Commentary on Supreme Court Civil Section, Labor Law, Ruling No. 6503/2022: Non-Pecuniary Damage and INAIL Compensation

The recent Supreme Court ruling No. 6503 of February 28, 2022, offers important insights into INAIL's liability in cases of workplace accidents and the compensation for non-pecuniary damages to survivors. In this article, we will analyze the Court's reasoning and the implications for the rights of heirs.

Case Facts and Court of Appeal Decision

The case examined by the Supreme Court concerns the appellants, heirs of T.R., who challenged the decision of the Salerno Court of Appeal, which had rejected their claim for compensation against INAIL. However, the Court of Appeal did recognize compensation from the private parties involved in the fatal accident.

The Court ruled that INAIL was not obligated to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damages due to the lack of stabilization of the impairment to psycho-physical integrity, as biological damage is only compensable in cases of permanent disability.

Biological Damage: Limits and Legal References

The Court excluded the compensability iure hereditatis of damage from loss of life, due to the absence of the subject to whom the loss of the asset is attributable.

The ruling emphasizes that, according to Legislative Decree No. 38 of 2000 and Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965, the biological damage covered by INAIL refers only to permanent impairments. This implies that, in the case of temporary biological damage, there is no right to compensation from the Institute. The Supreme Court confirmed that temporary biological damage and moral damage are not compensable within the INAIL insurance system.

• Compensable biological damage: permanent disability only
• Exclusion of temporary biological damage
• Legal references: Legislative Decree No. 38/2000, Presidential Decree No. 1124/1965

Implications for Survivors

The Supreme Court's decision also clarified that non-pecuniary damage, in the form of terminal biological damage, is compensable only if the victim was able to perceive pain and suffering before death. This aspect is crucial for heirs, as the Court ruled that compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be transmitted iure hereditatis only under specific conditions.

In particular, it is necessary to demonstrate that the victim lived for an appreciable period between the accident and death, during which they could experience temporary biological damage. This aspect makes the issue complex and requires a thorough case-by-case assessment.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 6503/2022 by the Supreme Court confirms the rigidity of the INAIL compensation system concerning non-pecuniary damages arising from workplace accidents. Heirs must be aware of the limits of compensation and the need to demonstrate specific conditions to claim indemnification. This decision represents an important precedent for future cases and highlights the need for careful legal analysis in similar situations.