摘要： 《民法典》“人格物”侵权条款在主观要件、侵害对象、请求权人范围、因果关系与损害后果等方面未被完全廓清,须立足本土累积的裁判经验与智识重塑该款的解释论方案。“具有人身意义的特定物”是指对权利人而言具有不可替代性且承载人格利益的有体物或无体物,但须依托从裁判先例中抽取的特定物上人格利益的社会典型公开性、对特定物的爱惜程度、占有特定物的时间长短、对特殊主体的特别保护必要性等规范要素的动态协作予以限制。立法机关针对“故意或重大过失”的修改理由并不充分,日益扩大的司法案例正在不断突破该主观要件的教义,“人格物”侵权主观要件应重返过错侵权责任的一般立场。精神损害赔偿的请求权人范围不应局限为物品所有人、自然人或其近亲属,宜厘定为“人格物”上人格利益的权利持有者。侵权行为认定不应困囿于使“人格物”发生永久性毁损或灭失的行为,还应包括非使“人格物”发生永久性毁损或灭失的行为。汲取本土裁判智识,因果关系认定宜采取相当因果关系观点。“严重精神损害”之“严重”要件认定仍应循动态系统论的思路,需要在个案中动态权衡从成文法、最高司法机关意见及司法先例中抽取的诸规范要素予以判定。

关键词: “人格物”, 具有人身意义的特定物, 精神损害赔偿, 解释方案

Abstract: The tort provision of personality property in the Civil Code has not been completely clarified in terms of subjective elements, objects of infringement, scope of claimants, causality and consequences of damages, and it is necessary to reshape the interpretative program of this paragraph based on the accumulated local adjudication experience and wisdom.“Specific object with personal significance” refers to the irreplaceable physical or non-physical objects carrying personality interests for the right holders, but is constrained by the dynamic collaboration of normative elements drawn from adjudicative precedents such as the typical publicity of the personality interests in the specific objects, the degree of love and care for the specific object, the length of time in possession of the specific object, and the necessity of special protection for special subjects.The legislature's amendment of “willfulness or gross negligence” is not sufficiently justified, and a ever-expanding number of judicial cases is breaking through the doctrine of the subjective elements, so the subjective elements of infringement of personality property should be returned to the general position of liability for fault-based torts.The scope of the claimant for moral damages should not be limited to the owners of object, natural persons, or close relatives of natural persons, but should be defined as the holder of the right to the personality interests in personality property.The determination of a tort should not be limited to acts that permanently damage or extinguish a personality property, but should also include acts that do not permanently damage or extinguish a personality property.Drawing on the wisdom of local adjudication, it is appropriate to adopt the view of considerable causal relationship.The determination of “seriousness” of “serious moral damage” should still follow Dynamic System Theory, and should be determined in individual cases through the dynamic weighing of normative elements drawn from statutory law, the opinions of Supreme People's Court and judicial precedents.

Key words: Personality Property, Specific Object with Personal Significance, Moral Damages, Interpretative Program