Establishing the amount of moral damage for minor injury to health - how to calculate the amount of compensation and get it through the court?

Russian laws protect not only the rights and freedoms of citizens, but also the health of every person .

Health refers to the normal physical and moral state of the human body.

When damage to health is caused, even in a mild form, a citizen has the right to defend his right and receive compensation for moral damage from the culprit .

How to do this will be discussed later in the article.

Moral damage in cases of mild harm to health: what does it consist of?

In legislation you can find such a legal construction as “moral damage for causing harm to health . What do you mean by it?

Moral damage, based on various judicial and other interpretations, is the infliction of physical and moral suffering on a person , as a result of which his health deteriorates.

In other words, his life becomes uncomfortable, not the same as it was before. And all because illegal actions or inactions were committed by the guilty person in relation to such a victim.

When a citizen becomes a victim of a crime or administrative offense, this is accompanied by harm to his health, which can have 3 degrees:

1. severe (for example, severe injuries or damage to internal organs, termination of pregnancy, etc., hence long-term or complete permanent disability);
2. moderate severity (for example, concussion, fractures (nose, ribs, jaw), dislocations, accompanied by temporary permanent disability for more than 3 weeks);
3. light (this is loss of ability to work for no more than 3 weeks, minor injuries and bruises).

In case of severe or moderate damage, moral damages are not difficult to prove , since the victim receives serious injuries and injuries. But with a mild degree it is more difficult to do , but it is still possible.

Note! The extent of damage can only be determined by a forensic expert during an examination.

What is moral hazard?

As a rule, moral damage in the case under consideration consists of:

• excitement, fear and anxiety due to the inability to work for some time;
• irritability;
• depressed mood;
• sleep disturbance;
• the need to redistribute the family budget in connection with the expenditure of funds on treatment and, thereby, depriving a family member or the victim of something, etc.

Can you get compensation for damage to your well-being?

It is worth repeating that if a mild degree of harm to health is caused, it is still possible to recover monetary compensation for moral damage .

Indeed, in accordance with the principles of law, any harm must be compensated if it is proven. This applies to both property and non-property damage (in our case, this is human health). The degree of harm does not affect the victim’s ability to recover moral compensation from the guilty person.

Important! According to Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, moral or physical suffering resulting from actions that violate the personal rights of a citizen are recognized as moral harm.

The category of moral damage and its recovery can be found in a number of articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Article 151 – compensation for moral damage. It states that when determining the amount of compensation, the court should take into account both the guilt of the offender and the personality characteristics of the victim.
2. Paragraph 4 with the same title of Chapter 59 “Liabilities due to harm”.

Compensation for moral damage.

Advice: explanations of judicial practice can be used as justification and to strengthen your legal position in a statement of claim.

In addition, a fairly large array of useful information of a recommendatory nature is contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1994. No. 10. Courts are guided by this act when considering cases of compensation for moral damage.

Income tax expenses

In connection with the assignment of compensation, the company causing moral damage bears costs. Do such expenses generate expenses for tax purposes?

This question must be answered in the negative. After all, such costs are generated by a violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), that is, they are immoral in nature. Consequently, they do not meet the criteria of paragraph 1 of Article 252 of the Tax Code, although they were incurred in the course of carrying out activities aimed at generating income. This basis is specifically provided for in paragraph 49 of Article 270 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

We emphasize: compensation for moral damage cannot be equated to compensation for damage caused. Consequently, subparagraph 13 of paragraph 1 of Article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not apply to it. This position is presented in letters of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 19, 2010 No. 03-03-06/4/22 and the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated May 16, 2012 No. ED-4-3/8057.

note

An employee has the right to demand compensation for moral damage even for delayed wages (clause 63 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, appeal ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated November 22, 2016 in case No. 33-20855/2016).

The fact is that the legislation connects damage with the presence of expenses for the injured party (clause 13 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 No. 25 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of Section I of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”). In the case of moral damage, such is not seen. Moreover, the legislator specifically stipulates: compensation for moral damage is made regardless of the property damage subject to compensation (part 2 of article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of article 1099 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

True, the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated June 4, 2015 No. F02-1262/2015 in case No. F02-1612/2015 presents the opposite conclusion. The arbitrators found that subclause 13 of clause 1 of Article 265 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not specify what kind of damage is subject to compensation - material or moral, and does not contain a prohibition on including the costs of compensation for moral damage in non-operating expenses. Although this resolution was supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 27, 2015 No. 302-KG15-9847, the latter did not examine the issue of recognition of compensation for moral damage in expenses.

A similar conclusion is presented in the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated July 30, 2015 No. F09-5159/15.

In this regard, let us ask ourselves: is there an official term “moral damage”? Yes. In particular, it is presented in the Law of the Russian Federation dated July 21, 1993 No. 5485-1 “On State Secrets” (Article 7) and in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated June 14, 2012 No. 851 “On the procedure for establishing levels of terrorist danger...” But specific situations, which regulate these sources of law are not typical for the activities of commercial organizations. At the same time, this example shows: you can try to claim a violation of your rights even in doubtful cases. The inconsistency of your position may go unnoticed.

So, on the issue of accounting for compensation in expenses, we are on the side of the Russian Ministry of Finance, and do not share the position of the above-mentioned arbitration courts. But for personal income tax it’s the other way around.

How much can the payment be, how to calculate?

Moral harm is an assessment category. It cannot be clearly demonstrated in court to prove that it was actually caused and to what extent. This is a purely internal state of the injured person , which is not amenable to external objective and accurate assessment.

However, to determine the amount of moral distress, the property losses a citizen suffered due to harm to his health are often taken into account. And the improvement of physical health and emotional state directly depends on the level of quality of medical care provided, medications, etc.

When calculating compensation for moral damage, you will need not only a regular calculator for calculations, but also knowledge of a number of nuances.

1. It is necessary to keep all receipts confirming treatment in clinics, purchase of medications, visits to a psychoanalyst, etc. In general, all documents that can directly and indirectly confirm the restoration of the physical and emotional state of the victim.
2. When calculating the amount, you should focus on the amount of property damage being recovered.
   That is, if a citizen asks the court to recover from the defendant treatment costs in the amount of 15 thousand rubles, then the amount of moral damage, for example, 100 thousand rubles will in no way be commensurate with the property claim. The final court decision will depend on the degree of moral suffering of the plaintiff.
3. The specific amounts of moral damage are not regulated by any law, and the courts determine its amount only on the basis of the case materials, the degree of guilt of the violator of the law and the cause-and-effect relationship between guilt and the consequences (that is, the physical and moral experiences of the victim).

Important: as a rule, the amount of moral damage awarded is an order of magnitude lower than what was calculated and declared by the victim.

The recovery of any amount of moral damage, even the smallest one, is a good result.

Compensation for moral damage.

How to get compensation through the court: step-by-step instructions

Of course, by filing a civil claim in court, you can significantly increase your chances of receiving moral compensation . But we should not neglect pre-trial methods of conflict resolution. To begin with, you can submit a written claim to the culprit , which states the amount of moral damage and the deadlines for compensation.

If the pest ignores the opportunity to voluntarily compensate for moral suffering, you can safely go to court . Where to begin? Of course, with drawing up a statement of claim.

General rules for drawing up a claim can be found in Articles 131, 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. It should contain:

• Full name, addresses and telephone numbers of the plaintiff and defendant;
• the essence of the issue (that is, the situation of mild harm is described and what physical and moral suffering the victim felt);
• provide factual evidence justifying that damage to health has been caused (conclusion of an independent medical examination), receipts for payment for treatment at the clinic, medications, appointments with doctors, psychoanalysts, etc.;
• cite specific articles of laws confirming the legal position of the plaintiff (on moral damage from the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, or from the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, if an administrative offense has been committed, etc.);
• a specific request to the court: “to recover from the Defendant an amount of moral damage in such and such an amount”;
• an appendix listing all attached supporting documents;
• date and signature of the plaintiff or his representative by proxy.

The claim is filed in the district court at the place of residence of the plaintiff or defendant. If the application meets the requirements, the court office accepts it and forwards it to the judge. He, in turn, schedules a preliminary hearing , and then the main one.

It is better to immediately apply to hear witnesses who can confirm that it was morally difficult for him after the damage to his health. It is impossible to prove without supporting documents.

If both evidence is sufficient, there is every chance of winning the case.

The consideration of the claim ends with a court decision in favor of one of the parties. The limitation period does not apply to claims for causing damage to the life and health of a citizen (Article 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

But still, this claim can only be made for the last 3 years that preceded the day the claim was filed. That is, the victim will be able to receive compensation only within a three-year period.

Information: before filing a claim, you must pay a state fee according to the details of the court where the application is being submitted.

The amount of state duty for such cases is 300 rubles (Part 3 of Article 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Amount of compensation for moral damage: how to reduce uncertainty and increase efficiency?

The main feature of cases of compensation for moral damage is the vagueness of the criteria by which the court decides on the amount of compensation. Therefore, lawyers often work on such cases intuitively, try to use more emotional factors, do not formulate specific goals, and all this, as a result, entails a certain unpredictability of the outcome of this category of disputes.

Meanwhile, proper analysis of materials and simple research work when preparing a case allows you to initially set specific goals, better predict and evaluate the result, and ultimately achieve the most acceptable (often for both parties) compensation.

1. We decide on goals.

In management theory, setting SMART goals has long been the norm. It is believed that any goal should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound [1]. According to management practitioners, goals formulated with this in mind principles are more likely to be achieved.[2] This approach is universal and can be applied in legal practice in general and in disputes about moral harm in particular.

At the same time, for the category of cases under consideration, the last two characteristics (relevance and timing) usually do not cause difficulties: relevance in this case means the presence of the necessary legal grounds for obtaining compensation and the actual possibility of receiving it from the defendant (in other words, his solvency), and the time frame are largely due to the actual time frame for consideration of cases and execution of court decisions. Although the timing of receiving compensation can also be influenced during the consideration of the case. As for the first three elements, you need to work with them.

Regardless of whether the lawyer represents the plaintiff or the defendant, he needs to find out the actual figures of compensation that the plaintiff can expect. The only way to do this is to know the practice. Moreover, the practices of a specific region, and even better, of a specific court and judges.

Previously, this was quite a difficult task and in order to obtain the necessary information, it was necessary to have some connections in the apparatus of a particular court (in fact, most lawyers could not do this and relied only on their own experience). Now this is only a matter of due diligence of the representative, because on September 27, 2017, the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved the procedure for publishing judicial documents, which directly prohibited excluding from the texts of judicial acts the amounts of required and awarded amounts of compensation for moral damage (paragraph “d”, paragraph 3.2 Order).[3] And although this procedure is still observed by the courts selectively, starting from approximately 2018, in most published judicial acts the amounts requested and awarded have already been indicated.

Accordingly, you need to use any publicly available aggregator (I personally use Sudakt.ru), make a selection by region (in the future, also by court), enter the necessary keywords, and analyze the practice over the past year or so. Separately, it is necessary to study the practice of the second instance court: which decisions stood, in which cases the amount of compensation was changed, in what direction and why?

The result will be a number of cases, generally similar to yours. After studying them, it is necessary to summarize the data and find out the average values. The result is approximately the following table (using the example of a case of compensation for moral damage as a result of causing moderate harm to health in an accident):

Now it is necessary to analyze cases that differ significantly in one direction or another from other cases and analyze the reasons for this result (especially if they occurred with your particular judge or have significant similarities with your current case), and then determine the “minimum program” and “maximum program "

In addition, you need to highlight cases that are more likely to influence the judge hearing your case. In order of increasing impact, these are:

• very similar in circumstances (not only in the actual circumstances of the case, but also in indirect aspects: it seems, for example, likely that the amount of compensation from a commercial organization may be slightly higher than from an ordinary citizen or state);
• considered by the same court (the judge can informally discuss the case with a colleague and take into account his opinion);
• reviewed by the same judge;
• considered by a higher court with the decision left unchanged;
• considered by a higher court with a change in the amount of compensation (changing a decision always makes a greater impression than leaving it unchanged, since the first is an active action)[5].

We supplement the above table with notes and get its final form:

Finally, we make a selection of judicial practice for the court, leaving the decisions that most correspond to your position and excluding comments from the table. It is better to order the decisions for the plaintiff from the largest to the smallest amount, and for the defendant - vice versa. The most convincing solutions that support your position need to be highlighted and focused on. It is also better to prepare printouts of the decision texts in advance.

The results of the study must be brought to the attention of the principal and the position on the case must be agreed upon with him. This will allow him to be included in the process, provide the lawyer with the necessary informal powers during the consideration of the case (and they will be needed in this case!) and reduce the effect of surprise.

Naturally, the principal must be repeated many times that we have no case law and the court is in no way bound by previously rendered court decisions regarding the amount of compensation, but the courts often rely on them.

1. We are preparing a starting offer.

The plaintiff's "starting offer" is set forth in the complaint. The defendant is in the response. At the same time, it is necessary to understand two psychological points:

• The plaintiff must overstate the desired amount, the defendant must understate.
• The plaintiff should not refer to judicial practice in the claim, but simply ask for compensation. The defendant must substantiate the response with references to judicial practice.

Let's look at these two tips in more detail.

About overestimation and underestimation of compensation. The reasons for the first point are intuitively clear to lawyers; for the most part, they do so. The famous Robert Cialdini advised to do the same in his bestseller “The Psychology of Influence”: R. Cialdini wrote that the chances of getting a positive response from your communication partner will increase if you first ask him for something much more serious than you really want, and after refusal - what you really need.[7]

However, after analyzing the judicial practice, the parties may be tempted to immediately ask for reasonable compensation. Under no circumstances should this be done. The fact is that (in most cases) except you, none of the persons involved in the case, and even (most likely) the judge, will meticulously examine the judicial practice (oddly enough, but life shows that this is so!). However, from experience, both the judge and the other party know that the plaintiff will overestimate and the defendant will underestimate their expectations, therefore, the requested compensation must be reduced, and significantly. Cases of compensation being satisfied in full are rare. As a result, the judge, having read your claim with demands for a figure of 90,000 rubles that is actually justified by practice, will certainly not consider it seriously and may well award 20,000 rubles. Thus, with your imaginary honesty you will certainly harm the client.

It is much more difficult to overdo it in the direction of overestimation, but, nevertheless, the sense of proportion should not be changed: ask for 10,000,000 rubles. For moderate damage to health from an accident in Russia means showing oneself, at a minimum, not quite adequate (and for a representative, not professional).

In general, the plaintiff should seek the maximum possible reasonable compensation based on the practice analysis, multiplied by 2 to 5 times depending on the circumstances of the case.

The defendant must act somewhat differently: excessively understating compensation is harmful, this will be considered by the court as a mockery of the plaintiff (but the defendant has already harmed him, and this is usually clear from the case). In addition, excessively low compensation can forever close the path to negotiations with victims, and this is one of the best ways for everyone to resolve the conflict (which we will discuss below). So, it seems most correct for the defendant to ask for the minimum compensation previously awarded by this or (in the absence of) neighboring courts.

About references to judicial practice. Why shouldn’t the plaintiff in his claim refer to judicial practice on the amount of compensation? R. Harris gave similar advice in his famous “School of Advocacy”. He pointed out, talking about the accusatory speech (for our case, this is similar to the statement of claim), that “Argumentation has no place in this part of the process... its main consequence will be doubt about the proof of the accusation. Facts that from their first appearance already require care, like children, must be very weak; rest assured, your diapers will not protect them from an early death. What could be stronger and more reliable than a sober statement of a simple fact?”[8] Common sense tells us the same thing. Remember point one? If the courts usually collect 70–90,000 rubles “in such cases,” how will your demand for the recovery of 500,000 rubles look? on one page with relevant excerpts?

On the part of the defendant, it is vital to bring practice. How else, if not by reference to practice, can the defendant prove his standard and most evaluative statement that “the required amount of compensation by the plaintiff is too high”?

However, the plaintiff must have the practice ready in two versions: in the form of a certificate for the court, which can be officially attached to the case file, and in the form of a printout of court decisions.

1. We enter into negotiations.

So, the preparation is completed, the positions of the parties are stated. What to do now? If you approach the process in the traditional way, insisting on your demands and appealing to legal norms, the plaintiff will actually let the matter take its course: it is impossible to present to the court specific figures to which the plaintiff is certainly entitled (as, for example, in the case of compensation for material losses) and even some calculations[9]. The defendant is in a somewhat better position, because he can, at a minimum, refer to judicial practice and ask to determine the amount of compensation taking it into account, and not based on the plaintiff’s requirements. Nevertheless. The court, as is known, is not bound by decisions in other cases.

In this regard, the best way for all participants in the process is negotiations, because they are all interested in the most convenient outcome for themselves. Thus, it is in the interests of the court to resolve the case with as little effort as possible and with minimal risk of reversal. The plaintiff wants to receive as much compensation as possible, but is almost always prepared for a significant reduction in the amount. It is in the interests of the defendant, finally, to pay as little as possible, and at the same time he fears that the collected amount may turn out to be significantly more than what he expected and which is recovered in similar cases (what if?) [10].

All these considerations make the negotiation tactics for working on the case one of the most optimal. Of course, it is impossible to describe the entire methodology of this approach in one publication, and there are many wonderful books on negotiation techniques. Here I would like to note some nuances specific to this category of cases.

What is the best way to enter the negotiation stage? The plaintiff, having heard the defendant’s disagreement with the amount of compensation, must ask him a question about what amount the defendant considers reasonable. Moreover, it is advisable to obtain a specific answer from the defendant. The respondent may try to refuse to answer the question asked, but he needs to be pressed. A case where the defendant does not name specific figures must be interpreted and presented to the court as opportunistic behavior of the opposite party. In other words, an attempt should be made to use this behavior of the defendant to demonstrate to the court who is “more right” in a given situation. In this case, the issue of the amount of compensation for moral damage will de facto be resolved in a psychological dialogue between the court and the plaintiff. With a high probability, such behavior will not be beneficial for the defendant, since he, having taken a passive position, will actually withdraw himself from participation in resolving the issue on the merits (however, this does not completely exclude the simple fact that the defendant may simply be lucky and the judge will take a position that is objectively advantageous specifically to the defendant - this also happens, but with the same success the defendant could simply not go to the hearing, because this way you can “win” the process).

Between trials, the plaintiff’s representative is interested in establishing a dialogue with the defendant and asking him the following:

• Is the defendant ready in principle to pay voluntarily and negotiate?
• If so, what amounts does he consider reasonable and can he agree to a settlement agreement on terms that would be beneficial to him?
• If not, then what is the reason for the defendant’s desire not to make compensation voluntarily? Here, the plaintiff will be helped by judicial practice, which will allow him to demonstrate to the defendant the maximum amount of compensation and more colorfully describe his risks.

In general, the main idea that needs to be conveyed to the defendant’s representative is that it is more profitable for all parties to agree on an acceptable amount of compensation and fix a certain result than to surrender to the discretion of the court and receive an inconvenient decision (the court is unpredictable and can “shoot” both in one and the other direction).

The court can also help encourage negotiations to conclude a settlement agreement. The first party to talk about this will receive some psychological bonus (and in a case of compensation for moral damage there is always a lot of psychology, so such bonuses need to be multiplied!). As you know, judges like this outcome of the case, because it has a number of advantages for them: there is no need to write the text of the decision, there is less likelihood of an appeal and the decision being overturned by a higher court.

The defendant can also initiate negotiations by drawing the plaintiff's attention to the fact that his desires are unrealistic and appealing to figures from practice. An additional argument in favor of a settlement agreement is the speed at which a court decision enters into legal force and the fact that a settlement agreement in practice is more often actually implemented than court decisions on the collection of funds (here you can provide the plaintiff with data from the bailiff service).

At the hearing, the defendant, unlike the plaintiff, must present judicial practice to the court (of course, in a favorable light [11]), directly setting it out in the response, and preferably naming specific figures for compensation acceptable to the defendant, and the maximum amount of compensation, acceptable to the defendant (of course, they should not be named directly: it is enough to indicate the case with the maximum compensation recovered in a similar case, with reasons why in your case the amount should be less). As a result, the court will understand the limits of a “safe” decision (in terms of appeal) on the part of the defendant and, in any case, will take them into account.

As a result of all these actions, the following situation should arise:

• the real limits of the dispute are more or less clear based on judicial practice and the real expectations of the plaintiff and defendant;
• the prospects for a settlement agreement are clear (is it possible and under what conditions?).

