Abstract
Historical development of the Czech case law has led to a paradox: damages can be awarded for emotional distress but not for a psychiatric illness of the secondary victims. The new Czech Civil Code, in general, shows greater generosity towards secondary victims as courts may now award damages not only for causing death but also for causing serious injury to the primary victim and it is now also permissible to award damages for emotional distress in case of harm to the property or animals (!).
This may provide a basis for a future re-evaluation of the previous case law which can be considered obsolete and unjust. The problem of the secondary (reflective) damages is also important from the human rights perspective as it provides an important private law means of protection of the right to life.
In this article, the problem is discussed on the basis of a comparison with German, Austrian, French, and English law as well as a theoretical analysis of the concept of secondary (reflective) damage.