LUCRO CESSANTE. — By this expression is meant the reduction in assets due to the failure to acquire goods which, had a certain event not occurred, would have been acquired. The reduction in assets may indeed occur either through the loss of what one already possessed or through the failure to acquire what one would certainly have come to possess. The first form is called damnum emergens; the second, lucrum cessans.
The reduction in assets may be considered both from the perspective of the one who causes it and from that of the one who suffers II. In the latter case, it may be of particular interest as a justifying cause. Lucrum cessans may justify, for example, the increase in price to the objectively just proportion, the loan at interest, the procurator’s restitution, or the omission of Mass on a holy day of obligation. From the first perspective, that is, considering the reduction in assets from the side of the one who causes it, the obligation of restitution must be emphasized.
It is beyond doubt that whoever culpably causes damage is obligated to make full reparation, including with regard to lucrum cessans. This follows from natural law and is expressly affirmed by civil codes (cf., for the Italian Civil Code, art. 1223).
Nevertheless, a difficulty immediately arises. How is lucrum cessans to be assessed precisely? How is one to determine exactly what one would have acquired had a certain fact not occurred? As one can see, one enters the realm of future possibilities, that is, the realm of those conditional developments of history which only God can know with certainty. Men cannot go beyond conjectures based on what usually happens. For these reasons, the assessment of lucrum cessans can only be made on the basis of statistical criteria drawn from the habitual course of events. One must look to what usually occurs, disregarding exceptionally fortunate or exceptionally unfortunate cases. The Italian Civil Code states that “lucrum cessans is assessed by the judge with equitable consideration of the circumstances of the case” (art. 2056).