The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
59
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
59-63
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue04-11
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
28 February 2025
ACCEPTED
24 March 2025
PUBLISHED
28 April 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue04 2025
CITATION
Iskenderov Polat Kоnisbaevich. (2025). Some issues of compensation for
moral damage caused by vehicles. The American Journal of Political
Science Law and Criminology, 7(04), 59
–
63.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue04-11
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Some issues of
compensation for moral
damage caused by
vehicles
Iskenderov Polat Kоnisbaevich
Doctoral student of Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh,
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article addresses the complex issues
surrounding compensation for moral damages resulting
from vehicular incidents. It explores the legal definitions
of moral damage and the challenges in quantifying such
damages in the context of traffic accidents. The article
examines various case law examples and legal
frameworks that govern moral compensation,
highlighting the criteria used to establish liability and
the role of emotional distress in these cases.
Additionally, it discusses the perspectives of victims,
legal practitioners, and insurance companies on moral
damages, aiming to shed light on the need for clearer
regulations and fair compensation mechanisms.
Through a comprehensive analysis, this article
contributes to the ongoing discourse on the intersection
of law, ethics, and social justice in relation to road traffic
incidents.
Keywords:
Moral damage, vehicular incidents, civil
liability, vehicle damage, negligence, legal framework,
traffic accidents, insurance, victim perspectives.
Introduction:
Compensation for moral damage is
considered to be a rather controversial, difficult to
define legal institution for the protection and defense of
civil rights and legitimate interests, which gives rise to
various interpretations. Therefore, no matter how much
research is conducted on the issue of compensation for
moral damage, no matter how much scientific and
practical research is conducted, they cannot be enough.
The solution to this issue, ensuring a uniform approach
to compensation for moral damage will always be the
subject of scientific discussions. This is due to the fact
that moral damage occurs as a result of the violation of
personal non-property rights and intangible benefits of
a citizen and it cannot be determined in units of
measurement or determined in physical quantities. In
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
60
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
addition, the fact that the mental experiences, inner
world and spirituality of each person are not the same
and cannot be adjusted to the same comb also
indicates the impossibility of accurately proving the
amount of moral damage either by the defendant, the
plaintiff, or the court applying the law. But in any case,
science, in particular law, including civil law, must
develop measures and mechanisms to counteract this
negative impact, capable of infringing on the rights and
interests of citizens, and to some extent influence such
offenses through civil liability. Since moral damage is
the destruction of intangible assets that cannot be
seen with the naked eye and measured by any criteria,
it must serve as a consolation for the citizen's mental
state, his spiritual and moral suffering, his physical
pain. At the same time, as one of the main methods of
civil law, compensation for moral damage in monetary
form is determined as the main factor, based on the
fact that liability is of a property nature.
Damage caused by vehicles is not only material, but
also immaterial, i.e. moral. After all, moral damage is
expressed in mental anguish, losses and suffering of
the victim and is subject to compensation as a "means
of consolation" for him. Since "moral damage" in its
essence and nature does not correspond to the legal
definition of the concept of "harm" given in Part Two
of Article 14 of the Civil Code. In this norm, the concept
of "damage" consists in the return of the lost thing and
the restoration of the violated right to its future state.
In this case, "moral damage" does not perform the
function of restoring the violated right of the victim, on
the contrary, it acts as a certain "consolation" for the
victim, liability for the person who caused the harm.
The most terrible "consequence" for the victim of
damage caused by vehicles is damage to health.
Consequently, in this case, moral damage occurs in
connection with damage to health. Because, as O.
Okulov emphasizes, "in order to consider moral
damage as taking place, it is sufficient that one of its
components is either physical pain or moral suffering.
If they are present simultaneously, then this indicates
a high level of moral damage and serves as a basis for
increasing the level of responsibility" [1]. According to
a number of experts, "the essence of moral harm is
that the actions of the perpetrator must be reflected in
the consciousness of the victim and cause a certain
psychological reaction. In this case, the interests
protected by law and negative changes in the human
psyche take the form of physical suffering or moral
suffering [2].
