【摘要】：在我國,發(fā)生寵物被第三人傷害致死的事件并不少見,當寵物主人把第三人告上法庭要求獲得精神損害賠償時,法院往往不會支持,一是因為我國還沒有專門的法律法規(guī)來規(guī)定此類訴訟,二是寵物的價值確實難以用金錢來衡量。寵物與主人之間存在著深厚且重要的感情,類似于家庭成員之間的愛。但是法律一直把所有的動物(包括寵物)當作一種財產,這種分類使得一些涉及侵權和監(jiān)護的案件引發(fā)許多爭議。法律應當根據人類對待寵物的珍愛程度作出調整,在特定的情況下,寵物不應當被僅僅視為財產,而是具有人格象征意義的特殊物。當第三人故意或者重大過失致使寵物死亡時,寵物主人承受了巨大的精神痛苦,而寵物的市場價值很有限,只判決賠償寵物的市場價值遠遠不能彌補寵物主人的損失。本文通過對西方國家尤其是美國關于寵物死亡的司法判例的研究,認為動物尤其是寵物不是個人財產,而是寄托了人的感情、具有人格利益的特殊存在。當寵物因侵權行為致死時,法院除應判決賠償寵物主人其寵物的市場價值外,還應當支持原告精神損害賠償的訴訟請求。為了完成本篇論文所探討的主題,筆者將論文分為六個部分進行論述。第一部分通過法院對在我國發(fā)生的兩個寵物侵權案件的不同判決,引出本文所要論述的問題。第二部分對我國關于精神損害賠償有關的法律法規(guī)、司法解釋進行了梳理,可以看出在精神損害賠償這一方面,我國的法律制度在不斷完善和進步,雖然沒有明確規(guī)定寵物在受到傷害時寵物主人有獲得精神損害賠償的權利,但是在司法解釋中,規(guī)定了具有人格象征意義的特定紀念物品,因侵權行為而永久性滅失或者毀損可以提起精神損害賠償賠償之訴,無疑是一大突破。第三部分則論述了國外如何對待寵物死亡精神損害賠償的情況。隨著人類文明的進步,寵物作為一個有著自己意識和感情的物種,在社會上的地位有了很大的提高,它們對于人類的重要性愈發(fā)凸顯,這是寵物區(qū)別于其它物如植物的所在。盡管在西方,寵物受到第三人侵害致死、主人能否得到賠償還沒有形成統(tǒng)一的觀點,但是已經有越來越多的法院作出了支持寵物主人提出精神損害賠償的請求。美國的一些州如田納西州甚至通過立法的形式允許寵物主人因為寵物受傷或死亡獲得精神損害賠償。第四部分論述了主人因為寵物死亡可以獲得精神損害賠償的理由。筆者認為,寵物應被視為具有人格象征意義的特殊物,寵物主人在失去它們后會承受巨大的痛苦,甚至可能會比失去自己的親人還要痛苦,此外,寵物也符合我國法律規(guī)定的具有人格象征意義的特定紀念物的條件。在文章的第五和第六部分,筆者論述了寵物主人因為寵物死亡可以獲得精神損害賠償的要件以及決定賠償數額的因素。
[Abstract]:In our country, it is not uncommon for a pet to be injured to death by a third person. When the pet owner takes the third person to court for moral damages, the court often does not support it. One is that there are no specific laws and regulations governing this kind of litigation, and the other is that the value of pets is really difficult to measure in terms of money. There are deep and important feelings between pets and their owners, similar to love among family members. But the law has been treating all animals (including pets) as a property, a classification that has led to a number of controversial cases involving infringement and guardianship. The law should be adjusted according to the degree to which human beings treat pets. In certain circumstances, pets should not be regarded as merely property, but as special objects of personality symbolism. When the third party intentionally or negligently causes the death of the pet, the pet owner suffers great mental pain, and the market value of the pet is very limited, and the market value of the compensation for the pet is far from being able to compensate the loss of the pet owner. Based on the study of the judicial precedents of pet death in western countries, especially in the United States, this paper holds that animals, especially pets, are not personal property, but are based on human feelings and have the special existence of personal interests. When the pet died as a result of tort, the court should not only award compensation to the pet owner for the market value of his pet, but also support the plaintiff's claim for moral damages. In order to complete the theme of this paper, the paper is divided into six parts to discuss. The first part leads to the problems discussed in this paper through the different judgments of two pet infringement cases in our country. In the second part, the author sorts out the laws and regulations related to the compensation for mental damage, and the judicial interpretation shows that the legal system of our country is constantly improving and improving in the aspect of compensation for mental damage. Although there is no explicit provision for the right of the pet owner to compensation for moral damage in the event of injury, in the judicial interpretation there is a specific memorial with symbolic personality, It is no doubt a breakthrough that permanent loss or damage caused by tort can be sued for moral damages. The third part discusses how to deal with the pet death compensation. With the progress of human civilization, pets, as a species with their own consciousness and feelings, have greatly improved their status in society, and their importance to human beings has become increasingly prominent, which is where pets are distinguished from other things such as plants. Although there is no unified view on whether a pet can be compensated by a third person in the West, more and more courts have made a request to support the owner for moral damages. Some states, such as Tennessee, have even passed legislation allowing pet owners to receive moral damages for injury or death. The fourth part discusses the reasons why owners can get compensation for moral damage due to the death of their pets. In my opinion, pets should be regarded as special objects with symbolic personality. Pet owners will suffer a great deal after losing them, and perhaps even more painful than losing their loved ones. Pets also meet the requirements of specific monuments with symbolic personality as prescribed by our law. In the fifth and sixth parts of the article, the author discusses the elements of compensation for mental damage and the factors that determine the amount of compensation for the death of pets.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【共引文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 許翠霞;;動物真的能夠成為法律主體嗎?——關于法律主體的前提性說明[J];安徽大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年06期

