Abstract
Tort law provides for a right to a remedy in case of a victim suffering damage that was caused by an event triggering liability (such as a fault). The doctrine describing what damage is recoverable is primarily written from the point of view of material damage, which is damage that consists of an impairment of property and can therefore be expressed in monetary terms. Its counterpart, moral damage, is damage that can not be expressed in monetary terms and involves an impairment of feelings. It is not entirely clear how traditional theoretical principles apply to such moral damage. There is a lack of clarity about which kinds of losses do or do not qualify as moral damage and, above all, what an appropriate form of remedy looks like. Moral damage is a source of legal uncertainty. Empirical research involving Belgian victims has shown that this legal uncertainty places a heavy burden on the shoulders of victims. These persons are already confronted with an emotional suffering and would rather not face additional legal burden and be revictimised in negotiation processes with insurers. Therefore, this research aims to clearly define the boundaries of the existence of moral damage and investigate how a remedy should be shaped. How should compensation be determined and is money an appropriate remedy?
Researcher(s)
Research team(s)
Project type(s)