Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Juridical Overview on Personal Injury Compensation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
P5 Medicine and Justice

  • 612 Accesses

Abstract

In the last decades there has been increasing attention given to non-pecuniary component of damages. In a rich society it is possible to grant more legal rights, because there are more resources to dedicate to their protection. If the theory that the richer the society the wider the scope of compensation for non-pecuniary losses has some truth in it, it can certainly be found historically in the evolution of the assessment in case of ascertainable illnesses. This chapter explores the Anglo-American, the French and the Italian experiences in non-economic damages compensation, against the idea that non-pecuniary damages compensation is somehow a societal response to emerging legally protected interests. As far as compensation for non-economic harms in other instances, further research and analysis are required, although the growing societal explanation seems to be in line with an expanding attention to the mental state of the victims.

A man’s rights multiply as his opportunities and capacities develop. The more civilized the nation the richer he is in rights. The idea here is that interests -that is demand of individuals- increase with increasing civilization, and hence, the pressure of the law to meet these interests increases the scope and character of legal rights [1]

Quite apart from its unfairness, […] variability [of damages] has undesirable effects on the behavioral incentives of primary actors and on settlements. If it can be reduced without unduly sacrificing other important values, justice requires that we try to do so. [2] (The first quotation is derived from R. POUND, Interest of Personality, 28 Harv. L. Rev., 343 (1915) (emphasis added). The second one is taken from P. H. SCHUCK, Mapping the Debate on jury reform, in Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system, 306, 325 (1994) (Litan ed.)(emphasis added).)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is worth mentioning that the Restatement of the law of torts, I, St. Paul. (1934), 4, says “the entire history of development of tort law shows a continuous tendency to recognize as worthy of legal protection interests which previously were not protected”.

  2. 2.

    We will not devote great attention to “loss of expectation of life”, because it is clearly present only in the -British Commonwealth and there were even several attempts to eliminate it by statute. Indeed, it was short-lived and eliminated in Great Britain in 1982.

  3. 3.

    Among the other types of non-pecuniary damages it is worth mentioning physical inconvenience and discomfort. It is more frequently assessed in England for breaches of contract (Hipkiss v. Gaydan, [1961] C.L.Y. 9042; Elemcraft Developments v. Tankersley-Sawyer, [1984] 15 H.L.R. 63 (C.A.)) and only rarely as a different damage for deceit (Saunders v. Eduards, [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1116 (C.A.)); nuisance (Bunclark v. Hertfordshire C.C., [1977] 234 E.G. 381). Sometimes it is awarded when a plaintiff shows some physical discomfort without any actual physical lesion. Sometimes it is awarded for discomfort other than physical. Piper v. Daybell Court-Cooper and Co., [1969] E.G.D. 535. The ancient “social discredit” is sometimes given for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment (Saville v. Roberts, [1699] 1 Ld. Raym 374; Walter v. Alltools, [1944] 61 T.L.R. 39 (C.A.)), but never for breach of contractual relationships (Addis v. Gramophone Co., [1909] A.C. 488; Bailey v. Bullock, [1950] 2 All E. R. 1167). In the UK, loss of society and relatives (loss of consortium) was substituted by a fixed amount for bereavement by the Administration of Justice Act of 1982 $3, whereas in the USA it is sometimes awarded as an amount separated from pain and suffering.

  4. 4.

    “The general principle embedded in the common law is that mental suffering caused by grief, fear, anguish and the like is not assessable” or “mental pain or anxiety the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act complained of causes that alone”. Lynch v. Knight, [1861] 9 H.L.C. 577. However damages were given “for the mental suffering arising from the apprehension of the consequences of the publication” (Goslin v. Corry, [1844] 7 M. & g. 342, 346); “[for] the insult offered or the pain of a false accusation” (Ley v. Hamilton, [1935] 153 L.T. 384, 386); “injury to the feelings” (Mc Carey v. Associated Newspapers, [1965] 2 Q.B. 86, 104) for deceit (Saunders v.Eduards, [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1116 (C.A.)) or trespass to property (Millington v. Duffy, [1984] 17 H.L.R. 232 (C.A.)).Damages are also historically denied for disappointment of mind. See Hamlin v. G.N. Ry., [1856] 1 H. & N. 408, 411.

  5. 5.

    Vict. Ry. Camrs. v. Coultas, [1888] 13 App. Cas. 222, 226.

  6. 6.

    See Dupey v. T.K.Maltby Ltd., [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., 168.

  7. 7.

    Huff v. Tracy, [1976, 3d DST] 57 Cal. App 3d 939, 129 Cal. Rptr 551 553.

  8. 8.

    Restatement (Second) of Torts, $924. Kozlowsky v. Briggs Leasing Corp., 96 Misc. 2d, 337, 340, 408 N.Y.S. 2d 1001, 1003 (NY Sup. Ct. 1978) is a clear case on this distinction.

