The Burden of Proof for Moral Damages in Medical Tort: Challenges in Georgian Civil Law

Abstract

This article examines the burden of proof for moral damages in medical tort cases under Georgian civil law within the broader context of post-Soviet legal transformation. The evolution of medical liability, the strengthening of patient rights, and the expanding role of courts reflect the modernization of legal and medical professions in Georgia. The burden of proving moral damages remains one of the most complex issues in legal doctrine, particularly due to the difficulty of establishing psychological and emotional harm. Although Georgian legislation provides a general framework for medical liability, it lacks clear standards for identifying and assessing moral damages. In practice, the burden of proof is primarily placed on the patient, creating significant legal challenges. The article analyses the allocation of the burden of proof, the admissibility of evidence, and the role of expert testimony in medical tort proceedings. It also examines judicial practice and its contribution to the development of legal standards in this field. This analysis shows that the current legal approach does not fully ensure the effective and consistent protection of moral damages in medical tort. The allocation of the burden of proof primarily to the patient creates significant obstacles to effective judicial protection. These issues highlight the need for a more flexible distribution of the burden of proof, improved expert assessment standards, and the development of unified criteria for evaluating moral damages. Such an approach would strengthen the protection of patient rights and promote a more consistent and predictable judicial practice.