Parents as ‘Secondary Victims’ in Case of Injury to a Child
Abstract
Only the injured person is traditionally considered a victim. It is he or she who is entitled by law to claim compensation for lost income, additional expenses for medical treatment and other care. However, in practice, many parents of disabled children, instead of seeking professional services from third parties (psychologists, carers, etc.), themselves provide daily care necessary for the child, after which they turn to the tortfeasor with a claim for compensation for lost income. The article analyses the approaches of Russian and foreign courts to the resolution of such claims, as well as examples of direct legal regulation of issues related to the payment of gratuitous care provided by relatives and friends. It is concluded that under certain conditions the parents of an injured child are entitled to claim compensation for lost income: the need for daily childcare limits the parent’s ability to work; the defendant has not proved that it is possible to provide the child with the necessary care for less than the parent’s lost income, etc. The standard of proof for involuntary termination of employment should not be too high; it is sufficient that the parent’s decision meets the requirements of reasonableness and good faith. De lege lata the parents’ claim may be satisfied with reference to the provisions of Article 15, Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code on full compensation and Article 1081 on recourse, or the provisions of Article 1102 on recovery of unjust enrichment. De lege ferenda it is advisable to expand the concept of legally relevant damage in the case of personal injury, indicating the indemnification of persons providing necessary care to the injured person on a gratuitous basis and the possibility of calculating the amount of indemnity through their lost income.
References
Agibalova E.N. (2021) Tort obligations: a guide. Volgograd: University, 264 p. (in Russ.)
Bishop W. (1982) Economic loss in tort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/2.1.1
Chartier Y. (1983) La reparation du prejudice dans la responsabilite civile. Paris: Dalloz, 1050 p.
Commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (2010) A.P. Sergeev (ed.). Moscow: Prospect, 992 p. (in Russ.)
Egorova M.A., Krylov V.G., Romanov A.K. (2017) Tort obligations and tort liability in the English, German and French law: a tutorial. Moscow: Justitcinform, 376 p. (in Russ.)
Evstigneev E.A. (2017) General tort principle: modern position and prospects of application. First Part. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava=Civil Law Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 45–83 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2017-17-4-45-83
Fast I.A. (2020) Determination of the amount of moral harm from “parental damage”. Rossijskij sud’ya=Russian Judge, no. 3, pp. 50–55 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2020-3-50-55
Gubaeva A.K. (2020) The Russian tort law: contemporary challenges and prospects for development. Zakon=Law, no. 3, pp. 38–48 (in Russ.)
Hiroshi O. (2009) The Japanese Law. Oxford: University Press, 474 p.
Ioffe O.S. (2004) Selected works. Vol. III. Law of obligation. Saint Petersburg: Yuridicheski center Press, 837 p. (in Russ.)
Khadijah M.N., Putery N.J. (2016) No-fault compensation scheme for obstetric injuries: a viable alternative? Malayan Law Journal, vol. 3, pp. 29–49.
Kotiswaran P. (2021) An ode to altruism: how Indian courts value unpaid domestic work. Economic and Political Weekly, no. 36, pp. 45–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3740179
Larouche P. (2008) ‘Legally relevant damage’ and a priori limits to non-contractual liability in the DCFR. TILEC Discussion Paper no. 2008-045. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1313649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1313649
Liang Ch.-M., Leflar R. (2024) Taiwan’s medical injury law in action. Emory International Law Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–94.
Lopez J., Marcos J.I. (2015) El nuevo baremo de la Ley 35/2015 y su applicacion al ambito laboral. RTSS. CEF, no. 393, pp. 65–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51302/rtss.2015.2772
Lugmanov R.R. (2019) Tort law and recovering economic losses. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya=Economic Justice Herald, no 2, pp. 115–153 (in Russ.)
Markesinis B. et al. (2005) Compensation for personal injury in the English, German and Italian law. Cambridge: University Press, 235 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493881
Malein N.S. (1962) Compensation for injury to minors. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 66 p. (in Russ)
Malein N.S. (1965) Compensation for personal injury. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 230 p. (in Russ)
Mendelson D. (2005) Jurisprudential legerdemain: damages for gratuitous services and attendant care. Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 402–412.
Principles, definitions and model rules of the European private law (2010) C. von Bar, E. Clive (eds.). Oxford: University Press, 4795 p.
Sartwelle T.P. et al. (2020) Cerebral palsy litigation after fifty years: a hoax on you. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 295–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2020.093
Shevchenko A.S., Shevchenko G.N. (2013) Tort obligations in the Russian civil law: a guide. Moscow: Statut, 130 p. (in Russ.)
Shiminova M.Y. (1972) Compensation for damage to health. Moscow: Moskovski rabochiy, 120 p. (in Russ)
Van Vleet M.W. (2012) Birth-related injury. In: Elzouki A.Y. et al. (eds.) Textbook of Clinical Pediatrics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 159–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02202-9_12
Yagelnitskii A.A. (2019) Trends in court practice in cases of compensation for damages. Zakon=Law, no. 3, pp. 47–55 (in Russ.)
