THE SUPREME COURT HAS SORTED OUT THE CASE OF INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER OF COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGE

Violations of the organization's labor protection rules led to the death of a service manager at work. Shortly after the accident, his son was born. Subsequently, the organization was declared bankrupt. The wife of the deceased appealed to the court with a request to include in the register an amount of 1,000,000 rubles as compensation for moral damage to their minor son (case no. A40-242751/2020).

In the first instance, the court refused to satisfy the claims, pointing out that the issue of recovery of moral damage should be considered in the SOY outside the framework of the bankruptcy case. The Court of Appeal did not agree with this position, noting that the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff can be established in the course of the bankruptcy case, but, nevertheless, left the ruling in force. As an argument, the appellate instance referred to the minor's lack of deep attachment to his father and awareness of the loss of a close relative, since he was born after an accident, which, according to the court, indicates the impossibility of the minor having physical or moral suffering. The cassation supported this position.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for review. In its decision, the Economic Board pointed out that causing moral harm to a child as a result of the death of the father is presumed even if the child was still in the womb at the time of death. Therefore, the refusal of the lower courts to satisfy the claims solely on the basis of the absence of moral harm to a minor was considered unacceptable by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The court, considering the case again, will not only have to take into account the position of the highest instance, but also determine the size and order of satisfaction of the claimed claim, as well as evaluate the arguments of the bankruptcy trustee, who pointed to the statute of limitations missed by the plaintiff.

Photo by Freepik