After being hit with a bag, the child became disabled — the parents of the 13-year-old boy must pay 1 million UAH in compensation
The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Second Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, upheld the decision to recover 1 million UAH in moral damages in favor of the child who suffered severe bodily injuries and became disabled after being hit by another child.
At the same time, the Cassation Civil Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, drawing attention to the appellate court’s error in applying substantive law. The Supreme Court amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that in this case it was necessary to apply not Article 1179 of the Civil Code of Ukraine concerning liability for damage caused by a minor, but Article 1178 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulates liability for damage caused by a young child.
Furthermore, the cassation court canceled the appellate court’s decision to admit a new medical report prepared after the first instance court’s ruling. However, the Supreme Court established that the appellate court did not actually base its decision on this document, so this procedural violation did not affect the correctness of the dispute resolution.
Case circumstances
The claim was filed by the mother on behalf of her minor son.
The basis was an incident that occurred at the end of August 2024 in Kyiv. According to case materials 755/1834/25, a 13-year-old boy, during a conflict over offensive messages, hit another teenager with a sports bag containing a mobile phone.
As a result of the blow, the victim suffered a severe closed traumatic brain injury, a depressed skull fracture, and brain damage. The child underwent a complex neurosurgical operation.
Afterwards, the boy underwent prolonged treatment and rehabilitation. He essentially relearned to walk, was transferred to individual learning, could not attend physical education classes, required constant care and regular rehabilitation. The injury resulted in the establishment of a disability.
The plaintiff requested to recover 1 million UAH in moral damages from the parents of the boy who caused the injury.
What the courts decided
The court of first instance denied the claim, considering that the plaintiff did not prove the claimed amount of moral damages.
The appellate court overturned this decision and recovered 1 million UAH in moral damages from the parents. The court reasoned that the injured child suffered extremely severe physical and psychological suffering, and the consequences of the injury would be lifelong. When determining the amount of compensation, the appellate court also took into account the Supreme Court’s practice in similar cases.
Position of the Supreme Court
The Cassation Civil Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion on the need to compensate moral damages in the amount of 1 million UAH but noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied substantive law norms.
The Supreme Court pointed out that at the time the damage was caused, the boy who inflicted it was 13 years old, i.e., a young child.
Therefore, the dispute had to be resolved according to the rules of Article 1178 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulates liability for damage caused by a young child. Instead, the appellate court mistakenly applied Article 1179 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which establishes liability for damage caused by a minor aged 14 to 18 years.
The Cassation Civil Court emphasized that to determine the proper legal norm and subject of civil liability, the decisive factor is the age of the person at the time the damage was caused, not at the time of the court’s consideration.
In view of this, the Supreme Court amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling but left its operative part on compensation unchanged.
Why the Supreme Court left the compensation unchanged
The cassation court agreed that the case materials confirm the exceptionally severe consequences of the injury.
The courts established that the victim suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, underwent surgery, became disabled, requires regular rehabilitation, has gait disorders, limited mobility, constant pain, cannot lead a normal lifestyle or fully study.
According to the Supreme Court, the circumstances established by the courts, together with the criteria for determining moral damages and established judicial practice, are sufficient to conclude the reasonableness of the appellate court’s determined compensation amount of 1 million UAH.
Psychological examination is not mandatory
Separately, the Cassation Civil Court rejected the cassation appeal’s argument that without a forensic psychological examination, moral damages cannot be compensated.
The court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber, according to which the amount of moral damages is determined by the court taking into account all circumstances of the case. A psychologist’s conclusion may be one of the pieces of evidence, but its absence alone does not exclude the possibility of recovering moral damages.
Procedural issue
At the same time, the Supreme Court recognized the appellate court’s decision to admit a medical report on the child’s disability, prepared after the first instance court’s ruling, as incorrect.
The Cassation Civil Court noted that appellate review should be conducted considering the circumstances and evidence that existed at the time of the first instance court’s decision. Therefore, the decision to admit this evidence was canceled.
However, the cassation court found that the appellate court did not actually rely on this medical report in its ruling but based its conclusions on other evidence examined by the first instance court. Therefore, canceling the decision to admit this evidence was not grounds for overturning the appellate court’s ruling on compensation recovery.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