2 朱玉芳;;生命科學實驗中動物福利問題的反思與重構——基于生態(tài)哲學視角[J];安徽農業(yè)科學;2011年18期

3 田巧玲;;辛格動物解放和道家物無貴賤思想比較研究[J];東南大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2009年S1期

4 田巧玲;;淺析辛格動物解放思想中的環(huán)境倫理意蘊[J];法制與社會;2009年20期

5 王冬卉;;論動物的法律地位[J];法制與社會;2012年17期

6 葉樂樂;;淺議當代藝術作品里的動物母題[J];消費導刊;2009年10期

7 葉樂樂;;淺議當代藝術作品里的動物母題[J];消費導刊;2009年11期

8 徐馳;;協同學維度下的“內在價值論”證明[J];貴州師范學院學報;2010年04期

9 王玉梅;;論生態(tài)研究方法的轉變[J];廣東社會科學;2013年04期

10 吳穎;;彼特·辛格“動物解放”思想探究[J];太原城市職業(yè)技術學院學報;2013年11期

相關博士學位論文 前10條

1 王云彪;熱影響下鯉魚Hsp70組織特異性表達和應激反應[D];東北師范大學;2008年

2 吳易雄;轉基因動物的倫理問題和公共政策研究[D];中南大學;2008年

3 曹玲玲;論器官權利[D];吉林大學;2009年

4 張玉榮;尋找時代的精神家園——重新確立自然的本體論地位[D];吉林大學;2009年

5 趙英杰;動物園野生動物福利評價研究[D];東北林業(yè)大學;2009年

6 趙爽;能源法律制度生態(tài)化研究[D];西南政法大學;2009年

7 文雅;流變、分野與實質——20世紀60年代以來歐美環(huán)境思想研究[D];中國人民大學;2010年

8 楊建玫;超越人類中心主義的樊籬[D];中央民族大學;2010年

9 張季平;20世紀90年代以來的生態(tài)社會主義研究[D];內蒙古大學;2012年

10 林森;野生動物保護若干理論問題研究[D];中央民族大學;2013年

，

本文編號：2369117