Compensation for damages: commentary on judgment Cass. civ., Section III, Ord. no. 31730/2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 31730 of December 10, 2024, offers important food for thought on civil liability concerning food products and compliance with technical consultancy in proceedings. The case originates from a case of illness suffered by A.A. due to a contaminated food product, and unfolds through various levels of judgment, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision which upheld the appeal of the injured party.

The case and the Court of Appeal's ruling

The appellant, A.A., suffered damages following the ingestion of food infested with insects, purchased from Iperfamila, now in liquidation. The Court of Catania had initially recognized the liability of the selling company, ordering it to compensate for damages quantified at 3,000 euros. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the company's cross-appeal, ordering PEDON Spa to indemnify Iperfamila, creating confusion regarding final liability and the amount of compensation.

The Court highlighted the need for adequate reasoning when the judge departs from the conclusions of the technical consultancy.

Grounds for appeal

A.A. appealed the Court of Appeal's judgment on three main grounds: lack of reasoning, contradiction, and violation of the judge's duty to provide reasons. In particular, the appellant argued that the Court of Appeal had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the technical consultancy, which established a causal link between the illness and the damaging event. Furthermore, he contested the alleged lack of medical documentation regarding his pre-existing health conditions.

• Lack of reasoning regarding the technical consultancy.
• Contradictions in the assessment of damages.
• Unjustified allocation of court costs.

Implications of the Cassation's decision

The Cassation, by upholding the appeal, emphasized that a judge who departs from the conclusions of a consultancy must provide specific and well-argued reasoning. The Court noted that the appealed judgment did not meet these requirements, presenting apparent and generic reasoning. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights the importance of transparency and consistency in judicial decisions, especially in complex cases like the one in question.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 31730/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of the importance of reasoning in legal decisions and the correct application of technical consultancy. The Court referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal of Catania, emphasizing the need for an accurate and reasoned review of the evidence and damages claimed by A.A., thereby ensuring a fair trial and adequate protection of citizens' rights.