论文部分内容阅读
随着精神损害赔偿案件的增多,法官逐渐倾向于运用侵权责任法中的过错责任原则对之进行救济,并将“合理预见”作为界定加害人是否具有主观过错,应否承担损害赔偿责任的判断标准。然而,可预见性说主张的“合理预见”却因其自身的不确定性无法给出案件判决一个合理的解释,其故有缺陷在麦克劳夫林诉奥布莱茵案中再次暴露出来。汉德公式的运用为判决背后的合理性提供了有意的尝试,它表明司法实践中的某些“政策”本身就已蕴含着深刻的经济学道理,有利于实现社会总成本的最小化。
With the increase of the cases of compensation for mental damages, the judges gradually tend to use the principle of fault liability in tort law to remedy them. And they also use “reasonable anticipation” as the definition of whether the perpetrators have subjective fault and should bear the liability for damages Judgment criteria. However, the “reasonable expectation” of predictability claims can not give a reasonable explanation of the judgment of the case because of its own uncertainty, and its flaws are once again exposed in the case of McCullough v. Obervin . The use of the Hank’s formula provides a deliberate attempt to justify the ruling. It shows that some “policies” in judicial practice inherently contain profound economic truth and are conducive to minimizing the total social cost .