Reducing the principle of full compensation may be due to the will of the parties, the it can go in two directions: limit the scope of the injury which required a fix and reduce the amount of compensation. You can also extend the size of the liability over the range specified in the provisions of the Civil Code. All such contractual clauses are evaluated in terms of compliance with the law and the principles of social coexistence.
Judicial restraint compensation
In the relationship between natural range of paying for the damage can be limited according to the circumstances where, because of the financial status of the victim or the person responsible for the damage require the restriction of propriety.
This restriction has the obligation to make reparation to the liability in tort and should not be extended to other cases of liability.
Types of compensation
Compensation shall be at the option of the victim:
* Or by restitution (restitution natural)
* Or by the payment of an appropriate sum of money (monetary restitution).
If restitution was not possible (eg the destruction of things) or entail undue hardship for the debtor or the cost, claim the victim is limited to monetary damages.
The burden of proof as to the existence and amount of the damage
As a general rule, the burden of proof, the burden of proof and the existence of damage rests with the victims. If, however, the compensation for the damage the court finds that the strict proof of claim is impossible or extremely difficult, perhaps in the judgment to award the appropriate amount according to his assessment based on consideration of all the circumstances of the case. Recognition judges can not relate to the fact of damage, which should be proven by the injured party in general terms.
EXAMPLE
As a result of a traffic accident caused by Wojciech B. destroyed his van. He was forced to rent a replacement vehicle until the payment of compensation by the company, in which the car was insured. After a month, the company has paid the claimant the 7980 zł, and then reported that the cost of renting the vehicle will be settled after submission of relevant evidence. The plaintiff paid the hire car 12 985 zł and 9310 zł. The court held that both the sum and the amount of 901.64 zł for car wreck residue was obliged to cover the insurance company on the basis of Art. 822 Civil Code in connection with art. 361 Civil Code On an appeal by Wojciech B. B. District Court issued a judgment in which decreased the amount awarded to 901.64 zł, dismissing the claim and the appeal of the remainder. Wojciech B. appealed the ruling. Supreme Court held that damages should restore the property casualty situation affected causing event, it can not, however, exceed the amount of actual loss. The loss of the thing due to the destruction of property damage. If the victim has incurred expenditure necessary to rent a replacement vehicle, then they fall within the limits of the effects of countervailable claims ratio. Supreme Court overruled the decision in rejecting the claim for payment of 22 295 zł (Supreme Court judgment of September 8, 2004, Ref. Act IV CK 672/03).
