Summarise this text:
The general view [133] that the infringement of a personality right may result in patrimonial loss causes theoretical problems. [134] If a right of personality only has specified personality interests as its object, then logically only non-patrimonial loss (injury to personality) can be present if an unlawful impairment of such interests has occurred. Any loss of a patrimonial nature in such a case can be related only to the possible infringement of a patrimonial right in respect of the personality. Thus, for example, medical expenses on account of bodily injuries in fact relate to a yet to
Page 45
be identified patrimonial right to the corpus. [135] If a right of personality also includes patrimonial interests [136] it may explain the existence of patrimonial loss in conjunction with a personality infringement; but then it is misleading still to speak of a right to personality, because such a right has a mixed nature. [137]
The argument by Reinecke [138] that in the case of an infringement of a right to personality there may be patrimonial loss without wrongfulness, is unconvincing as this implies too loose a relationship between unlawfulness and damage. Our law should adopt a proper system in terms of which a person’s patrimony consists of patrimonial interests (which have a natural monetary value) and only the infringement of a patrimonial right may be relevant. In the sphere of someone’s personality, only personality interests, non-patrimonial loss (injury to personality) and the possible infringement of a personality right should be relevant. The law does not, for example, give compensation in respect of non-patrimonial loss associated with damage to property, and neither should patrimonial loss be acknowledged in the case of an infringement of a personality right, since this loss relates to patrimonial interests which should be recognized as such.