CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

PETR ŠUSTEK CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ The legislator intended to prevent the proverbial flood of claims by establishing the condition of special circumstances under which the damage was inflicted. The list of such circumstances is only demonstrative and all of the defined conditions (breaching an important legal duty due to gross negligence, and causing harm intentionally out of a desire to destroy, hurt or out of other especially reprehensible motives) may be difficult to interpret 32 . According to some authors, the claim under Section 2971, unlike Section 2959, would not be granted if the secondary victim had not directly witnessed the harmful event 33 . Furthermore, it may be argued that given the nature of special circumstances on the side of the tortfeasor, Section 2971 has an openly punitive and preventive function. It is rather a controversial novelty, 34 but it is not the purpose of this article to analyse the provision from the perspective of the aims of tort law. Instead, we should note that the scope of potential claimants is not limited to family members or persons in otherwise formally defined relationships. However, the legitimacy of the secondary victim’s perception of primary harm as a personal misfortune must be based on certain objectifiable criteria. For this reason, a relationship of sufficient intensity is required between the secondary and the primary victim. This quality of relationship must be proven even between family members (even though in cases of causing death or particularly serious bodily harm, the secondary victim will primarily claim under Section 2959 of the CC). On the other hand, it would generally not be considered legitimate to grant reflective damage to someone who feels with a stranger. The exception might be the cases of timely or special proximity to the harmful event (including perceiving the traumatizing event with her own senses). 35 In any case, the test of an optimal observer 36 should be applied, basing the legitimacy of the secondary victim’s claims on the doctrine of adequate causation 37 . Občanský zákoník VI. Závazkové právo. Zvláštní část (§ 2055-3014). Komentář [Civil Code VI. The Law of Obligations. Special Part (Sections 2055-3014). The Commentary]. C. H. Beck, Praha 2014, p. 1753. We should mention that there exists an opinion in literature according to which others than close persons have no right to compensation for “mere” emotional suffering, not even under Section 2971. See DOLEŽAL, Tomáš, MELZER, Filip. Komentář k § 2959. [Commentary to Section 2959]. In MELZER, Filip, TÉGL, Petr (eds.) Občanský zákoník – velký komentář. Svazek IX. § 2894-3081. [Civil Code – the Great Commentary. Book IX. Sections 2894-3081.] Leges, Praha 2018, p. 1034. 32 See for example ibid., p. 1754, MELZER, Filip. Komentář k § 2971. [Commentary to Section 2971]. In MELZER, Filip, TÉGL, Petr (eds.) Občanský zákoník – velký komentář. Svazek IX. § 2894-3081. [Civil Code – the Great Commentary. Book IX. Sections 2894-3081.] Leges, Praha 2018, pp. 1098-1102, and PÚRY, František. Komentář k § 54. [Commentary to Section 54]. In ŠÁMAL, Jaroslav (eds.). Trestní zákoník I. § 1 až 139. Komentář. [Criminal Code I. Sections 1 to 139. The Commentary.] C. H. Beck, Praha 2012, p. 740. 33 See BEZOUŠKA, Petr. Komentář k § 2971. [Commentary to Section 2971]. In HULMÁK, Milan (eds.). Občanský zákoník VI. Závazkové právo. Zvláštní část (§ 2055-3014). Komentář [Civil Code VI. The Law of Obligations. Special Part (Sections 2055-3014). The Commentary]. C. H. Beck, Praha 2014, p. 1755. 34 For a critical analysis of punitive function in continental tort law, see for example KOZIOL, Helmut. Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Germanic Perspective. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien 2012, pp. 83-84. 35 See BEZOUŠKA, Petr. Komentář k § 2971. [Commentary to Section 2971]. In HULMÁK, Milan (eds.). Občanský zákoník VI. Závazkové právo. Zvláštní část (§ 2055-3014). Komentář [Civil Code VI. The Law of Obligations. Special Part (Sections 2055-3014). The Commentary]. C. H. Beck, Praha 2014, p. 1755. 36 The optimal observer is a hypothetical person who accumulates all the objective experience of her time. See the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 1 st November 2007, I. ÚS 312/05. 37 According to the theory of adequacy, the causation is established only when the damage is a foreseeable (adequate) consequence of the tortfeasor’s behaviour. Cf. for example KOZIOL, Helmut. Natural and Legal Causation. In TICHÝ, Luboš (eds.). Causation in Law. Eva Rozkotová – IFEC, Beroun 2007, p. 63.

328