Cass. civ., Section III, Order, no. 36504 of 2023: Burden of Proof in Damages for Blood Transfusion

The Order of the Court of Cassation no. 36504 of 2023 offers a significant reflection on the burden of proof in matters of damages for blood transfusions. The Court, in response to an appeal filed by the relatives of a patient who died due to complications arising from infected blood transfusions, highlighted the importance of medical documentation and the causal link between the transfusions and the diagnosed pathology. This article analyzes the implications of this decision, providing a clearer framework on the subject.

The Case Submitted to the Court of Cassation

The case concerns D.D., who suffered from thalassemia major and developed a severe hepatopathy, leading to his death, due to infected blood transfusions. The relatives attempted to obtain compensation from the Ministry of Health, but their claims were rejected by the lower courts due to a lack of proof of the causal link. The Court of Appeal of Catania confirmed this decision, denying the evidentiary value of crucial documents.

The Court reiterated that the judge must always adequately justify the decision adopted on a technical issue relevant to the determination of the cause.

Legal Principles at Play

The Court recalled fundamental principles regarding proof, particularly the principle of correspondence between what is requested and what is decided, and the principle of the availability of evidence. The appellants argued that the Ministry had never contested the existence of a causal link between the transfusions and the pathology, a point that, according to jurisprudence, would not require further proof.

• Principle of correspondence between what is requested and what is decided.
• Principle of the availability of evidence.
• Principle of proximity of evidence.

Conclusions and Future Prospects

The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in protecting citizens' rights in situations of this kind. By accepting the appeal and remanding the case to the Court of Appeal of Catania, the Cassation Court emphasized the judge's obligation to adequately consider the submitted documentation and to justify the refusal to admit expert opinions. This could pave the way for greater protection of the rights of victims of damages arising from infected blood transfusions and, more generally, for a broader reflection on the burden of proof in civil matters.