International Juridical Overview on Personal Injury Compensation

  • Giovanni Comandè


In the last decades there has been increasing attention given to non-pecuniary component of damages. In a rich society it is possible to grant more legal rights, because there are more resources to dedicate to their protection. If the theory that the richer the society the wider the scope of compensation for non-pecuniary losses has some truth in it, it can certainly be found historically in the evolution of the assessment in case of ascertainable illnesses. This chapter explores the Anglo-American, the French and the Italian experiences in non-economic damages compensation, against the idea that non-pecuniary damages compensation is somehow a societal response to emerging legally protected interests. As far as compensation for non-economic harms in other instances, further research and analysis are required, although the growing societal explanation seems to be in line with an expanding attention to the mental state of the victims.


  1. 1.
    Pound R (1915) Interest of personality. Harv L Rev 28:343–365Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuck PH (1993) Mapping the debate on jury reform. In: Litan RE (ed) Verdict: assessing the civil jury system. Brookings Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reynolds LG (1988) Microeconomics: analysis and policy (Irwin Series in Economics), 6th ed, p 33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGregor (1986) Personal injury and death. Int Enc Comp L 35–38, 46–47Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amin (1983) Law of personal injuries in the middle east, LMCLQ 446Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Litan, Swire, Winston (1988) The U.S. liability system, backgrounds and trends. In: Litan R, Winston C (eds) Liability perspectives and policy, p 7–13Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Priest, GL (1987) The current insurance crisis and modern tort law. Yale L J 96:1521–1536Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pfenningtorf W, Mainard DG (1991) A comparative study of liability law and compensation schemes in ten countries and the United States. Insurance Research Council, Oak Brook, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Judicial College (2015) Guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. Oxford University Press, PaperbackGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koch A, Koziol H (eds) (2003) Compensation for personal injury in a comparative perspective. Springer, Wien-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salvi C (2005) La responsabilità civile, 2nd edn. Giuffrè Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ward JO, Thornton RJ (eds) (2009) In: Personal injury and wrongful death damages calculations: transatlantic dialogue, vol 91. Bingley Emerald Group PublishingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGregor (1988) On damages. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 92Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Busnelli FD (2002) Il danno biologico. Dal “diritto vivente” al “diritto vigente”. Giappichelli Editore, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castronovo C (1998) Il danno biologico. Un itinerario di diritto giurisprudenziale, Giuffrè Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barcellona M (2008) Il danno non patrimoniale. Giuffrè Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munkman J (1988) Damages for personal injury and death, 8th edn. Butterworth, London, p 130Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Street H (1975) Principles of the law of damages. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 68–70Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dobbs D (1974) Handbook on the law of remedies. Loy L A Rev 7:394–540Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cramer CR (1981) Loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages. Pac L J 12(965):972Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crowe KR (1990) The semantical bifurcation of non-economic loss: should hedonic damage be recognized independently of pain and suffering damage? Iowa Law Rev 75:1275Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fearon SJ (1989) Hedonic damages: a separate element in tort recoveries? Def Counsel J 56:436Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bell PA, O’Connell J, Simon RJ (1972) Payment for pain & suffering: who wants what, when & why? University of Illinois Law Forum, p 1–83Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Somerville MA (1986) Pain and Suffering at Interfaces of Medicine and Law. Univ Toronto Law J 36:286–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zelermyer W (1954) Damages for pain and suffering. 6 Syracuse Law Rev 27–44, 31Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Comandé G (2005) Towards a global model for adjudicating personal injury damages: bridging Europe and the United States. Temple Int’l & Comp Law Jour 19(2):241–369Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Comandé G (2006) Resarcimiento del daño a la persona y respuestas institucionales. La perspectiva europea. In: Ensayos de la Revista de Derecho Privado, vol. 2, Universidad Externado de Colombia, BogotàGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murphy (2010) The nature and domain of aggravated damages. Camb LJ 69(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Borghetti JS (2008) Les intérêts protégés et l’étendue des préjudices réparables en droit de la responsabilité civile extracontractuelle, In: Études offertes à Geneviève Viney, Liber Amicorum, LGDJ, pp 145–171, pp 149–155Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lambert-Faivre Y, Porchy-Simon S (2015) Droit du dommage corporel, 8th edn. Dalloz, Paris, p 86Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Le Tourneau Ph (2008) Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 10th edn. Dalloz, Paris, p 1302Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bargagna M, Busnelli FD (1995) La Valutazione del Danno Alla Salute. In: Giuffré Editore, Milano, p 398Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gagliardi M (2011) Ancora su equità e tabelle: Milano capitale d’Italia (almeno per la liquidazione del danno non patrimoniale alla persona)? Segnali contrastanti. In: Diritto ed Economia dell’Assicurazione, pp 1568–1578Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zavos H (2009) Monetary damages for nonmonetary losses: an integrated answer to the problem of the meaning, function, and calculation of noneconomic damages. Loy. L.A. L. Rev 43:193–272Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kriftcher EL (1989) Establishing recovery for loss of enjoyment of life apart from conscious pain and suffering: McDougald v. Garber. St. John’s L Rev 62:332–345Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salvi C (2014) Il risarcimento integrale del danno non patrimoniale, una missione impossibile. In: Osservazioni sui criteri per la liquidazione del danno non patrimoniale. Europa e Diritto 2:517–531Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rogers WH (ed) (2001) Damages for non-pecuniary loss in a comparative perspective. Springer, Wien-New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIRPOLIS, Institute of Law, Politics and DevelopmentUniversity Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations