How to reduce the amount of moral damage in an accident

How to reduce the amount of compensation for moral damage in an accident or not pay it at all

An accident on the road is an unpleasant event for any car owner. It’s good if everything happened without significant damage, the insurance company covered the damage and the parties have no claims against each other. But it happens that the result of an accident is harm to the life and health of another person. In such cases, the victim has the right to demand compensation not only for material, but also for moral damage. Is it possible to somehow reduce its size or not pay at all?

What affects the amount of compensation?

In order for a person to adequately assess his chances of reducing the amount of payments for moral damages, he must first of all understand the very mechanism of this penalty. You need to understand that no matter what astronomical amounts the injured party requests, ultimately the amount of compensation will be determined directly by the court, taking into account the severity of the damage caused. This means that a citizen has the opportunity to directly influence the verdict if the reasons and arguments he presented during the trial seem reasonable to the court.

The procedure here is as follows. The plaintiff himself names the initial figure at which he estimates his moral and physical suffering. Then, during the hearing, the court, after hearing all the arguments and evidence of both parties, will decide on the final amount of compensation. Consequently, the judge has the right to either reduce or increase (this happens much less frequently) the amount of compensation. Then, if the court's ruling does not suit either party, the plaintiff or defendant can appeal it.

Existing options for reducing payments

So, in order to reduce the amount of the monetary payment, it is necessary to prove to the court that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is completely inconsistent with the damage caused to the victim. In the case when we are talking about really big money, it would be appropriate to seek help from a qualified lawyer. He will analyze the established practice in similar cases in the region and in the specific court in which the trial is planned, find out all the circumstances of the case and, based on the information received, build a suitable defense option. As a rule, the main arguments for reducing the amount of moral compensation are:

• Lack of intelligible evidence that the plaintiff actually experienced moral and physical suffering;
• Misrepresentation of information by the plaintiff;
• The degree of guilt of the plaintiff and defendant;
• The defendant's difficult financial and living situation. For example: he himself was partially injured in an accident, is a pensioner with a low income, has dependent disabled family members (children, parents, etc.) and other circumstances of this kind. In the case where compensation is collected from a female person, the presence of pregnancy will also be such a reason.

For the sake of material gain, many citizens tend to significantly exaggerate the scale of harm caused to them. In such cases, they are usually unable to provide the court with convincing evidence to substantiate their position (certificates, checks, etc.). No less rarely, everything happens exactly the other way around - the victims argue their demands more than balanced and logically. But upon closer examination of the situation, it turns out that their testimony has little in common with reality, for example, a person tells how he was forced to go to a clinic for rehabilitation for a month, and even presents documents from there, but during the same period of time he was seen vacationing at a resort in another part of the world.

According to Art. 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, moral damage caused by a car (a source of increased danger) is compensated regardless of the fault of the harm-doer. Nevertheless, this factor is important when determining the amount of payment - no one will satisfy the inflated demands of the victim if it turns out that he neglected his safety (for example, he crossed the road in an unspecified place in the dark).

Is there a way to not pay at all?

In most situations, the defendant only has the opportunity to reduce the amount of compensation (since it is too late to dispute the fact of causing damage or has little prospect), but sometimes the filing of claims by the plaintiff, in principle, does not seem very legal. If a citizen does not agree with such requirements, then he can write his objection to the statement of claim, in which he must substantiate the reasons competently and in detail (with all the necessary documents attached). An example of an objection is available for download here.

In addition, auto lawyers advise always trying to resolve the conflict before trial through voluntary compensation of a certain amount as compensation for moral damage and securing this fact with a receipt (where it will be confirmed that the victim no longer has claims against the culprit of the incident). As practice shows, usually in such cases the victims are willing to engage in dialogue (unless we are talking about serious bodily injuries and deaths) and the amounts of payments here are much lower than they could subsequently be in court.

Conclusion

Thus, it is quite possible to reduce the amount of the claimed compensation for moral damage, but for this the defendant must have compelling reasons that can convince the court of leniency. In this case, the judge can independently reduce the amount of compensation if he considers the plaintiff’s demands unreasonable and unfounded. Complete removal of the responsibility of the person responsible for the accident to compensate for moral damage occurs extremely rarely.

Reducing the amount of moral damage

Posted on Tue 12/08/2015 - 11:09 by Guest (not verified)

Hello, please tell me if I can influence the reduction of the amount of moral damage ? I was involved in an accident, the court found me guilty, the victim received moderate damage and filed a lawsuit for compensation for moral and material damage.

Hello Vladimir!
General grounds for reducing the amount of moral damage include:
1) the form and degree of guilt of the victim;
2) the property status of the citizen who caused the harm;
3) the passage of a long period of time after the occurrence of harm under certain conditions;
4) the violator takes measures to voluntarily mitigate the consequences of the non-property damage caused before filing a claim in court.
Among the grounds that reduce the amount of compensation could be the form and degree of guilt of the victim.
According to the general rule (clause 1 of Article 404 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), if non-fulfillment (improper fulfillment) of an obligation occurred through the fault of both parties, or the creditor (victim) intentionally or negligently contributed to an increase in the amount of losses caused by non-fulfillment (improper fulfillment), or did not accept reasonable measures to reduce them, the amount of liability of the debtor is reduced by the court. In obligations resulting from causing harm, the reduction of liability of the causer (violator) can only be affected by the gross negligence of the victim in contributing to the occurrence or increase of harm (clause 2 of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). These rules also apply in cases where the debtor (the causer of harm), by virtue of law or contract, is liable for non-fulfillment (improper fulfillment) of an obligation, regardless of his guilt (clause 2 of article 404, part 2 of clause 2 of article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ).
We believe that the basis for reducing the amount of compensation is the property status of the citizen who caused the harm.
According to paragraph 3 of Art. 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court may reduce the amount of compensation for harm caused by a citizen by violation of absolute non-property rights, taking into account the property status of the causer, except in cases where the harm was caused by actions committed intentionally. The law does not precisely determine the extent of the property status of the perpetrator, but it can be assumed that before the harm was caused or as a result of its compensation it was or became difficult or extremely difficult for the perpetrator. If the need of the victim and the causer of harm is equal, the amount of compensation should not decrease. Another basis for reducing the amount of compensation is the passage of a long period of time after the occurrence of harm under certain conditions.
Non-property damage (mental and physical suffering) can be long-lasting, including both at the time of filing a claim and after a court decision (sorrows associated with the murder of a child, loss of vision, etc.). In some cases, this condition lasts for a limited period of time without consequences or repetitions (for example, the pain after unsuccessful dental treatment went away, the fear disappeared after the arrest of the blackmailer). Another basis that reduces the amount of compensation is the violator’s taking measures to voluntarily mitigate the consequences of the non-property damage caused before filing a claim in court.
If the offender has taken measures to mitigate the non-property damage caused, the court may qualify this as a basis for reducing the amount of compensation.
Thus, in a case of compensation for moral damage, the defendant has sufficient legal tools that can influence the amount of the amount recovered. I recommend that you seek the help of a lawyer in order to draft a response to the statement of claim or conduct a lawsuit, which will help minimize the amount of compensation for moral damage.