The Taichung branch of the Taiwan High Court rendered the 108-Su-Yi-20 Decision of May 15, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that compensation in the form of solatium should be preconditioned by emotional pain caused by moral right violation, and the parties’ identity, financial strengths and the extent of victimization should be considered in awarding an appropriate amount of compensation.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Defendant and the Plaintiff had feud between them. To teach the Plaintiff a lesson, the Defendant asked Individual A, a friend of the Plaintiff’s , to arrange a meeting with the Plaintiff in Hsinping Park on April 18, 2017. The Defendant went to the meeting with four to six people. The parties bickered due to differences in their opinions before the Defendant beat up the Plaintiff by hand, resulting in the Plaintiff’s injuries such as multiple contusions on the head and face and a 3-centimeter open wound on the pinna of the ear. The Plaintiff claimed damages from the Defendant out of the legal relationship of tort.
According to this Decision, the compensation in the form of solatium is preconditioned by emotional pain caused by moral right violation according to the gist of the 51-Tai-Shang-223 Decision of the Supreme Court and the standards for awarding a solatium are different from the calculation of property damage. However, an appropriate amount can still be awarded by considering the parties’ identity, financial strengths, the extent of victimization, and other circumstances.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that since the Plaintiff sustained considerable emotional pain as a result of the Defendant’s above behavior which caused the injuries, claims could certainly be asserted against the Defendant for a compensation for non-property damage. The Plaintiff is currently a high school student with neither party having any real estate. Considering factors such as the extent of the injuries caused by the Defendant, the emotional pain suffered by the Plaintiff and the parties’ identity, status and economic capabilities, the court believed that NT$80,000 would be sufficient for the solatium claimed by the Plaintiff, and any portion above that would be excessive and should not be allowed.