Compensation for Damages: Analysis of Order No. 341 of 2025

Order No. 341 of January 8, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important ruling on compensation for damages, with particular reference to equitable liquidation. The decision, presided over by Judge Alberto Giusti and with rapporteur Clotilde Parise, addresses the delicate issues related to the discretionary power of the trial judge in determining the amount of compensation.

The Judge's Discretionary Power

The Court clarifies that the judge's discretionary power in the equitable liquidation of damages implies a careful evaluation of all relevant factors. This means that the judge must consider various elements that can affect the extent of the damage, carrying out a prudent balance between them.

Compensation for damages - Equitable liquidation - Discretionary power of the trial judge - Content - Unappealability in cassation - Limits - Factual situation. In the matter of compensation for damages, the judge's discretionary power for equitable liquidation involves a judgment of prudent balancing of the various factors likely to affect the damage and is not subject to appeal in cassation, provided that the reasoning adequately accounts for the specific weight attributed to each of them in the concrete case and allows for the reconstruction of the logical path followed and verification of compliance with the principles of actual damage and the completeness of compensation. (Principle applied in a paternity judgment, where the criterion for monetarily quantifying the expenses incurred by the mother for the child's maintenance and care had not been adequately explained).

The Factual Situation of Paternity Determination

In the specific case, the order dealt with a paternity determination proceeding, where a significant issue emerged: the lack of clarity in the criterion used to quantify the costs incurred by the mother for the maintenance and care of the child. It is essential that, in such situations, the judge not only applies the principles of law but also provides detailed reasoning that allows for an understanding of the logical path followed in quantifying the damage.

• Importance of reasoning in the trial judgment.
• Need for balancing factors in equitable liquidation.
• Concrete application of the principles of the Civil Code.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 341 of 2025 represents an important reference for judges and legal professionals, as it reiterates the need for adequate reasoning in decisions concerning compensation for damages. The Court of Cassation, confirming the discretionary power of the trial judge, emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair compensation consistent with the principles of completeness and compensation for actual damage, fundamental aspects for the protection of the rights of the parties involved.