Parents as ‘Secondary Victims’ in Case of Injury to a Child

Only the injured person is traditionally considered a victim. It is he or she who is entitled by law to claim compensation for lost income, additional expenses for medical treatment and other care. However, in practice, many parents of disabled children, instead of seeking professional services from third parties (psychologists, carers, etc.), themselves provide daily care necessary for the child, after which they turn to the tortfeasor with a claim for compensation for lost income. The article analyses the approaches of Russian and foreign courts to the resolution of such claims, as well as examples of direct legal regulation of issues related to the payment of gratuitous care provided by relatives and friends. It is concluded that under certain conditions the parents of an injured child are entitled to claim compensation for lost income: the need for daily childcare limits the parent’s ability to work; the defendant has not proved that it is possible to provide the child with the necessary care for less than the parent’s lost income, etc. The standard of proof for involuntary termination of employment should not be too high; it is sufficient that the parent’s decision meets the requirements of reasonableness and good faith. De lege lata the parents’ claim may be satisfied with reference to the provisions of Article 15, Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code on full compensation and Article 1081 on recourse, or the provisions of Article 1102 on recovery of unjust enrichment. De lege ferenda it is advisable to expand the concept of legally relevant damage in the case of personal injury, indicating the indemnification of persons providing necessary care to the injured person on a gratuitous basis and the possibility of calculating the amount of indemnity through their lost income.

disability, legally relevant damage, gratuitous care, lost income, family relationship, secondary victim