维权,因为诉讼或索赔成本都是财产权的维护成本。即便当事人起诉,法官既可以依据权利规则,也可以依据责任规则来裁判案件。而如果选择了责任规则,原告的权利可能会继续受损。又由于模糊是法律的天性,权利冲突双方的力量对比一直处于变迁之中,权利边界的弹性进一步使赔偿处于不确定状态。The logic of "damage is due to be compensated" abstracted from the "Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China" on tort liability is not only not conducive to the refinement of the theory of rights, but also not conducive to the correct guidance of practice. With the help of a virtual hotel lighting tort case, the reciprocal perspective of rights was reiterated, and the essence of the problem in such cases should be to avoid more serious damage, and the market value of the rights should be used to determine who will ultimately own the rights. But this does not mean that parties whose interests have been damaged will sue for rights protection, because the costs of litigation or claims are the costs of maintaining property rights. Even if the parties file a lawsuit, the judge can judge the case in accordance with the rules of rights and the rules of liability. If the liability rule is chosen, the rights of the plaintiff may continue to be damaged. And because ambiguity is the nature of the law, the balance of the two parties in the conflict of rights has been constantly changing, and the flexibility of the boundary of rights further makes the compensation in a state of uncertainty.

关 键 词：损害 权利的相互性 权利规则 责任规则 权利边界的弹性 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论]