Civil Cassation n. 5947/2023: Reflections on Testimonial Evidence and Damages Compensation
The ruling n. 5947 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation serves as an important reference point for issues related to testimonial evidence and the rights to damages compensation. In particular, the Court addressed a complex case in which a father, A.A., sought compensation for the death of his son, who died in an airplane accident. In this article, we will analyze the central themes of the ruling and the implications for future legal disputes.
The Issue of Liability and Compensation
The Court of Appeal of Messina had initially rejected A.A.'s claim, denying the liability of C.C. Helicopter Company Inc. The order of the Cassation confirmed this decision, highlighting that in order to request compensation for non-pecuniary damage, there must be an unlawful act that caused it, as established by art. 2043 of the Civil Code.
- The compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage is governed by different rules.
- In particular, art. 2059 of the Civil Code states that to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it is necessary to demonstrate an unlawful act.
- The Court emphasized that civil liability is a complex issue and requires clear evidence of fault.
The Role of Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial evidence must be relevant and pertinent to the case at hand, otherwise it will be inadmissible.
Another crucial aspect of the ruling concerns testimonial evidence. A.A. complained that the Court of Appeal had not admitted the investigative requests, particularly regarding the request for a new technical consultancy. However, the Cassation found that the reasons provided by the Court of Appeal were adequate and coherent. This point is particularly relevant, as it highlights how evidence must not only be requested but also relevant and decisive for the judgment.
Implications for the Right to Defense
Finally, the Court discussed the implications for the right to defense. In this case, A.A. argued that his right to defense was not respected due to an incorrect assessment of the evidence. However, the Cassation clarified that in civil proceedings, unlike in criminal ones, atypical evidence can be used and does not necessarily have to follow the same rigorous rules.
Conclusions
The ruling n. 5947/2023 of the Court of Cassation represents an important pronouncement on civil liability and testimonial evidence. It clarifies that the request for compensation must be supported by concrete and relevant evidence, and that the right to defense must be guaranteed in accordance with current regulations. Legal professionals must pay attention to these indications to adequately address similar cases in the future.
