Abstract

The gloss refers to the Supreme Court’s resolution (III CZP 31/19), which states that pursuant to Article 444 § 1 of the Civil Code, an injured person who has suffered a bodily injury or health disorder may claim compensation for the costs of care provided to them free of charge by their relatives. The author of the gloss expresses his critical attitude towards the resolution, proving that the term 'cost' applied by the legislator in Article 444 § 1 must be interpreted as an expense. Therefore, if the victim has not paid any care expenses, he or she has not suffered damage and is not entitled to compensation. In addition, the obligation to take care of a family member who has suffered a bodily injury or health disorder results from the regulations of family law and is of the family law nature. Consequently, the care provided by a relative ought not to be considered as a benefit the value of which is taken into account while estimating the amount of damage.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call