Moral and Biological Damage: Commentary on Judgment No. 26996 of 2018 by the Supreme Court
Judgment No. 26996 of 2018 by the Supreme Court represents an important milestone in understanding non-pecuniary damages, particularly concerning the distinction between moral damage and biological damage. In this article, we will analyze the key highlights of this ruling and its impact on Italian law.
The Context of the Judgment
The case in question involves M. A., a worker who suffered a workplace injury and sought compensation for the damages suffered from the defendant companies. The first-instance judge partially accepted the claim, recognizing moral damage and assessing it based on the Milanese tables. However, the Court of Appeal of Catania reformed the decision, rejecting the compensation requests made by M. A.
The Court of Appeal excluded the recognition of moral damage, arguing the lack of allegations from the appellant.
The Legal Issues Raised
The main issue concerned the correct assessment of non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the Court of Appeal, highlighting that non-pecuniary damage should be considered in a unitary manner. Therefore, the separate assessment of biological damage and moral damage, in the absence of adequate allegations, is inadmissible and leads to a duplication of compensation.
- Unity of non-pecuniary damage
- Need for detailed allegations
- Exclusion of duplicative compensation
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that non-pecuniary damage is compensable only in cases provided by law, and that the victim must demonstrate the existence of damage beyond that already recognized by INAIL.
Implications for Future Jurisprudence
This ruling fits into a jurisprudential trend aimed at clarifying the distinctions between various types of non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court, referencing previous rulings from the United Sections, has clearly established that moral damage must be specifically alleged and proven, and cannot simply be requested in a generic manner.
The implications are significant for future cases seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages, as judges will be more inclined to require comprehensive and specific documentation for the damage to be adequately compensated.
Conclusions
In summary, judgment No. 26996 of 2018 by the Supreme Court offers an important reflection on the topic of non-pecuniary damages, emphasizing the necessity for correct allegations and the distinction between the various types of damage. It represents a significant step in the protection of workers' rights, but also serves as a warning for those intending to seek compensation, urging them to prepare adequately and not underestimate the importance of the evidence to present in court.
