Commentary on the Order No. 20269 of 2024: Defamation and Moral Damage

The recent order No. 20269 of July 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addressed a crucial issue in the field of civil liability, particularly regarding defamation and compensation for moral damages. The matter in dispute was the attribution of dishonorable conduct to a deceased family member, a delicate topic that raises both legal and moral questions.

The Case Under Review

The appellant, V., sought compensation for damages resulting from the dissemination of defamatory news regarding his brother, who had passed away six years prior. The Court of Appeal of Venice had rejected the compensation claim, deeming the evidence of the suffered damage insufficient. However, the Cassation overturned this decision, emphasizing the importance of considering the presumption of moral damage in cases of defamation of deceased relatives.

(MORAL DAMAGES) In general. In terms of civil liability for defamation, the harm from moral and reputational suffering, arising from the attribution of dishonorable and unproven conduct to deceased family members "subsequent" (spouse and children) and "original" (parents and siblings), is not in re ipsa, but is presumed iuris tantum, according to an ordinary assessment, that is, in the absence of opposing elements that, such as modifying or even inhibiting facts regarding the compensation claim, fall within the burden of proof of the perpetrator of the unlawful act. (In the case at hand, where the plaintiff had acted for the compensation of damages resulting from the dissemination, during a radio broadcast, of defamatory news concerning his brother, who had died six years before, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had rejected the claim, erroneously believing that there was no proof of the consequential damage, in terms of the relationship between the allegedly defamed individual and the claimant, without alleging and demonstrating, that is, circumstances capable of qualifying said relationship between the relatives, so as to hypothesize actual harm, not even from the perspective of moral damage from suffering, considering that the two brothers had an age difference of almost twenty years and had lived in different geographical realities, so much so as to suggest an autonomy of their respective spheres of life).

The Presumption of Moral Damage

The Court clarified that the moral damage resulting from defamation is not automatically assumed, but must be demonstrated. However, in the absence of contrary elements, there exists a presumption iuris tantum of moral and reputational suffering. This implies that, in cases where a family member is a victim of defamation, the relatives have the right to seek compensation for the damage suffered, unless proven otherwise.

  • The moral prejudice is presumed but not automatic.
  • The defamer must prove the non-existence of damage.
  • The relationship between the deceased and the family members must be clearly defined.

Conclusions

This ruling marks an important step in recognizing the rights of individuals who suffer moral damage due to the defamation of deceased relatives. It underscores the need for careful evaluation of family relationships and the damage suffered, promoting greater legal protection in sensitive contexts such as the death of a loved one. In an ever-evolving legal landscape, it is essential for families to know that they have the right to be protected even after the loss of a loved one.

Bianucci Law Firm