摘要
受人身权益专属性的影响,人身损害赔偿债权在法律规范、学理与实践中常被视为专属性权利,其财产性隐而不彰。人身损害赔偿债权原则上应具有可转让性、可代位性与可抵销性。司法裁判禁止人身损害赔偿债权转让,既无现行法规范基础,也欠缺法政策上的合理性。人身损害赔偿债权是否可被代位行使,应依具体赔偿项目而定。精神损害赔偿不得由受害人的债权人代位主张,财产损害赔偿债权是代位权的对象,但扶养费与收入损害类赔偿的代位主张应受到限制。人身损害赔偿债权可作为被动债权而抵销。完全禁止侵权人主张抵销,既不合理也无多少现实意义。为保护受害人及其所扶养人的基本生活,人身损害赔偿债权的转让、代位与抵销应受一定限制,并与强制执行法中的财产豁免规则相协同。因此,受害人的债权人在行使代位权与抵销权时,应当为受害人及其所扶养的家属留存必需的生活费用。
Influenced by the exclusive nature of personality rights,claims for compensation for personal injury are often regarded as exclusive in law,academic theories,and practice,with their propreitary nature being obscure.This type of claim is in principle transferable and eligible for subrogated action and set-off.Judicial prohibition of assignment of the claim lacks legal basis and is untenable in legal policy.The availability of subrogated action to the compensation for personal injury depends on the type of compensation.Moral damages cannot be claimed by the victim's creditors.Property damages are subject to subrogated action,but the action should be restricted when compensation is for alimony and income-related loss.Compensation for personal injury may be offset by the tortfeasor.Prohibition against such set-off rights is neither reasonable nor practically meaningful.To protect the basic livelihood of the victim and his or her dependents,appropriate limitations should be imposed on transfer,subrogated action and set-off under coordination with the rules of property exemption in the law of judicial enforcement.Therefore,when taking subrogated action or claiming set-off,the creditor must preserve necessary living expenses for the victim and its dependents.
出处
《政法论坛》
2026年第1期151-165,共15页
Tribune of Political Science and Law
基金
国家社科基金重大项目“我国民法评注编纂重大问题研究”(22&ZD205)的阶段性成果。
关键词
非专属财产
可转让性
可代位性
可抵销性
生存保障
Non-exclusive Property
Assignability
Availability of Subrogated Action
Offsetability
Subsistence Guarantee
