Non-pecuniary (moral) losses
in case of injury to body and health –
Comparative 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, fuglinszky@ajk.elte.hu
Overview
• I. Non pecuniary loss: characteristics and challenges
• II. Structural questions
– 1. Infringement of personality rights  non-pecuniary
loss
– 2. Functional analysis No. 1: „Why?”
– 3. Functional analysis No. 2: „How?”
– 4. Lump sum  categories
– 5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice 
standardization + predictability)
• III. Combinations
• IV. Secondary victims, relational losses
– 1. Accessory claims? / legal basis?
– 2. Prerequisites / limits / exclusions
– 3. Amounts
I. Non pecuniary loss:
characteristics 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
II. Structural questions
1. Infringement of personality rights  nonpecuniary loss
• Non pecuniary loss
(reparation/compensation theory) ► nonpecuniary 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…)
II. Structural questions
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?
II. Structural questions
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)
II. Structural questions
4. Lump sum  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
II. Structural questions
5. The amount (flexibility, individualization, justice 
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)
II. 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
II. 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. € 200350/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
II. 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
II. 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)
III. Combinations
Flexibility
Individ.
■ Also
Persona-lity prevention
rights
deterrence
■ Infring.
■Personal
/ Subjective
■ Lump
sum /
overall
evaluation
■ Free
discretion
■ FD +
orientating
charts
■ FD
■Functional
+binding
caps /
thresholds
■ Nonpecuniary
loss
■Reparation
Only
■Conceptua
l / objective
■Categories
■Amounts
by law
Predict.
Standard.
IV. Secondary victims,
relational losses
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-inlaw, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts f.e. if they brought up the child … but mere
friendship?... )
– both? (DCFR)
– rebuttably presumed in case of family relationship?
IV. Secondary victims,
relational losses
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)
IV. Secondary victims,
relational losses
3) 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  …