In our opinion, compensation for moral damage, in
particular liability for damage caused by vehicles, is an
instrument aimed at paying the victim a certain
amount of monetary compensation. In this case, it is
more difficult to determine the suffering, mental
anguish or pain experienced by the victim, but it is
possible to form a medical opinion based on the amount
of physical damage and pain and determine the degree
of harm to health. In addition, when harm is caused to
the life and health of a citizen by vehicles, there are
injuries, damages or direct deterioration of health, and
it is in this situation that compensation for moral
damage may be required. International legal documents
establish the amount of compensation paid for
accidents with vehicles that resulted in the death of a
citizen. For example, Articles 17 and 21 of the
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating
to the International Carriage of Goods by Air (Montreal
Convention) of 28 May 1999 provide for compensation
for damage caused in an amount not exceeding 100,000
special credit rights for each passenger.
French legislation and judicial practice do not limit
personal non-property rights and benefits to a specific
list and in most cases allow compensation for moral
damage. At the same time, judicial practice has
developed a fairly detailed system of types of moral
damage subject to compensation. In France, a
distinction is made between moral damage in the strict
sense of the word, that is, damage that occurs when a
person’s non
-property rights are violated, such as name,
image, right to privacy, and moral (non-property)
damage that may occur when a person’s life and health
are encroached upon [3].
Moral damage is currently widely used by courts as a
way to protect violated rights. However, the rules for
determining the amount of compensation for moral
damage have not been developed. Analyzing judicial
practice, it becomes obvious that there is no uniformity
in the approach to determining the amount of
compensation for moral damage. In this case, it is
proposed to solve the problem of determining the
amount of compensation, which in practice involves
resolving the dispute in a pre-trial manner and / or
creating an evidence base for legal proceedings, by
actually questioning the person who has suffered moral
damage; determine the degree of physical and mental
suffering associated with the individual characteristics
of the person who has suffered moral damage, the
degree of guilt of the offender and other significant
circumstances in order to formulate the most
reasonable explanations for the moral damage caused
to the victim; allows for the practical registration of the
results of this examination in the form of a
corresponding summary for use in court proceedings.
Practice shows that the court avoids examining the
issues of determining the circumstances that deserve to
be taken into account when determining the amount of
compensation for moral damage, based on the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
61
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
individual characteristics of the victim, and relies only
on the "category of the case" and the subjective
judgment of the judge. The lack of clear legislative
regulation leads to the fact that the connection
between the causes (i.e. circumstances that deserve to
be taken into account when determining the amount
of compensation for moral damage) and the
consequences (i.e. the amount of compensation for
moral damage) is characterized by randomness and
uncertainty.
A literal interpretation of the rules under consideration
gives grounds to believe that such an approach is not
always correct, since the degree of participation of
each subject in causing harm is not taken into account.
In addition, the vagueness of the concept of "gross
negligence" and the need to strengthen the content of
the concept under consideration are emphasized. In
this matter, the following should be noted:
Firstly, the use of this evaluative concept by the court
in determining the amount of compensation does not
indicate the ambiguity of its content, since the variety
of circumstances that make it possible to reduce the
amount of compensation or refuse it makes it
impossible to establish an exhaustive list of them in the
law, and the use of such an evaluative characteristic
pursues the goal of its effective application to an
unlimited number of existing legal situations.
According to paragraph 13 of the Resolution of the
Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Uzbekistan dated April 28, 2000, No. 7 "On Certain
Issues of the Application of Legislation on
Compensation for Moral Damage", "when determining
the amount of moral damage, the courts take into
account the subjective assessment by the victim of the
severity of the moral damage caused to him, as well as
objective data indicating the degree of moral and
physical suffering caused to the plaintiff, the
significance of the object of the encroachment for life,
its benefits (life, health, dignity, personal freedom,
inviolability of the home, valuable property, etc.), the
severity and consequences of the act (murder of close
relatives, causing bodily harm resulting in disability,
imprisonment, deprivation of work or housing, etc.),
the nature of false information defamatory of honor
and dignity and the scale (coverage) of its
dissemination,
living
conditions,
personal
characteristics of the victim (service, family,
household, financial situation, health status, age and
etc.), the degree of guilt of the person who caused the
harm and the victim, the financial status of the person
who caused the harm, and other circumstances worthy
of attention.
As a general rule, moral damage is compensated by the
person who caused the damage, if there is fault in this
by the person who caused the damage.
The most significant circumstance serving as the basis
for compensation for moral damage is the fault of the
person who committed the illegal action (inaction).
