Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, Order No. 25191 of 2023: Compensation for Occupational Disease
The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, No. 25191 of 2023, provides important insights into the issue of differential damage compensation for occupational diseases. The Court analyzed a case in which an employee, A.A., sought compensation due to coronary artery bypass surgery, claiming that his condition was linked to his working conditions as a driver.
The Case and the Decision of the Court of Appeal
The original case was examined by the Court of Appeal of Messina, which established the causal link between the work activity and the damaging event, recognizing A.A.'s right to compensation of 148,759 euros, net of the amount compensable by INAIL. The Court argued that the heavy working conditions and the employer's responsibilities, pursuant to Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, justified the compensation for differential damage.
The employer's liability is in addition to the merely compensatory liability of INAIL, as the foundations and scopes of the two compensatory measures are different.
Reasons for the Appeal to the Court of Cassation
Omissis Spa filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation, contesting various aspects of the appellate ruling. Among the reasons, the company argued the violation of Article 112 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and the inadmissibility of the first instance judgment due to lack of passive legitimacy. The Court rejected these criticisms, asserting that when claiming compensation for an occupational disease, there is no lack of passive legitimacy of the employer.
- The employer can be held liable for damages arising from occupational diseases.
- Criminal liability can coexist with the compensation offered by INAIL.
- The compensation includes both biological damage and differential economic damage.
Recognition of Moral Damage
Another crucial aspect of the ruling concerns the recognition of moral damage. A.A. contested the rejection of his claim for moral damage compensation, arguing that the Court of Appeal did not adequately justify its decision. The Court of Cassation accepted the second reason for the incidental appeal, highlighting that moral suffering is autonomously compensable and that the Court of Appeal should have considered the psychological repercussions of the damaging event.
Conclusions
The judgment of the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, No. 25191 of 2023, reaffirms the importance of protecting workers in cases of occupational diseases, clarifying that the employer's liability cannot be evaded. Furthermore, the recognition of moral damage underscores the need for a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the suffering endured by workers. It is essential that the courts consider all aspects of the damage, both economic and non-economic, thus ensuring adequate and complete justice.
