Restitutio ad Integrum

Thomas Sim PEA2066

Q.
What is 'restitutio ad integrum'? How does it apply to tort law?

A.
Restitutio ad Integrum is explained as:

Restitutio ad integrum is a Latin term which means restoration to original condition. It is one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding of damages in common law negligence claims. The general rule, as the principle implies, is that the amount of compensation awarded should put the successful plaintiff in the position he or she would have been had the tortious action not been committed. Thus the plaintiff should clearly be awarded damages for direct expenses such as medical bills and property repairs and the loss of future earnings attributable to the injury (which often involves difficult speculation about the future career and promotion prospects).

Although monetary compensation cannot be directly equated with physical deprivation it is generally accepted that compensation should also be awarded for loss of amenities, reflecting the decrease in expected standard of living due to any injury suffered and pain and suffering. Damages awards in these categories are justified by the restitutio principle as monetary compensation provides the most practicable way of redressing the deprivation caused by physical injury.

In tort, damage is ascertain from negligence from duty of care, causation and breach. If there is a tortious claim, and there being damage ascertained, the purpose of the compensation is to restore the claimant to its original state. However, if the tort case is bodily harm, it would be impossible to restore the lost of arm or body parts. Thus, the restitution would be in financial compensation.
On the other hand, if the tortious claim is property damage. Likely, the restitution can be done. The restoration is to make good the damage and if economic lost is sustained, pay up the fine or penalty.
However, a broken crystal may not be restored to its original stage. Hence, tortious claim on property may still not able to be restored.

The principle of restitutio ad integrum, being used in contract law is almost similar. However, as contracts can be voidable when one party is found to have questionable doubt as to free consent. This can render the contract voidable. That a voidable contract, can be avoided by the disadvantaged party at his option.

That is, the party at fault have to restore the damage to its original state. However, if it is impossible to restore, as in the case of Bar to Rescission, the contract is breach and cannot be remedied. There is no avenue to go back to the original state, thus the contract is NOT voidable, but breached.

A case law on this was Enlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate where phosphate mine was excavated for phosphate ore, and thus cannot be restored back to its original state. So, the contract cannot be voidable.
Ref:
Own account.