Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation Civil Section. Work n. 6503/2022: Non-Pecuniary Damage and INAIL Compensations
The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation n. 6503 of February 28, 2022, offers important insights into the responsibility of INAIL in the case of workplace accidents and the compensation for non-pecuniary damages to the survivors. In this article, we will analyze the Court's reasoning and the implications for the rights of the heirs.
Facts of the Case and Decision of the Court of Appeal
The case examined by the Cassation concerns the appellants, heirs of T.R., who contested the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, which had rejected their claim for compensation against INAIL. However, the Court of Appeal recognized compensation from the private parties involved in the fatal accident.
The Court established that INAIL was not obliged to provide compensation for non-pecuniary damages due to the lack of stabilization of the injury to psycho-physical integrity, as biological damage is only compensable in the case of permanent disability.
Biological Damage: Limits and Legal References
The Court excluded the compensability iure hereditatis of damage from loss of life, due to the absence of the subject to whom the loss of the asset can be attributed.
The judgment emphasizes that, according to Legislative Decree No. 38 of 2000 and Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965, the biological damage covered by INAIL refers only to permanent impairments. This implies that, in the case of temporary biological damage, there is no right to compensation from the Institute. The Cassation confirmed that temporary biological damage and moral damage are not compensable within the INAIL insurance system.
- Compensable biological damage: only permanent disability
- Exclusion of temporary biological damage
- Legal references: Legislative Decree No. 38/2000, Presidential Decree No. 1124/1965
The Implications for Survivors
The decision of the Cassation also clarified that non-pecuniary damage, in the form of terminal biological damage, is compensable only if the victim was able to perceive pain and suffering before death. This aspect is crucial for the heirs, as the Court established that compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be transmitted iure hereditatis only under certain conditions.
In particular, it is necessary to demonstrate that the victim experienced a significant period of time between the injury and death, during which they could have suffered from temporary biological damage. This aspect makes the issue complex and requires a thorough evaluation on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusions
The judgment n. 6503/2022 of the Cassation confirms the rigidity of the INAIL compensation system concerning non-pecuniary damages resulting from workplace accidents. Heirs must be aware of the limits of compensability and the need to demonstrate specific conditions in order to request compensation. This decision represents an important precedent for future cases and highlights the necessity for careful legal analysis in similar situations.
