Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability
Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability
复制标题
享乐损害、享乐适应和残疾
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.928883
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Margo Schlanger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Samuel R. Bagenstos;Margo Schlanger
这篇文章有助于适应性偏好在法律，经济学和政治哲学的广泛辩论，通过解决一个重要的侵权法正在进行的争议。享乐损害赔偿是对因侵权损害而丧失的生活乐趣的补偿。在人身伤害案件中寻求享乐损害赔偿的律师强调他们的客户作为妥协和受损者的新地位，法院经常支持陪审团的裁决，根据残疾必然限制一个人享受生活的观点，对经历残疾伤害的个人给予享乐损害赔偿。这一观点与社会普遍认为残疾是一场悲剧、残疾人是自然的怜悯对象的看法是一致的。但是，丰富的心理学文献表明，残疾并不像这些法院所建议的那样固有地限制生活的享受。相反，经历过致残伤害的人往往会适应自己的残疾。可以肯定的是，残疾人对自己生活质量的看法是典型的适应性偏好。因此，有人可能建议，法律的制度应无视这些观点。但我们认为，法律的制度是错误的，如此贬低残疾人的经验。当法院根据（非残疾人）认为残疾是悲剧的观点裁定损害赔偿时，这就分散了人们对残疾人处于不利地位的社会选择和耻辱的注意力;这也使残疾人更难对自己的状况做出享乐性调整。出于威慑和补偿的原因，遭受致残伤害的人应该能够恢复身体疼痛;医疗费用和辅助技术和个人援助的费用;社会因其条件而剥夺的机会;以及社会耻辱的影响。但是，他们不应该因为残疾对享受生活的任何所谓影响而康复。
This article contributes to the broad debate over adaptive preferences in law, economics, and political philosophy by addressing an important ongoing controversy in tort law. Hedonic damages compensate for the lost enjoyment of life that results from a tortious injury. Lawyers seeking hedonic damages in personal injury cases emphasize their clients' new status as compromised and damaged persons, and courts frequently uphold jury verdicts awarding hedonic damages to individuals who experienced disabling injuries based on a view that disability necessarily limits one's enjoyment of life. This view is consonant with a general societal understanding of disability as a tragedy and of people with disabilities as natural objects of pity. But a rich psychological literature demonstrates that disability does not inherently limit enjoyment of life to the degree that these courts suggest. Rather, people who experience disabling injuries tend to adapt to their disabilities. To be sure, the views of people with disabilities about their own quality of life are classic adaptive preferences. Accordingly, one might suggest that the legal system should disregard those views. But we argue that the legal system goes wrong by so devaluing the experience of people with disabilities. When courts award damages based on the (nondisabled person's) view that disability is tragic, they distract attention from the societal choices and stigmas that attach disadvantage to disability; they also make it harder for people with disabilities to make hedonic adjustments to their conditions. For deterrence and compensation reasons, people who experience disabling injuries should be able to recover for their physical pain; for medical expenses and the cost of assistive technology and personal assistance; for the opportunities society denies people with their conditions; and for the effects of social stigma. But they should not recover for any purported effect of disability on the enjoyment of life.