Abstract
Compared to the previous legislation, the Civil Code introduced a new category of nonpecuniary damage. In the event of personal injury, the wrongdoer is now obliged to compensate for the so-called other non-pecuniary damage in addition to pain and impairment of social life.
However, the Civil Code does not define this concept in detail. The distinction between pain, impairment of social life and other non-pecuniary damage is crucial with regard to the separate and independent nature of the individual claims arising from the above-mentioned non-pecuniary damage.
This article deals with the meaning and content of the concept of other non-pecuniary damage and the distinction between this new category of non-pecuniary damage and pain. The author draws mainly on recent case law and responds to Mališ's controversy with the Supreme Court's interpretation.