On December 26, 2009, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress voted to adopt the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 22 of which clearly stipulates: "Where a person's personal rights and interests are infringed upon, causing serious mental harm to such person, the infringed person may claim compensation for mental damage." This is the first explicit provision of "compensation for mental damage" in China's current laws.

The so-called compensation for mental damage refers to the liability for compensation that the tortfeasor shall bear for infringing upon another person's spiritual interests due to his tortious act. When people suffer mental damage, in addition to obtaining relief through cessation of infringement, elimination of adverse effects, and apology, etc., the victim's claim for monetary damages is also a way. Unfortunately, "compensation for mental damage" has long been in an awkward situation in China's laws, with legislative gaps and numerous difficulties in judicial operation. China's current civil laws do not clearly stipulate compensation for mental damage, and the system of compensation for mental damage established in the draft amendment to the State Compensation Law under deliberation is also limited to the field of administrative law. In judicial practice, it is mainly regulated by the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Liability for Compensation for Mental Damage in Civil Torts. However, many typical cases involving claims for compensation for mental damage have occurred in practice, and in the absence of clear legal provisions, the judgments on compensation for mental damage have been varied. In a rape case that occurred in Shenzhen in 1999, the victim sued the rapist for endangering her right to life and health and right to chastity, which directly resulted in the plaintiff's lifelong mental suffering, loss of some obtainable interests, and reduction in social evaluation. The court found that the criminal suspect had恶劣 criminal circumstances, a long criminal duration, the plaintiff was a virgin, and the damage result was serious. Based on this, the court ordered Liu to compensate Zhang 80,000 yuan for mental damage. However, the second-instance court made a final ruling in accordance with the relevant judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court, revoking the first-instance judgment on compensating the victim 80,000 yuan in this case and dismissing the victim's claim for compensation for mental damage. But in another case, namely the final judgment on the civil compensation part of the case where a Beijing bus conductor strangled the daughter of a Tsinghua professor in 2007, the second-instance court revoked the first-instance judgment of compensating 100,000 yuan for mental damage and changed the judgment to 300,000 yuan, which is the highest amount of compensation for mental damage awarded by Chinese courts so far.

The provision of "compensation for mental damage" in the Tort Liability Law is a legislative progress, but it should also be recognized that this is only a principled legislation. There are no clear provisions on how to determine compensation for mental damage, under what circumstances compensation for mental damage is constituted, and how much compensation for mental damage should be paid. What is noteworthy is that, first, the Tort Liability Law strictly limits compensation for mental damage to the infringement of personal rights and interests, which includes infringement of another person's right to life, right to health, right to reputation, right to privacy, etc., but does not include property rights and interests. Secondly, the Tort Liability Law defines the degree of mental damage that can constitute compensation for mental damage as "serious mental damage", but how to determine the degree of "seriousness" is a key issue. In principle, minor mental damage cannot be claimed for compensation, otherwise the litigation costs will increase significantly. This issue will be clarified by the Supreme People's Court through the issuance of special judicial interpretations and individual cases in practice.