## Facts

- Ernesto Jinesta Lobo (plaintiff) sued Marino Calderón Chaves (defendant) seeking both pecuniary (material) damages and moral (non-pecuniary) damages after a car accident that damaged Lobo’s vehicle.
- The trial court awarded Lobo moral damages but denied Lobo’s other requested relief.
- The trial court based the moral-damages award on several asserted forms of non-economic harm:
  - Lobo’s frustration and grief upon seeing his new vehicle damaged.
  - Distress from having to drive the damaged vehicle while waiting for parts.
  - Disruption at work caused by spending business hours dealing with accident-related consequences.
  - Frustration and anxiety attributed to Chaves’s refusal to admit fault.
- On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court’s award of moral damages (rejecting that claim), but it permitted recovery on the pecuniary-damages claim.
- Lobo sought review in the Costa Rica Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court erred in denying moral damages.

## Issues

1. Whether moral (non-pecuniary) damages may be awarded for emotional distress, inconvenience, and workplace disruption tied to damage to a vehicle in a traffic accident.
2. Whether a defendant’s refusal to admit fault may be considered as a basis for (or a factor affecting) moral damages arising from the accident.

## Decision

- The Costa Rica Supreme Court addressed the dispute in Resolution No. 108 (Exped. No. 03-000200-0164-CI) in 2005, after Lobo challenged the appellate court’s denial of moral damages.
- Based on the publicly available secondary summary of the case, the specific Supreme Court disposition on the moral-damages claim (for example, whether it affirmed the denial or reinstated/modified the trial court’s award) is not stated.

## Legal Principles

- Costa Rican civil liability recognizes two broad categories of compensation: pecuniary damages (economic loss) and moral damages (non-economic harm such as emotional suffering).
- Where the primary harm is to property (here, vehicle damage), a moral-damages claim commonly turns on whether the plaintiff’s asserted distress rises above ordinary annoyance and inconvenience associated with repair, delay, and administrative burdens.
- A plaintiff may attempt to connect moral harm to the defendant’s conduct during and after the incident (including denial of fault), but courts may differ on whether such conduct supports moral damages and how it affects amount.
- In multi-level review, disagreement between trial and appellate courts may reflect different assessments of (a) what facts are legally sufficient to show non-economic harm and (b) what evidence supports quantifying moral damages separate from repair costs and other economic items.

## Conclusion

Ernesto Jinesta Lobo sued Marino Calderón Chaves for pecuniary and moral damages after an accident damaged Lobo’s vehicle; the trial court awarded moral damages for distress and disruption, the appellate court set aside that award while allowing pecuniary recovery, and Lobo sought Supreme Court review in Resolution No. 108 (Exped. No. 03-000200-0164-CI) to challenge the denial of moral damages, though the publicly available summary does not report the Supreme Court’s final disposition.


Ernesto Jinesta Lobo v. Marino Calderón Chaves, Res. No. 108, Exped. No. 03-000200-0164-CI (2005)