Judgment No. 3767 of 2018: Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage and the Relevance of Residence
The Court of Cassation, with order No. 3767 of 2018, addressed a crucial issue regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage, clarifying that the socio-economic reality of the injured party should not influence the amount of compensation. This principle was reiterated in response to appeals submitted by the relatives of a road accident victim, who contested the reduction of compensation made by the Court of Appeal of Milan, considering their residence in Romania.
The Case at Hand
The proceedings arose from the tragic death of P.V., who was struck by a truck. The victim's family requested compensation for the damages suffered, but the Court of Milan initially rejected the claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeal partially accepted the request but reduced the amount of compensation for the family members residing in Romania, applying a 30% reduction based on their economic situation.
The socio-economic reality in which the victim of a wrongful act lives is entirely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the compensatory damage.
Legal Principles Established by the Court
With judgment No. 3767, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, emphasizing several fundamental principles:
- Compensation for non-pecuniary damage should not vary based on the residence of the injured party.
- The consequences of the damage must be assessed based on the harm suffered by the victim, regardless of the socio-economic context.
- In the event of the death of a close relative, moral suffering is presumed, and it is up to the defendant to prove the absence of an emotional bond.
Conclusions
The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important affirmation of principle in the field of damage compensation. It reaffirms the right of the families of victims to receive fair compensation, without discrimination based on their residence. This jurisprudential orientation is crucial to ensure effective protection of the rights of the injured parties, asserting that human suffering cannot be quantified based on economic or territorial criteria. The Court has, therefore, provided an important clarification, confirming that the dignity of the person and their right to compensation for non-pecuniary damages must remain unchanged, regardless of the socio-economic situation of the injured party.
