Moral damage and psychological trauma as grounds for tort liability

The work is devoted to the study of subjective component of participants in tort relations in cases where the psycho-emotional state of an individual is negatively affected. The procedure and conditions for compensation for moral damage, the concept of nervous shock and the conditions for compensation for damage, if any, are analyzed. The comparative legal method and the formal logical method are used Based on the results of this study, the main conditions for compensation for moral damage and nervous shock are determined, and the subjective factor is determined, which plays a key role in bringing the tortfeasor to justice. A retrospective analysis of the formation of psychological trauma legal understanding as an independent legal category and the conditions for compensation for damage in the event of its occurrence is carried out. Such theories of compensation for damage as the “impact theory”, the theory of primary and secondary victims, the thin skull rule, which played a predominant role at various stages of the development of tort law, are considered. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the determination of the main conditions for compensation for moral damage and the influence on the conditions of compensation of individual elements of the subjective factor.

subjective factor, reasonableness, psychological trauma, normal fortitude, impact theory, primary and secondary victims, thin skull rule

1. Posner R.A. Instrumental and noninstrumental theories of tort law // Indiana Law Journal. 2013. № 88 (2). Р. 469-525. URL: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5020&context=journal_articles

2. Ripstein A. Private Wrongs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. 313 p.

3. Steel S., Stevens R. The secondary legal duty to pay damages // Law Quarterly Review. 2020. № 136 (2). Р. 283-291. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3466468

4. Колесниченко О.В. Придание свойства «возместимости» вреду, причиненному здоровью человека, через конструкцию косвенных убытков: проблемы правопонимания и правоприменения // Lex Russica. 2022. № 3 (184). С. 9-18. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2022.184.3.009-018, https://elibrary.ru/lpjggq

5. Салагай О.О., Сошкина К.В. Концепция личной ответственности за сохранение здоровья: правовой аспект // Журнал российского права. 2020. № 8. С. 94-104. https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2020.097, https://elibrary.ru/qjmhrh

6. English R. Nervous shock: before the aftermath // The Cambridge Law Journal. 1993. Vol. 52. № 2. Р. 204-206. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4507798

7. O’Brien L.S. The validity of the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder // Journal of Personal Injury Litigation. 1994. Р. 257-270.

8. Swanton J. Issues in tort liability for nervous shock // Australian Law Journal. 1992. Vol. 66.

9. Fordham M. Psychiatric injury, secondary victims and the “sudden shock” requirement // Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. 2014. Р. 41-58. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24872232