Key takeaways

The Federal Circuit Court has raised the bar for proving moral damages tied to permanent disruption of a life plan. While the standard seeks objectivity, the Supreme Court has ruled that quantifying moral damages cannot rely on a fixed formula.

Companies facing either potential or actual moral damages liability now should:

• Leverage Expert Analysis: Engage specialists to assess and quantify life plan alterations, as courts provide no objective model. Expert reports are critical to support or challenge claims.
• Strengthen Evidence Strategy: Plaintiffs must present clear documentary and testimonial proof of the life plan, steps taken, and how the illicit act caused its disruption. Defendants should focus on questioning the feasibility and realism of the alleged plan.
• Preventive Risk Management: Businesses should review internal compliance and risk protocols to minimize exposure to claims alleging life plan disruption, especially in sectors with high physical risk (e.g., manufacturing, energy or transportation).
• Implement Robust Internal Protocols: Companies should adopt clear policies for handling civil liability claims. Demonstrating diligence through documented procedures can help mitigate allegations of negligence and reduce exposure to punitive damages.

In depth

A recent judgment by Federal Circuit Court in Mexico has set a clear evidentiary standard for moral damages claims involving permanent disruption of an individual’s life plan due to civil extracontractual liability. The Court held that such claims are admissible only if the claimant demonstrates (i) the existence of a concrete and achievable life plan, (ii) the active steps taken toward its realization, and (iii) how those efforts were permanently altered by the unlawful act.

In the case that prompted this ruling, the claimant — who suffered amputation of all limbs — argued that their life project was irreparably affected. The Court clarified that damages to a life plan cannot be assessed solely on the harm caused, but that the analysis must consider the individual’s vocation, aptitudes, circumstances, potential, and aspirations that shape realistic expectations for their future. Future projections cannot be evaluated in isolation but must be grounded in the claimant’s actual trajectory and tangible progress.

This approach aligns with criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which views harm to a life plan as an infringement on personal autonomy and development. Consequently, claimants must provide sufficient evidence — documentary and testimonial — that the life plan was concrete, viable, and supported by visible elements.

This precedent marks a significant shift from prior rulings. By introducing an objective framework, the Federal Circuit Court moves toward a more substantive, concrete and fact-based assessment of moral damages, requiring courts to rely on demonstrable elements rather than abstract assumptions.

Camila Curiel, Law Clerk, has contributed to this legal update.