VICTORIES
Students win court claims

Human rights: catalog of international documents

Moral damage - myth or reality???

Decision 1 Decision 2 Students' medicine for national disease
A chronology of buying a compartment ticketThe last days of the last students' center?Will the students'center be?
City executive committee and HBK agreedHBK and the city executive committee did not agreeThe city council and HBK agreed
The won "Dream"How I protected myself from OVIR (Department of visas and registrations) 
Moral damage - myth or reality???
Two contradicting court decisions about the same lawsuit

Case ¹2-1010-02

DECISION

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

           

On February 15, 2002 Kakhovka district court of Kherson region

Composed of the judge: Tarantsov S.P.

Secretary Kononets L.V.

Examined the lawsuit filed by Dubinska Raisa Mykoliavna to Tkachenko Nataliya Viktorivna.  Dubinska R.M. demands to reimburse material and moral damage caused by Tkachenko N.V.

The court determined:

Dubinska R.M. filed a lawsuit to reimburse moral and material damage cause by the dog of Tkachenko N.V. She motivates it with the fact that on February 15, 2001 during the daytime in the village Sergiivka of Kakhovka district a big dog attacked her and caused physical injuries. He dog belongs to the defendant. Due to physical injuries the plaintiff was hospitalized for the period between February 15, 2001 and April 9, 2002. The plaintiff demands reimbursement for the damaged cloths UAH 130 and medicine in the amount of UAH 300, plus moral damage that she evaluates in the amount of AUH 1000.

In court the defendant disagreed with the demands. She said that the dog was leashed and by no means she could have predicted that the dog would break the leash and attack pedestrians.  

The lawsuit must be fully satisfied.

According to articles 440 of Civicl codex of Ukraine the damage caused to a person must be reimbursed by the person who provocated the damage.

According to article 440-1 of Civil Codex of Ukraine, moral (non-material) damage caused to a person must be reimbursed by the person who provocated the damage.

The argument that the defendant could not have predicted that the dog would break the leash is not taken into consideration, because the defendant herself explained that she bought the leash without any knowledge about the loading that this leash can handle.

Considering physical and moral sufferings of the plaintiff that court thinks that moral damage must be fully satisfied.

Therefore, the defendant must reimburse UAH 430 of material damage and UAH 1000 of moral damage.

According to articles 440, 440-1 of Civil Codex of Ukraine and article 15, 15-1, 30 and 62 of Civil-Procedural Codex the court concluded:

Tkachenko Nataliya Viktorivna must reimburse Dubinska Raisa Mykolaivna

UAH 430 of material damage

UAH 1000 moral damage

Total of UAH 1430.

The appellation can be sent to Kherson appellation court through Kakhovka district court within one month.