On Death Compensation
- 法学院－学位论文 
依现行法律规定，对侵害生命权的救济系以财产损害赔偿的方式为主。各国立法对侵害生命权的财产损害赔偿依据存在二种观点，一是扶养丧失说，二是继承丧失说。长期以来，我国立法和司法实践在侵害生命权的损害赔偿方面一直缺乏统一、明确的规定，赔偿标准、赔偿数额具有不确定性。 本文第一部分通过对我国建国以来不同时间关于死亡赔偿金的立法，探讨我国死亡赔偿金制度的演变过程，并对我国立法和司法解释对于死亡赔偿金的规定，不论在死亡赔偿金的内涵、赔偿范围、具体的赔偿标准等方面存在不一致，甚至相互矛盾等存在的问题和缺陷进行分析。第二部分重点从法理角度分析死亡赔偿金请求权基础及死亡赔偿金性质，结合死亡赔偿金性质在理论上存在“扶养丧失说”和“继承丧失说”的观点，对最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》施行后，引发社会各界对“同命不同价”现象进行法理评析，首先总结社会上对“同命不同价”批判的主要观点及引起“同命不同价”的原因进行分析，然后结合审判实践经验，对最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》关于死亡赔偿金的规定及司法实践中在适用该解释审理案件中存在的问题进行探讨。第三部分从比较法的角度，对德国、英国、俄罗斯、日本及我国台湾地区对死亡赔偿金的规定、判例进行分析考察，总结、分析国外对死亡赔偿金立法的成功经验。第四部分在前文三部分对我国死亡赔偿金制度的演变及现行死亡赔偿金存在的不足的评析，外国在死亡赔偿金方面的立法经验考察的基础上，从制定统一的侵权责任法，规范使用法律专业术语、明确界定死亡赔偿金的性质、统一死亡赔偿金的赔偿标准、赔偿年限及计算方法等方面，对完善我国死亡赔偿金制度提出意见和建议。The main remedy of damage to life right is property compensation, which is the very feature that distinguishes the right to life by law. There are two viewpoints on the basis of property compensation of right to life damage in legislation. One is the theory of support loss, and the other one is the theory of inheriting loss. For a long time,lacking of uniform and definite regulation and uncertainty in compensation standard and amount exist in the property compensation of right to life damage in China's legislation and judicial practice. The first part of this essay discusses the evolution process of China's death compensation system and analyzes the problems and defects, for example, the contradiction in the connotation of death compensation, the range of the compensation and the specific standard of compensation, which exist in the provisions of China's death compensation system in the legislative and judicial explanation since the foundation of the legislative process about China's death compensation system. The second part focuses on analyzing the basis of death compensation claim and the nature of death compensation. After the actualizing of the legal interpretation about law application in personal injury compensation cases which was instituted by Supreme Court, the phenomenon of “the same fate but different price” has caught close attention from the public. As there are two theories about the nature of death compensation, that are support loss said and inheriting loss said, this essay will use them to analyze the above phenomenon. First, it summarizes the main point of views about “the same fate but different price” in public, and analyzes the reasons why “the same fate but different price” happened. Then, combining trial practical experience, it explores the provisions of compensation for death in the legal interpretation about law application in personal injury compensation cases which was instituted by Supreme Court and the problems caused by the actualizing of the legal interpretation in judicial practice. The third part explores the provisions and prejudications about death compensation in German, Britain, Russia, Japan and China's Taiwan region from the perspective of comparative law and summarizes the successful experience of the death compensation legislation in other countries. The fourth part, on the basis of analyzing the defects in the existing system of compensation for death and the evolution of China's death compensation system and exploring the legislative experience about death compensation in other countries in the first three parts of the paper, brings forward comments and suggestions in order to perfect the China’s death compensation system. For example, developing a unified Tort Liability Act, using legal terminology canonically, defining the nature of compensation for death clearly, unifying the compensation standards of the death compensation and so on.