non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – comparative perspectives xiii....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Non-pecuniary (moral) losses Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – in case of injury to body and health –
Comparative perspectivesComparative perspectives
XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014
„Solatium doloris from liability insurance point of view – new challenges and questions, possible answers”
Dr. Habil. Ádám Fuglinszky LL.M. (Heidelberg) PhD (Hamburg)
Associate Professor, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, [email protected]
![Page 2: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OverviewOverview
• I. Non pecuniary loss: characteristics and challengesI. Non pecuniary loss: characteristics and challenges• II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
– 1. Infringement of personality rights 1. Infringement of personality rights non-pecuniary non-pecuniary lossloss– 2. Functional analysis No. 1: „Why?2. Functional analysis No. 1: „Why?””– 3. Functional analysis No. 2: „How?3. Functional analysis No. 2: „How?””– 4. Lump sum 4. Lump sum categories categories– 5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice 5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice standardization + predictability)standardization + predictability)
• III. CombinationsIII. Combinations• IV. Secondary victims, relational lossesIV. Secondary victims, relational losses
– 1. Accessory claims? / legal basis?1. Accessory claims? / legal basis?– 2. Prerequisites / limits / exclusions2. Prerequisites / limits / exclusions– 3. Amounts3. Amounts
![Page 3: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
I. Non pecuniary loss: I. Non pecuniary loss: characteristics and challengescharacteristics and challenges
• 1) Expressing in terms of money: „just as like you wished to see yourself while asleep” (Prof. Lábady) missing:
– no a priori assigned values (upper limit)– no chance of ‘in integrum restitutio’ ► functional analysis– no a priori decisive aspects on the amount
• 2) Public law impacts • 3) Impact of the economic/financial capacity of the society• 4) Fairness, Justice, Flexibility Predictability, Certainty of the law (a like cases a like)• 5) Individualization Standardization• 6) Temptation: let’s replace the complicated tort law by no fault (insurance) system, cf.
– Québec: Automobile Insurance Act, RSQ, c A-25, art. 73, max $ 175,000 – New Zealand: Accident Compensation Act 2001
![Page 4: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
1. Infringement of personality rights 1. Infringement of personality rights non- non-pecuniary losspecuniary loss• Non pecuniary loss (reparation/compensation theory) ► non-pecuniary loss is the prerequisite of damages • Infringement of personality right (personality right theory) ► non-pecuniary loss effects amount only
• (Hungary before the new Civil Code: non-pecuniary damages Mere unpleasure, anger, upset, disappointment, anxiety? Generally Ø, only if recognizable psychiatric illness…)
![Page 5: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
2. Functional analysis No 1: „Why?2. Functional analysis No 1: „Why?””
• Reparation/Compensation only?
• Prevention?
• Punishment/deterrence???– are there punitive damages in the legal system– ne bis in idem– liability insurance – grade of fault among the decisive factors?
►practical relevance: a.o. victim in coma?
![Page 6: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
3. Functional analysis No. 2: „How?3. Functional analysis No. 2: „How?””• Conceptual/objective approach (QC)
– the injury/disability itself ≈ loss of an „immaterial resource”• Personal/subjective approach
– the particular suffering• Functional approach: reasonable solace for the suffered misfortune (common law, Hungary, etc.)► practical relevance:
– impact on decisive factors– a.o. victim in coma? Austria, France: + / Netherlands debated, but rather Ø / Scotland Ø
► functional approach as synthesis? ► „fine tuning”? (cf. coma)
![Page 7: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
4. Lump sum 4. Lump sum categories categories• Common law
– Pain and suffering – Loss of amenities / loss of enjoyment of life– Loss of expectation of life– Disfigurement– Psychological losses (if ever…)
• France– Pretium doloris or souffrances morales ou physiques– Préjudice d’agrément (loss of amenity or loss of well being, also in coma)– Préjudice esthétique (also in coma)– Préjudice sexuel
• Spain/ Portugal: – more or less as in France – perjuicio juvenil / pretium juventutis: impairment of the ability to live out one’s youth
![Page 8: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice 5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice standardization + predictability)standardization + predictability)• 5.1. Free discretion without tables and charts (Hungary, before the new Civil Code), decisive factors:
– Circumstances of the victim: age / the way of living has changed / moving possibilities / additional psychical factors / ability to work or to study– Impact on social relations (family, friends, free time activities, risk of isolation and loneliness)– The injury itself (severity, time of recovery, temporary/permanent, etc.)– Loss of earning capacity (non-pecuniary aspects as f.e. vocation)– Impacts on sexual life / loss of chance of having children– Grade of fault? (Financial situation of the victim and of the tortfeasor? Ø)
![Page 9: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
5.2. Free discretion with non binding tables and charts in the practice• NL: Smartengeldbundel (Verkeersrecht)• F: medical experts: a.o. Association pour l'étude de la réparation du dommage corporel / „loterie judiciaire”
