Article II. On Goods of the Body

Goods of the body are injured through homicide and mutilation. But damages that will follow from these can be distinguished into spiritual, corporal, and temporal damages. Each must be discussed.

I. Spiritual damages consist in this: that the one killed is deprived of the last sacraments, of time for meriting, etc. Moreover, they must be restored only if both the damage that followed is certain and the damage can truly be compensated; for example, if the killer prevented Masses from being celebrated which the one killed certainly would have taken care to have celebrated for his soul.

II. Corporal damages consist in deprivation of life, of a member, of health, and in the endurance of pain. There is no obligation of restoring these through goods of fortune (n. 980). Nevertheless, there is an obligation, not indeed by way of restitution for the lost member, but for the expenses that followed from it, of assigning goods of fortune to the injured person insofar as he wishes to substitute an artificial member for the member taken away.

III. Temporal damages are distinguished into damages inflicted on the injured person himself and damages inflicted on third parties.

1. Damages inflicted on the injured person himself consist in the expenses of treatment, yet with those things deducted which he, if healthy, would have had to spend on food; likewise in emergent damage or ceasing profit for the time in which the injured person still lived and had to cease from labor. Restitution must be made according to the valuation of the hope of obtaining the goods, and indeed to the injured person himself or, if he has died, to his heirs. But if the killer does not restore these things, his heirs are held to restitution, unless the injured person has condoned them. "When remission of the injury has been made, remission of the damages is not understood to have been made" (St. Alphonsus, III, 630, 631).

Question 1. Whether something can be deducted from restitution of ceasing profit for the labor which the injured person would have had to spend in order to obtain the profit.

Response. Some affirm it; others seem rightly to deny it, for by his unjust action the killer caused the deprivation of the whole profit; hence he is also held to restore the whole profit. Yet in practice "Bonacina reasonably reconciles the opinions, saying that only that should be subtracted which the one killed is presumed to have been willing to give for the redemption of the labor" (St. Alphonsus, III, 639).

Question 2. Whether the heirs of the killer are freed from the obligation of restoring if the killer is punished with death.

Response. It seems this must be denied, because the penalty is judged to have been imposed only to satisfy vindicative justice, not commutative justice. Nevertheless, the heirs are excused from restitution if compensation for damages is not sought, because then the parties are presumed to condone, unless the thing still existed, or unless the damage was very grave (St. Alphonsus, III, 705).

2. Damages inflicted on third parties can chiefly regard the family, that is, parents, wife, and children; other blood-relatives; those to whom the one killed was doing good; and the creditors of the one killed. Now:

a) Damages inflicted on the family consist in deprivation of the support which the one killed was procuring for it, and likewise of the profit which he would still have procured for it. By the consent of all, these must be restored. The reason is deduced from the fact that the killer injured not merely a physical person, but, as it were, a moral person; a moral person, I say, which the others constituted with the person killed. Hence restitution is to be made to them (St. Alphonsus, III, 631). Nevertheless, "nothing is restored for funeral expenses, because those eventually would have had to be made at some time; unless perhaps, on the occasion of the death inflicted, for example outside the homeland, it was necessary for greater expenses to be made" (St. Alphonsus, III, 631). For the rest, restitution again must be made according to the valuation of the hope of obtaining those goods (St. Alphonsus, III, 631, question 2). A right norm will be the one which insurance societies follow on the occasion of an adverse event.

Question 1. Whether restitution is to be made to the family if it can conveniently provide for itself.

Response. Affirmatively; since the fact that the family can provide for itself does not prevent its right from having been injured; but from an injured right there arises the obligation of restoring. Yet the killer is not held to restore if the family receives from another what it would have received from the injured person, for example, "if the wife (and the same would have to be said of children and parents) afterward has married equally conveniently, nothing is to be restored to her; because then in reality she does not suffer damage" (St. Alphonsus, III, 631, question 1).

Question 2. Whether the injured person can remit the restitution owed to the family.

Response. Many deny it, because no one can remit restitution owed to another; but with St. Alphonsus and others it seems this must be affirmed, because the right of the family is entirely subordinated to the right of the father. Hence just as the father can validly transfer goods into another's ownership, so too he can validly remit restitution for them. But here again note: "When remission of the injury has been made, remission of the damages is not understood to have been made" (St. Alphonsus, III, 630).

b) Damages inflicted on other blood-relatives do not have to be restored: neither by reason of the good from the obtaining of which he impeded them, because they did not have a strict right to it; nor by reason of the means employed, since it would be unjust only with respect to the one killed. For the same reason the same must be said about the poor to whom the one killed was doing good, and about others who would have received certain things from the testament (St. Alphonsus, III, 632).

c) Damages inflicted on creditors likewise do not seem to have to be restored. It is indeed true that they are impeded, as we suppose, from obtaining a good in which they had a strict right; but they are not impeded by the killer, but by the heirs or by the law exempting the heirs, while the killer is only an occasional cause (St. Alphonsus, III, 634).

Nevertheless, St. Alphonsus and others judge that the enumerated damages must be restored if the killer acted with the intention of harming the enumerated persons (n. 996).

Corollary I. He who provokes another to a duel and kills or wounds the provoked man, who freely accepts the contest, is not held to restitution, neither toward the injured person, because he consented to the damage in fortune that would follow, nor toward the family, because the injured person, from whom the family would have received goods, by his own consent prevented him from acting unjustly toward it, since it had only a consequent right in the goods (St. Alphonsus, III, 638).

Corollary II. The one attacked, who deliberately exceeded the measure of blameless defense, seems to be held to restitution for the damages that followed from the excess, because the excess was truly unjust (St. Alphonsus, III, 637).

Objection. The attacker knowingly and willingly exposed himself to the danger that the one attacked would exceed the measure of blameless defense; but no injury is done to one who knows and wills.

Response. He who knowingly and willingly exposes himself to the danger that his right be injured is not therefore judged to yield his right.

Corollary III. What has been said about damages following from homicide is also to be applied to damages arising from wounding and other injuries of the body.