Thus, the law establishes that "non-property damage
may be compensated only in cases provided by law. If
compensation is required for bodily injury, harm to
health, freedom or sexual identity, then fair monetary
compensation for non-property damage may also be
demanded." Fairness of compensation usually means
proportionality of compensation taking into account all
the circumstances of the case [4].
The literature emphasizes that in cases of non-property
damage, the "general right of the individual"
(allgemeine Persönlichkeitsrecht), which developed in
the 19th century, is violated. It can be defined as
follows: a comprehensive subjective right to respect and
improvement of the individual, a specific framework
right that the courts develop in individual cases [5].
French legislation and judicial practice do not limit
personal non-property rights and benefits to a specific
list and in most cases allow compensation for moral
damage. At the same time, judicial practice has
developed a fairly detailed system of types of moral
damage subject to compensation.
In common law countries, the primary remedy in tort
law is damages. In a tort claim, any payment to the
victim is referred to as such.
The primary form of damages is compensatory
damages.
They
are
divided
into
economic
(compensation for material damages) and non-
economic (compensation for moral damages) [6].
Compensation for moral damages corresponds to our
compensation for moral damages.
Compensatory damages are also divided into general
and special. General damages are damages that are so
specific to a certain type of offense that they do not
need to be specifically stated in the claim. Special
damages must be claimed separately. As we will see
later, general damages often coincide with non-
economic damages.
In addition to compensatory damages, there are also
nominal damages, which are small amounts awarded to
the plaintiff in order to establish the fact of violation of
his rights without the need to prove the amount of
compensatory damages.
Compensation for the wrongful gains of the offender is
sometimes called "damages", but such payments are
not usually considered as damages. It is considered an
independent remedy (restitution/accounting for
profits) and does not relate exclusively to tort law, but
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
62
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
concerns other areas of law, such as unjust enrichment
and equity. Accordingly, these are the grounds that
must be proven for this measure to be applied [7].
Moral damage is currently widely used by courts as a
way to protect violated rights. However, the rules for
determining the amount of compensation for moral
damage have not been developed. Analyzing judicial
practice, it becomes obvious that there is no
uniformity in the approach to determining the amount
of compensation for moral damage. In this case, it is
proposed to solve the problem of determining the
amount of compensation, which in practice involves
resolving the dispute in a pre-trial manner and / or
creating an evidence base for the trial by actually
questioning the person who suffered moral damage;
determine the degree of physical and mental suffering
associated with the individual characteristics of the
person who suffered moral harm, the degree of guilt of
the offender and other relevant circumstances in order
to formulate the most reasonable explanations of the
moral harm caused to the victim; allows for the
practical registration of the results of this examination
in the form of a corresponding summary for use in
court proceedings.
Practice shows that the court avoids examining the
issues of determining the circumstances that deserve
to be taken into account when determining the
amount of compensation for moral harm, based on the
individual characteristics of the victim, and relies only
on the "category of the case" and the subjective
judgment of the judge. The absence of clear legislative
regulation leads to the fact that the relationship
between the causes (i.e. the circumstances that
deserve to be taken into account when determining
the amount of compensation for moral harm) and the
consequences (i.e. the amount of compensation for
moral harm) is characterized by randomness and
uncertainty.
The most significant circumstance serving as the basis
for compensation for moral damage is the guilt of the
person who committed the illegal action (inaction).
If we pay attention to Article 100 of the Civil Code, we
can conclude that moral damage is compensated only
as a result of a violation of or encroachment on the
personal non-property rights (rights) of a citizen.
Therefore, the question of whether moral damage
caused by the violation of the property rights of a
citizen is subject to compensation is natural. In our
opinion, such damage is subject to compensation.
Since one of the objects of illegal actions or inactions
causing moral damage are the property rights of a
citizen, such as the inviolability of the home and the
right of ownership.
The possibility of compensation for moral damage
depends on its duration.
According to Article 149 of the Civil Code, the limitation
period is the period during which a citizen can protect
his violated right by filing a claim in court. The general
limitation period in accordance with Article 150 of this
Code is set at three years. Article 163 of the Civil Code
establishes claims to which the statute of limitations
does not apply, one of which is claims for the protection
of personal non-property rights and other non-material
benefits. Moral damage is caused by the violation of the
rights to personal property and other non-material
benefits of a citizen.