– pretium doloris / souffrances physiques et morales / Thierry tables très léger (very light) / léger (light) / modéré (moderate) / moyen (medium) / assez important (quite severe) / important (severe) / très important (very severe) between € 1,000 (1,500) – 15,000 (25,000; 30,000)– préjudice esthétique medical expert gives points between 0 and 7 + sex + age + marital status + occupation
![Page 10: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
5.2. Free discretion with non binding tables and charts in the practice•D: Schmerzensgeld (§ 253 BGB) + Tabellen (orientation)• A: Schmerzensgeld (§ 1325 ABGB): duration + intensity / impact on health
– light ability of abstraction but not without pain app. € 100/day– medium ability of abstraction is limited to some activities app. € 150-220/day– strong no ability of abstraction, only the pain remains... app. € 200-350/day
• S: Tables by the Traffic Accident Compensation Board (Trafikskadenämnden) invalidity % + age• England free discretion, but Kemp and Kemp: The Quantum of Damages + Judicial Studies Board’s Guideline for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases
![Page 11: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
5.3. Free discretion but binding thresholds (scaling down?... a like cases a like…)
– the cap• Canada: „the trilogy” 1978: Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.; Thornton v. Prince George School Board; Arnold v. Teno rough upper limit, $ 100,000/1978• New South Wales: Civil Liability Act 2002, Personal Responsibility Act 2002 $ 350,000 cap in the most extreme cases
– de minimis threshold• New South Wales not under 15% of the most severe case
![Page 12: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
II. Structural questionsII. Structural questions
• 5.4. Binding amounts prescribed by law– The Danish Liability for Damages Act (cap, fixed amounts, de minimis threshold 5%)
• § 3 Pain and suffering DKK 130 (app. € 17) / day, max. DKK 50,000 (app. € 6,721)• § 4 Permanent injury medical nature + scope of the injury + inconvenience caused 100% = DKK 573,500 ~ € 77,091 (special cases max DKK 687,500 ~ app. € 92,416) (1%/year reduction over 39 years of age, additional 1%/year reduction over 59 years of age)
![Page 13: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
III. CombinationsIII. Combinations
Flexibility
Individ. ■ Infring. Persona-lity rights
■ Non-pecuniary loss
■ Also prevention
deterrence
■Reparation
Only
■Personal / Subjective
■Functional
■Conceptual / objective
■ Lump sum / overall evaluation
■Categories
■ Free discretion
■ FD + orientating charts
■ FD +binding caps / thresholds
■Amounts by law
Predict.
Standard.
![Page 14: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
IV. Secondary victims, IV. Secondary victims, relational lossesrelational losses
1. Accessory claims? / legal basis?1. Accessory claims? / legal basis?• Nervous shock? Cf. England: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310:
– perceiving a shocking event with own senses – being present – sudden shock – close tie of love and affection – foreseeability
• Impacts on / injury to health? (Cf. PETL: it is a different base of claim!)• Impact on the life of the relative (but not necessarily injury to his/her health, cf. Hungary, but see also „right to live in a complete and uninjured family“)• The loss and the emptiness felt upon it itself? (grief and sorrow) / close relationship
– formally in law?– de facto? (even de facto cohabitation, step parents, or as in France: parents-in-law, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts f.e. if they brought up the child … but mere friendship?... )– both? (DCFR)– rebuttably presumed in case of family relationship?
![Page 15: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
IV. Secondary victims, IV. Secondary victims, relational lossesrelational losses
2. Variations (prerequisites / limits / exclusions)2. Variations (prerequisites / limits / exclusions)• No claim, unless nervous shock – medically ascertainable impairment of health, beyond mourning (Germany, Ireland)• No claim, unless medically ascertainable impairment or:
– Gross fault (intention, gross negligence), and– Close family relationship to the primary victim, and– Close personal relationship. (Presumed: parent, child, spouse.) Finland (similar, cf. Tort Liability Act, C. 5 S. 4a (1))
• No fixed list of relatives + general prerequisites– certainty and directness of damages – emotional proximity France, Québec
• Fixed list of relatives + amounts set by law (supplemented by nervous shock cases)
– „Loss of guidance, care and companionship” (Canada, common law provinces + Cf. Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan: fixed amounts!))– „Bereavement” (England, Fatal Accidents Act, 1976 c 30)
![Page 16: Non-pecuniary (moral) losses in case of injury to body and health – Comparative perspectives XIII. AIDA Budapest Insurance Colloquium 27-28 November 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649ccb5503460f949949bb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
IV. Secondary victims, IV. Secondary victims, relational lossesrelational losses
3) Amounts3) Amounts• Fixed by law (some fatal accidents acts)
– England Bereavement (£ 10.000)–Canada, common law provinces Loss of guidance, care and companionship
• Alberta spouse, parents: $ 82,000 / child $ 49,000• Manitoba spouse: $ 30,000 / others: $ 10,000 • Saskatch. spouse: $ 60,000 / child, parent: $ 30,000
• Free discretion– Québec Augustus v. Gosset: circumstances of the death, age, nature and quality of the relationship, the personality of the victim and his/her ability to manage the emotional consequences, impact on his life, etc.– Hungary …