If the parties are fundamentally ready for a settlement, then they will most likely come to an agreement. If this does not happen, then the work done by both parties (or at least one of them) will reduce the likelihood of the court making a decision that differs significantly from the established judicial practice.

Conclusion.

I would like to note that the court, although it does not participate in the negotiations, always closely monitors them and draws its conclusions. A party that unreasonably avoids participating in them, or puts forward obviously unacceptable demands, as a rule, sharply loses points in the eyes of the court, therefore, such tactics are disastrous for the evading party. But a lot really depends on the court’s opinion in such cases! Participants in the process, as a rule, intuitively understand this and try to avoid such behavior, therefore, as a rule, it is enough for one party to initiate negotiations, and they are likely to take place. The main thing is not to give up and consider different options.

The method presented in the publication was repeatedly tested by the author in cases of compensation for moral damage due to the death of loved ones or serious injuries as a result of an accident, and gave good results. After the end of the process, despite the difficult initial situation, as a rule, the parties come to a compromise, and the initially existing negative becomes much less acute. Not to mention the fact that the plaintiff receives, and the defendant pays, the amount of compensation that both parties consider fair (or at least acceptable).

[1] See, for example: SMART / SMARTER, Wikipedia. Retrieved 03/07/2020 from the link: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART

[2] We can take the liberty of asserting that goals that do not meet these criteria are generally anything but goals.

[3] See Official website of the RF Armed Forces. Retrieved 03/07/2020 from the link: https://www.supcourt.ru/files/24014/

[4] We fill out this section at the next stage.

[5] The list can be continued by including the item “cases considered by a higher court with a change in the amount of compensation, initially considered by this judge” (its “cancellation”), but the meaning already seems to be clear.

[6] We fill out this section at the next stage.

[7] R. Cialdini. Psychology of influence. 5th edition. St. Petersburg, “Peter”, 2014, p. 63

[8] R. Harris. “School of Advocacy”, Chapter X “On the charge in court”, received 03/08/2020 from the link https://royallib.com/read/garris_rihard/shkola_advokaturi_rukovodstvo_k_vedeniyu_gragdanskih_i_ugolovnih_del.html#662071

[9] What has been said, of course, should not be understood as advice to neglect traditional legal work in the process: it is implied by itself and cannot be abandoned. Another thing is that it is absolutely not enough in this category of cases.

[10] We are not considering cases where there is a dispute about the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damage in principle, since they are not related to the subject of the publication and will only complicate its perception.

[11] Need I say that dumping the entire practice “over the hill” is unprofessional? Naturally, there is no need to present the most unfavorable solutions; let your opponent look for them - we have an adversarial process, after all!

Grounds for refusal of a claim

Courts do not always satisfy the plaintiff’s demand for compensation for moral damage caused. A number of the following reasons may be to blame.

1. Insufficient documents attached to the claim (some checks or other payment documents confirming the amount of property damage are missing).
2. Unreliability of evidence in general (for example, the testimony of witnesses does not fully confirm the suffering of the victim or a video recording with a missing date and time was presented).
3. The court's suspicion is that the plaintiff decided to enrich himself at the expense of the defendant, indicating a disproportionate amount of moral damage to the amount of damage to health.

If the court makes a decision not in favor of the victim, all expenses incurred by the defendant (that is, the guilty person) will be borne by the plaintiff.

Therefore, when filing a claim for compensation for moral damage, it is important to carefully prepare for the court hearing , clearly substantiate your legal position and present all documents proving it. Or seek help from a lawyer who, in a short time, will collect all the necessary information and go to trial.

Documentation

In addition to the passport and the claim, the standard package of papers for the court includes the following documents:

• an examination report indicating the severity of the injuries (required with the signature of a physician and the date of the examination);
• receipts for payment for medical services or medicines;
• a certificate from the place of employment indicating the amount of lost income due to being on sick leave.

You should also worry about paying off the duty fee. For a non-property claim, the fee is 300 rubles.

Cases involving the payment of compensation for moral damages in cases of minor bodily harm often end in favor of the plaintiffs, especially if the latter competently argue their own claims. However, most often the amount of recovery turns out to be several times lower than what the victim initially claimed. Therefore, interested parties are advised to prepare for the hearing not on their own, but with the help of a lawyer. A competent lawyer will help you correctly state the requirements, provide wording and links to regulations.