The ruling no. 6443 of 2023 by the Supreme Court is part of the legal debate concerning the compensation for damages in the event of road accidents, emphasizing the distinction between biological damage and moral damage. This decision offers interesting insights for understanding the dynamics of compensation and the evaluation criteria used by judges.
In the case at hand, A.A. suffered damages as a result of a road accident, and the Court of Foggia initially assessed biological damage at 7%. However, on appeal, the judge reduced this amount to 4%, justifying the decision with the need to avoid duplicative compensation between moral and biological damage. This aspect is crucial, as the Court highlighted that moral damage could already be included in biological damage, particularly when it involves psychological disturbances such as emotional stress.
The Court emphasized the obligation to avoid duplications by assigning different names to identical prejudices.
The Court referred to the principle that, in order to obtain compensation, it is essential to provide clear and distinct evidence regarding the consequences of the damage suffered. In this case, A.A. failed to convincingly demonstrate that the psychological consequences of the accident went beyond what was already considered in the biological damage. This leads to reflection on the burden of proof in the indemnification context, where it is essential to demonstrate the actual impact of the injuries on the individual's daily and relational life.
The ruling no. 6443 of 2023 by the Supreme Court represents an important milestone in the legal path regarding damage compensation. It emphasizes the need for a rigorous distinction between biological damage and moral damage, highlighting the importance of adequate and specific evidence for each type of damage. This approach not only ensures greater fairness in compensation but also contributes to greater clarity in legal decisions, reducing the risk of duplicative compensation. The Court therefore reiterated that, in the case of psychological damages, it is necessary to provide adequate proof of their extent and specificity to obtain fair and just compensation.
We constantly follow regulatory and jurisprudential developments, offering updated analyses and innovative solutions. We share legal developments to foster a more informed legal culture.
Accident accident prevention law accidents accountant acoustic emissions active legitimacy art. 141 Insurance Code article 2087 civil code asbestos asbestos exposure biological damage blood transfusions burden of proof case law case_law Cassation Cassation ruling Catanzaro court catastrophic damage causal link childbirth civil law civil liability cohabitation compensatio lucri cum damno compensation compensation action compensation for damages compensation tables congenital malformations Consob Consumer Code contagion contractual liability corporate liability Court of Appeal Court of Cassation Court of Cassation 19744/2014 Covid-19 criminal law criminal liability damage assessment damage compensation damage evidence damages damages assessment damages compensation death diagnostic errors differential damage disability insurance dismissal emotional bond emotional bonds employer liability employer_liability equity evidence failure to supervise family law guidelines gynecologist HCV health law healthcare liability heating systems heirs hepatitis C virus I.N.A.I.L. iatrogenic damage iatrogenic injury INAIL income tax indemnity indemnity law informed consent injury from fall insurance insurance coverage insurance policies insurance policy intentional injuries joint liability judgment judgment 3767/2018 jurisdiction jurisprudence labor law landlord liability law law 194 legal expenses Legislative Decree 81/2008 legitimate reliance liability Lyell syndrome maintenance of public works malpractice Marche Region medical expenses medical liability medical malpractice medical negligence medical record mesothelioma Milan Court Milan ruling Ministry of Justice mobbing monetary penalty moral damage municipal liability Naples negligent arson newborn non-economic damage non-economic_damage non-pecuniary damage nosocomial infection nosocomial infections oath occupational disease occupational diseases occupational health package travel parental damage parental liability parental supervision passengers pension personal injuries personal injury pets premature birth professional liability property rights psychological suffering public administration public liability refusal of transfusion remedy Revenue Agency right to compensation right to health right to life road accident road accidents road traffic accidents ruling ruling 1361/2014 ruling 2023 ruling 5947 ruling Court of Naples safety safety of systems safety regulations self-determination settlement statute of limitations strepitus fori substitution Supreme Court Supreme Court 2023 Supreme Court ruling Supreme Court ruling 2023 surgical intervention survivor's pension survivors' pension tax law taxation technical consulting technical liability testimonial evidence tort liability traffic accident unjust detention unlawful occupation usufruct VAT water damage wildlife witness testimony Work work environment work-related liability. work-related stress worker health workers' rights workplace accident workplace accidents workplace injuries workplace safety