  9. 9.

    They include so many different activities. See Scolly v. W.T. Garratt & Co., [1909] 11 Cal. App. 104 P. 326, 328; 22 Am. Jur., Damages, 4th.

  10. 10.

    It is the law in West Virginia (Flannery v. United States, [1982, W.Va.] 297 SE 2d 433); Pennsylvania (Boggavarapu v. Ponist, [1988] 518 Pa. 162, 542 A. 2d 516); Wyoming (Smith v. Ulrich, [Wyo. 1985] 704 P. 2d 698, 701 and n. 4); 'Alaska (Corp. v. Horned, [Alaska 1985] 703 P. 2d 396, 412); Montana (Walls v. Rue, [Mont. 1988] 759 P. 2d 169, 170, 173); Maryland (Nemmers v. United States, [1988, CD Ill.] 681 F Supp 567 (CA 7 Ill.) 870 F. 2d 426).

  11. 11.

    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 924 (1977).

  12. 12.

    See Boan v. Blackwell [2001] 541 S.E.2d 242, 244.

  13. 13.

    Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1288.

  14. 14.

    See in Canada per McLachlin CJ and Abella J in Fidler v Sun Life Assurance of Canada [2006] 5 LRC 472 at [51] (Supreme Court of Canada).

  15. 15.

    Now in its 12th edition as of 2013.

  16. 16.

    Fairley [2001] UKHL 49 at [85], [2002] 2 AC 732, [2001] 3 WLR 899 at 928.

  17. 17.

    Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] AC 281.

  18. 18.

    Cass. Sez. Un. 11 november 2008, nn. 26,972–26,975 in Diritto e Giurisprudenza, 2008, 526..

  19. 19.

    Art 2226 of the Civil Code on prescription of damages claims for bodily damages.

  20. 20.

    http://social-sante.gouv.fr/ministere/acteurs/partenaires/article/nomenclature-des-postes-de-prejudices-rapport-de-m-dintilhac.

  21. 21.

    http://www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/textes-soumis-a-concertation-10179/consultation-publique-sur-la-reforme-de-la-responsabilite-civile-28936.html.

  22. 22.

    Danno biologico or danno alla salute: literally ‘biological damage’ or ‘damage to health’, nowadays the two expressions are used as synonyms although technically they are not.

  23. 23.

    Corte Cost. 14 July 1986 n. 184, in Foro italiano (fi). 1986, I, 2053; Corte Cost. 27 October 1994, n. 372, in Giustizia Civile (Giust. Civ.), [1994], I, 3035.

  24. 24.

    Cass. 31 May 2003 nn. 8827 and 8828, in Danno e Responsabilità (Danno e resp.), 2003, 816.

  25. 25.

    Cass., S.U. civ., 11 November 2008 n. 26972-26973-26974-26975 (supra fn. 19).

  26. 26.

    See Cass., 6 June 1981, n. 3675, in Bargagna and Busnelli 1995, 398.

  27. 27.

    Corte Cost., 14 July 1986, n. 184 (supra fn. 24).

  28. 28.

    Cass. Sez. III, 7 June 2011 n. 12408 in Diritto e Fiscalità dell'assicurazione, fasc.4, 2011, 1568.

  29. 29.

    Wright v. British Rys. Bd., [1983] 2 A.C. 773, 784–785 (H.L.) (U.K.) at 777: ‘Any figure at which the assessor of damages arrives cannot be other than artificial and, if the aim is that justice meted out to all litigants should be even-handed instead of depending on the idiosyncrasies of the assessor… the figure must be ‘basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases.’ (per Lord Diplock).

  30. 30.

    As often stressed by the Italian Constitutional Court. See Corte Cost., n. 184 (fn. 24).

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Annotation, Loss of Enjoyment of Life as a Distinct Element or Factor in Awarding Damages for Bodily Injury (1984) 34 a.l.r. 4th 293.

  32. 32.

    As per Lord Justice O’Connor in Housecroft v. Burnett [1986] 1 All E.R. 332, 337, ‘The human condition is so infinitely variable that it is impossible to set a tariff, but some injuries are more susceptible to some uniformity in compensation than others’.

  33. 33.

    Cass. Sez. III, 7 June 2011 n. 12,408, supra n. 29.

