Recognition of Moral Damages: Analysis of Cass. civ. no. 5547 of 2024

The recent order of the Supreme Court of Cassation, no. 5547 of 2024, offers important guidance regarding the compensation of moral damages in road accidents. In particular, the decision focuses on the issue of autonomous compensation for moral damages in relation to biological damages, asserting the need for an accurate assessment of the suffering endured by the injured party.

The Case and the Court's Decision

In the case at hand, A.A. had been awarded compensation of 13,000 euros for biological damages resulting from a road accident. However, the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria had excluded the autonomous compensation of moral damages, based on previous judicial precedents that highlight how moral damages are a component of biological damages, thus avoiding double compensation.

The Court stated that the simultaneous award of biological damages and moral damages would result in impermissible double compensation.

Legal Principles Underlying the Judgment

The Court reiterated some fundamental principles regarding damage compensation. In particular:

• Non-pecuniary damages must be considered in a unitary and comprehensive manner.
• It is necessary to avoid double compensation by assigning different names to identical harms.
• The judge must conduct a detailed investigation to assess each type of damage distinctly.

In this context, the Court upheld the first ground of appeal by A.A., finding that the previous judgment had not adequately assessed moral damages autonomously, but had merely denied their compensation a priori.

Implications and Conclusions

The Cassation Court's decision represents a significant step for jurisprudence in the area of road accident damages. It underscores the importance of a concrete and rigorous assessment of the suffering endured by the injured party, requiring the trial judge to consider in detail the specific consequences of the damage, avoiding generalizations or automatic calculations.

In conclusion, the Court has referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for a new assessment, highlighting the need for a more attentive and personalized approach in the calculation of damages. This orientation could have a significant impact on the protection of the rights of the injured parties, ensuring compensation that is fairer and more adequate to the actual suffering endured.