The moral prejudice by “back bounce
AbstractThe admission of this principle was for long a controversial aspect in the Romanian and French doctrine that didn’t accept the recovery for this prejudice. It was accepted only the recovery from the prejudice suffered by the direct victim, because the acceptance of the recovery from the moral prejudice by back bounce was regarded as being against morals and against the principle that the prejudice must be fully recovered and only one time. Accordingly only the direct victim could get compensation for the suffered prejudice, the indirect victims being regarded as persons that are trying to abuse the legal system for getting undeserving benefits, as well as immoral because they use someone else’s suffering.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Petru Maior University, Faculty of Economics Law and Administrative Sciences and Pro Iure Foundation in its journal Curentul Juridic, The Juridical Current.
Volume (Year): 20-21 (2005)
Issue (Month): (June)
Prejudice; Moral; Back Bounce; Compensation;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bogdan Voaidas).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.