References

  1. Pound R (1915) Interest of personality. Harv L Rev 28:343–365

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schuck PH (1993) Mapping the debate on jury reform. In: Litan RE (ed) Verdict: assessing the civil jury system. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Reynolds LG (1988) Microeconomics: analysis and policy (Irwin Series in Economics), 6th ed, p 33

    Google Scholar 

  4. McGregor (1986) Personal injury and death. Int Enc Comp L 35–38, 46–47

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amin (1983) Law of personal injuries in the middle east, LMCLQ 446

    Google Scholar 

  6. Litan, Swire, Winston (1988) The U.S. liability system, backgrounds and trends. In: Litan R, Winston C (eds) Liability perspectives and policy, p 7–13

    Google Scholar 

  7. Priest, GL (1987) The current insurance crisis and modern tort law. Yale L J 96:1521–1536

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pfenningtorf W, Mainard DG (1991) A comparative study of liability law and compensation schemes in ten countries and the United States. Insurance Research Council, Oak Brook, IL

    Google Scholar 

  9. Judicial College (2015) Guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. Oxford University Press, Paperback

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koch A, Koziol H (eds) (2003) Compensation for personal injury in a comparative perspective. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Salvi C (2005) La responsabilità civile, 2nd edn. Giuffrè Editore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ward JO, Thornton RJ (eds) (2009) In: Personal injury and wrongful death damages calculations: transatlantic dialogue, vol 91. Bingley Emerald Group Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  13. McGregor (1988) On damages. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 92

    Google Scholar 

  14. Busnelli FD (2002) Il danno biologico. Dal “diritto vivente” al “diritto vigente”. Giappichelli Editore, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  15. Castronovo C (1998) Il danno biologico. Un itinerario di diritto giurisprudenziale, Giuffrè Editore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barcellona M (2008) Il danno non patrimoniale. Giuffrè Editore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  17. Munkman J (1988) Damages for personal injury and death, 8th edn. Butterworth, London, p 130

    Google Scholar 

  18. Street H (1975) Principles of the law of damages. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 68–70

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dobbs D (1974) Handbook on the law of remedies. Loy L A Rev 7:394–540

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cramer CR (1981) Loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages. Pac L J 12(965):972

    Google Scholar 

  21. Crowe KR (1990) The semantical bifurcation of non-economic loss: should hedonic damage be recognized independently of pain and suffering damage? Iowa Law Rev 75:1275

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fearon SJ (1989) Hedonic damages: a separate element in tort recoveries? Def Counsel J 56:436

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bell PA, O’Connell J, Simon RJ (1972) Payment for pain & suffering: who wants what, when & why? University of Illinois Law Forum, p 1–83

    Google Scholar 

  24. Somerville MA (1986) Pain and Suffering at Interfaces of Medicine and Law. Univ Toronto Law J 36:286–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zelermyer W (1954) Damages for pain and suffering. 6 Syracuse Law Rev 27–44, 31

    Google Scholar 

  26. Comandé G (2005) Towards a global model for adjudicating personal injury damages: bridging Europe and the United States. Temple Int’l & Comp Law Jour 19(2):241–369

    Google Scholar 

  27. Comandé G (2006) Resarcimiento del daño a la persona y respuestas institucionales. La perspectiva europea. In: Ensayos de la Revista de Derecho Privado, vol. 2, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotà

    Google Scholar 

  28. Murphy (2010) The nature and domain of aggravated damages. Camb LJ 69(2):353–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Borghetti JS (2008) Les intérêts protégés et l’étendue des préjudices réparables en droit de la responsabilité civile extracontractuelle, In: Études offertes à Geneviève Viney, Liber Amicorum, LGDJ, pp 145–171, pp 149–155

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lambert-Faivre Y, Porchy-Simon S (2015) Droit du dommage corporel, 8th edn. Dalloz, Paris, p 86

    Google Scholar 

  31. Le Tourneau Ph (2008) Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 10th edn. Dalloz, Paris, p 1302

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bargagna M, Busnelli FD (1995) La Valutazione del Danno Alla Salute. In: Giuffré Editore, Milano, p 398

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gagliardi M (2011) Ancora su equità e tabelle: Milano capitale d’Italia (almeno per la liquidazione del danno non patrimoniale alla persona)? Segnali contrastanti. In: Diritto ed Economia dell’Assicurazione, pp 1568–1578

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zavos H (2009) Monetary damages for nonmonetary losses: an integrated answer to the problem of the meaning, function, and calculation of noneconomic damages. Loy. L.A. L. Rev 43:193–272

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kriftcher EL (1989) Establishing recovery for loss of enjoyment of life apart from conscious pain and suffering: McDougald v. Garber. St. John’s L Rev 62:332–345

    Google Scholar 

  36. Salvi C (2014) Il risarcimento integrale del danno non patrimoniale, una missione impossibile. In: Osservazioni sui criteri per la liquidazione del danno non patrimoniale. Europa e Diritto 2:517–531

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rogers WH (ed) (2001) Damages for non-pecuniary loss in a comparative perspective. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIRPOLIS, Institute of Law, Politics and Development, University Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri Della Libertà 33, 56017, Pisa, Italy

    Giovanni Comandè

Authors
  1. Giovanni Comandè
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Comandè .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Santo Davide Ferrara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Comandè, G. (2017). International Juridical Overview on Personal Injury Compensation. In: Ferrara, S. (eds) P5 Medicine and Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation