Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, Order No. 36841 of 2022: Compensation for Damage Due to Occupational Diseases
In the recent order No. 36841 of December 15, 2022, the Court of Cassation ruled on a case concerning compensation for damage due to occupational diseases, particularly pleural mesothelioma, and the methods of quantifying non-pecuniary damage. This ruling is of great significance, as it clarifies various aspects of the jurisprudence regarding the employer's liability and the protection of the rights of heirs.
Context and Development of the Process
The case in question involves Ansaldo Energia Spa, which was ordered to compensate the heirs of an employee who died from an occupational disease. The Court of Appeal of Genoa had initially recognized a compensation of over 600,000 euros, an amount later reduced by the Court of Cassation to about 79,000 euros for the damage iure hereditatis. The heirs and the company then filed appeals to the Court of Cassation, contesting various aspects of the ruling.
The challenged ruling is therefore in contrast with the principles of law as stated, because it does not take into account the criteria for quantifying damage identified by this Court of legitimacy.
Fundamental Principles of the Judgment
The Court examined various aspects related to the criteria for quantifying damage, highlighting two fundamental components:
- Terminal biological damage: consisting of the physical suffering endured by the victim before death.
- Catastrophic damage: concerns the psychological suffering experienced by the victim, aware of their terminal condition.
The Court of Cassation reiterated that, in the case of non-immediate death, it is essential to separately quantify these two components, applying equitable criteria and compensation tables already established by jurisprudence, such as those of the Court of Milan.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for future cases of occupational diseases. The recognition of catastrophic damage, for example, represents a step forward in the protection of the rights of workers and their families, as it considers not only the physical impact of the disease but also the psychological one.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that the employer's duty of prevention does not imply objective liability but still requires careful assessment of the safety measures adopted and their adequacy.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 36841 of 2022 offers an important reflection on the quantification of damage in cases of occupational diseases and emphasizes the need for an equitable assessment that considers the various facets of the damage suffered by the victim. This jurisprudential orientation could significantly influence legal practice regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages, promoting greater fairness and protection for victims and their families.