Thus, the statute of limitations does not apply to claims
for compensation for moral damage.
Naturally, along with material damage to the life and
health of a citizen, he will also suffer moral damage.
According to Article 1021 of the Civil Code, if the guilty
party is the person who caused moral damage, the
damage is subject to compensation by the person who
caused it. Moral damage is compensated regardless of
the guilt of the person who caused it, if the damage was
caused by a source of increased danger to the life and
health of the citizen. According to Article 1022, moral
damage is compensated in monetary form. The amount
of compensation for moral damage is determined by the
court taking into account the nature of the physical and
mental suffering caused to the victim, the actual
circumstances under which the moral damage was
caused, as well as the personality traits of the victim.
Moral damage is compensated regardless of the
property damage subject to compensation.
Civil legislation establishes liability for damage caused
by activities that pose an increased danger to others
(Article 999 of the Criminal Code). In this case, it does
not matter whether the owner of the source is guilty or
not. According to Article 999, legal entities and citizens
are obliged to compensate for damage if their activities
are associated with an increased danger. To avoid
compensation, they must prove that the situation was
caused either by the victim's own actions or by a natural
disaster.
Also, according to Article 1004 of the Civil Code, if the
victim has shown extreme carelessness, the court may
release him from partial or full compensation for
damage, but such a refusal is not allowed if the harm
was caused to the life or health of a citizen.
The legislation states that the owner of the risk source
is liable if the activity of the risk source itself caused
damage or if there was no gross negligence on the part
of the victim. In addition, according to Article 1006 of
the Civil Code, not only material but also moral damage
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
63
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
may be compensated for harm caused to the life or
health of a citizen. Article 1007 of the Civil Code
provides that the victim is also compensated for lost
income and additional expenses related to treatment,
such as the purchase of treatment, medicines,
prostheses and rehabilitation equipment. At the same
time, it is not specified whether the guilty party is at
fault for the compensation of damage.
In general, it is noted that legal norms are applied
differently and there are no specific criteria for
determining moral damage caused by a road traffic
accident. For this reason, some experts suggest
developing a special scale for bodily injuries, valid in
foreign countries, and determining the exact amount
of compensation. In our opinion, establishing such a
scale at the legislative level would not be useless.
REFERENCES
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
Фуқаролик
кодексига
шарҳлар.
3
-
жилд
//
https://www.osce.org/uz/uzbekistan/106233.
Имомов Н., Эгамбердиева Н., Ашурова Н. Зарар
етказишдан
келиб
чиқадиган
(деликт)
мажбуриятлар. Ўқув қўлланма.
-
Тошкент: ТДЮИ
нашриёти, 2012.
-
185 б.
Коныгин Д. В. Компенсация морального вреда за
причинение вреда жизни и здоровью // [Текст] В
сборнике:
Сравнительно
-
правовые
аспекты
правоотношений
гражданского
оборота
в
современном
мире
сборник
статей
Международной
научно
-
практической
конференции памяти профессора В. К. Пучинского.
Российский университет дружбы народов. 2018. —
С. 189–
196.
Краузе А. В. Компенсация морального вреда за
вред причиненный источником повышенной
опасности: анализ российского и германского
права// [Текст] В сборнике: Наука и образование на
современном этапе развития: опыт, проблемы и
пути их решения Материалы Международной
(заочной)
научно
-
практической
конференции.
Научное (непериодическое) электронное издание.
Под общей редакцией А. И. Вострецова. 2017. —
С.
328
–
333.
Пастухова
А.
Подход
немецкого
права
к
определению размера компенсации морального
вреда при посягательствах на жизнь и здоровье
человека // Вестник экономического правосудия
РФ. 2020. –
№ 3.
I. de S. & Wife v. W. de S. (1348), Year-Book, 22 Liber
Assisarum, folio 99, p. 60. Қаранг: I de S et Ux v. W de
S
//
OneLBriefs.
http://www.onelbriefs.com/cases/torts/ides_wdes.ht
m.
Воробьев, А.В. Институт компенсации морального
вреда в российском гражданском праве / А.В.
Воробьев. [Текст]
-
М.: Юридический центр Пресс,
2017. - 380 c.
