The research on the issues of the notion of damage and the measure of damages in cases of immaterial benefits had been harmed

我们就损害的概念和非物质利益受到损害的损害赔偿的衡量问题进行了联合研究。(1)损害的概念(水野教授)。(2)缩短生命延长利益的赔偿(大冢教授)。(3)侵犯患者自主权的赔偿(Tejima教授)。(4)纯粹经济损失的赔偿(山田教授)(5)非经济损失追索权的内容和功能(Kubota教授)。每个与会者都在会议上作了报告，结合法庭案例、学术观点和比较法的观点。主要就记者的分析和解读建议进行了讨论。以下是对研究结果的非常简短的描述。水野教授从他对法庭案件的分析中批评了传统的框架，即损害的概念应该与发生的时刻联系起来，因为很少有Comp…埃林有更多理由这么认为。他提出了另一种想法，即在特定类别中对过程的不利条件进行规范衡量，货币应该是损害的概念。我们不能得出一个统一的结论，但我们至少同意这一建议是有说服力的，因为它展示了传统损害概念中不涉及的损害概念，即伤害本身损害赔偿或价格差异损害赔偿。大冢教授分析了最近发生的两起最高法院医疗事故案件，不仅将这些案件的原因与最近的理论框架进行了比较，如延长生命的利益理论、部分或相对因果关系理论、或然信念理论或法国的机会丧失理论，而且考虑了这些理论之间的关系和限制。他还补充了理论结论的差异。Tejima教授分析了批准恢复侵犯患者的医疗自主权的医疗事故案例。他从判决理由上考虑了法院如何衡量违反知情同意的损害赔偿，并指出了在这类案件中似乎影响损害赔偿衡量的重要因素。山田教授认为，纯粹的经济损失赔偿并未涉及权利结构的法律秩序。他从分析案例的结论中提出，一般财产的状态本身应被视为利益，被估计为财产的标准水平。久保田教授分析了非金钱损失追索权的内容和功能。他分析了德国最高法院关于非财产损失的法院案例的发展，指出非财产损失的功能扩展问题不是具体的情感损失问题，而是整个赔偿法的作用问题。较少

We conducted joint research on the issues of the notion of damage and the measure of damages in cases of immaterial benefits had been harmed.Topics that participants chose are as follows ;(1) The notion of damage (Prof.Mizuno).(2) Compensation for shorten the life-prolonging benefit (Prof.Otsuka).(3) Compensation for breach of patients' self determination right (Prof.Tejima).(4) Compensation for pure economic loss (Prof.Yamada)(5) Contents and functions of the right of recovering non-pecuniary loss (Prof.Kubota)Every participant made reports at the meetings on the topics with analyzing courts cases, scholarly opinions, and comparative law perspectives. Discussions were made mainly over the reporter's analysis and interpretation proposals. Following are very short descriptions of the research outcomes.Professor Mizuno, from his analysis of court cases, criticized traditional frameworks that the notion of damage should be linked with the moment of occurrence because there was scarce comp … More elling reason to think so. He proposed an alternative idea that disadvantage condition of the process in specific categories measured normatively and monetary should be the notion of damage. We could not reach a unified conclusion, but we at least agreed that h is proposal is persuasive because it showed the notion of damage that is not involved in traditional damage notion of the damages for the injury itself or of the damages for the difference of prices.Professor Otsuka analyzed recent two medical malpractice cases of the Supreme Court.He, not only compared these cases reasons with recent theoretical frameworks such as the theory of life-prolonging benefit, partial or relative causation theory, the theory of probable belief, or French idea of loss of chance doctrine, but also considered the relationship and limits among these theories. He also added the differences of conclusion of the theories.Professor Tejima analyzed medical malpractice cases that approved recovery of the breach of patients' right of self determination to his/her medical care. He considered from judgment reasons how courts measure damages of breach of informed consent, and pointed out important factors that seem to influence the measurement of damages in these sorts of cases.Professor Yamada contended that compensation for pure economic loss had not been involved in the legal order of right structure. He proposed from his conclusion of analyzing cases that the state of general property in itself should be seen as the benefit to be estimated as the standard level of property.Professor Kubota analyzed contents and function of the right of recovering non-pecuniary loss. He analyzed development of court cases on non-pecuniary loss in the German Supreme Court, and pointed out that the problem of expansion of function of non-pecuniary loss is not specific in emotional loss but the problem of the role of compensation law in general. Less