Poland’s Supreme Court has ruled that the extent of suffering, its intensity, duration, and irreversibility are key factors in determining compensation under Article 445 § 1 of the Civil Code.
Civil Code Provisions Regarding Damages
Article 444 of the Civil Code regulates non-pecuniary damages, while Article 445 KC outlines the possibility of obtaining monetary compensation for such damages.
Supreme Court Ruling on Compensation Amounts
The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling emphasizing that the degree of suffering, its intensity, duration, and the irreversibility of consequences are crucial when determining the amount of compensation awarded under Article 445 § 1 KC. The case involved a miner exposed to harmful working conditions who suffered bilateral hearing loss.
Key Factors in Assessing Suffering
The Supreme Court’s analysis of a decision dated February 24, 2026 (I PSK 310/26) highlighted the importance of assessing the extent of suffering, its intensity, duration, and the irreversibility of its consequences.
Individualized Assessment of Damages
The Supreme Court reiterated that the amount of compensation should be based on the individual extent of the injured party’s suffering, and that awards in similar cases should not be the sole basis for determining the appropriate amount.
Components of Non-Pecuniary Damage
The size of the compensation due is primarily determined by the extent of the harm suffered, encompassing physical and psychological pain, its intensity, duration, and potential irreversibility. Future prospects, loss of opportunity for a normal life, feelings of helplessness, and social inadequacy are also relevant factors, as is the age of the injured party.
Case Details: Miner’s Hearing Loss
The case concerned T.S., a long-term employee in machinery production for mining, who developed bilateral hearing loss due to prolonged exposure to excessive noise. He was assessed with a 30% disability and received a one-time payment from ZUS (Social Insurance Institution) of nearly 34,000 zł.
Legal Action and Initial Court Ruling
T.S. subsequently sued his former employer’s successor, seeking compensation, damages, and capitalized rent. He cited the worsening effects of his hearing loss and its impact on his quality of life. The Regional Court partially granted his claim, awarding 60,000 zł in compensation (instead of the requested 80,000 zł), over 2,700 zł in damages, and 100 zł per month in rent. The court found the defendant liable based on the principle of risk (Article 435 § 1 KC), despite the provision of training and personal protective equipment.
Appellate Court Decision
The District Court, reviewing the appeal, partially dismissed the claim regarding damages and rent. It ruled that the cost of a hearing aid and laryngological treatment should be covered by the ZUS compensation, and future treatment was available free of charge through the National Health Fund (NFZ). Appeals from both parties regarding the amount of compensation were rejected, with the court upholding the 60,000 zł award as adequate considering the plaintiff’s age, the degree and nature of the hearing loss, and the possibility of compensation with hearing aids.
Supreme Court Review of the Case
T.S. filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the 60,000 zł award was significantly too low and disproportionate to the harm suffered, especially in light of the current socio-economic situation. He also cited higher compensation awards in similar cases.
Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning
The Supreme Court refused to accept the cassation appeal. It reaffirmed that determining the amount of compensation is the responsibility of lower courts. The Court stated that the issue of amount had been thoroughly analyzed by the District Court, considering all relevant circumstances, including the plaintiff’s age, the degree of hearing loss, and the possibility of compensation, as well as the ZUS payment. The Supreme Court also clarified that the defendant should not be held liable for hearing deterioration resulting from the natural aging process of T.S., but only for the permanent damage related to the occupational disease (30% disability).
Comparison to Other Cases
Regarding T.S.’s argument about comparing the award to other cases, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that compensation amounts in other proceedings, even with similar facts, cannot be an additional criterion for determining compensation. While comparison can be used to assess whether an award is grossly excessive or insufficient, it must be consistent with the principle of individualizing the harm. In T.S.’s case, the Supreme Court found no grounds to consider the awarded amount “grossly” inappropriate.
Compensatory Nature of Damages
The Supreme Court reiterated that compensation is primarily compensatory in nature, aiming to alleviate the feeling of harm and restore psychological balance through an appropriate sum of money. This amount should be economically significant but remain within reasonable limits and proportionate to the harm suffered and current socio-economic conditions.
Defining “Appropriate Sum”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the concept of an “appropriate sum” under Article 445 § 1 KC refers to a number of undefined criteria of an evaluative nature, dependent on the individual circumstances of the case. This means that determining the amount of compensation is the responsibility of the first and second instance courts. The Supreme Court can only intervene if the second instance court has grossly exceeded the limits of judicial discretion.
Summary of the Ruling
In conclusion, compensation awarded under Article 445 § 1 of the Civil Code is compensatory, serving to remedy non-pecuniary damage expressed as harm in the form of physical and psychological suffering. The size of the compensation should primarily be determined by the extent of the harm: the degree of physical and psychological suffering (its intensity, duration, and irreversibility of consequences). The inherent immeasurability of these circumstances gives the court some discretion in determining the size of the harm and, consequently, the amount of compensation. However, this discretion is not absolute and must be based on the totality of the circumstances of the case and consistent with the function of compensation and the standard of justice, requiring similar cases to be decided similarly whenever possible.
