Moral damages : a comparative study.

Abstract

When a person causes harm of any kind to another, whether such harm is a personal injury or a financial loss, the normal remedy which the law provides for is a right to recover damages. The premise is that the damage suffered by the victim is to be made good in some way, hence the law of torts, the responsibility of which is to regulate the losses experienced and to grant the expense of the loss suffered by the victim, deals with such principle. The impairment a person might encounter could deny such a victim the capacity of earning money, resulting in a pecuniary loss. However, the harm suffered could be that beyond a mere pecuniary loss and it is on this principle that a victim should be allowed to claim compensation for a non-pecuniary loss such as pain and suffering. The understanding of awarding compensation for a non-pecuniary loss is illustrated by exploring the French Legal system as well as the English Legal system. The Maltese legal system is also examined and contrasted to French and English legal structures, thus clearly illustrating that in our present system only real damages may be demanded. When dealing with the various systems, the notion of material damages was also examined to highlight the distinction between the two concepts; pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. Clearly and undeniably, a moral damage is more complicated to assess. Nevertheless, this is no reason for such damage to be disregarded, hence the proposal that Malta should have, in principle at least, the concept of moral damage as presented. The scope of these propositions is not meant to promote the idea that victims should demand and obtain compensation for immaterial claims, but rather to further the development of establishing the principle of moral damage within our courts - an aspiration definitely worth striving for.