• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Cass. civ., Sez. III, Ord. n. 6443/2023: Reflections on the Compensation for Moral and Biological Damage

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.

The Case and the Decisions of the Trial Judge

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 Importance of Evidence in Moral and Biological Damage

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.

Conclusions: A Necessary Approach

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.