Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 10578 of 2018: Compensation for Non-Economic Damage

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 10578 of 2018 represents an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence regarding the liability of employers in cases of occupational diseases. In this article, we will analyze the key points of the decision and the implications for the rights of workers and their families.

The Case and the Decision of the Court of Appeal

The case in question involves B. G., who sought compensation for non-economic damages following the death of her husband F. F., who suffered from mesothelioma, a disease linked to asbestos exposure during his work for Enel. The Court of Appeal of Venice partially upheld the claim, recognizing the company's liability for failing to adopt necessary safety measures.

The Court found that there was a causal link between asbestos exposure and the worker's illness, affirming the employer's liability.

The Appeals and Arguments of the Appellant

Enel filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in recognizing liability, citing the lack of fault and the right to use asbestos during that period. Among the grounds for appeal, the absence of concrete evidence regarding the causal link and the employer's lack of knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos were highlighted.

  • Violation of the articles of the civil code regarding civil liability.
  • Lack of concrete evidence of asbestos exposure during the period of employment at Enel.
  • Absence of fault by the employer, considering the regulatory context of the time.

The Response of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, reiterating that the causal link had been adequately proven and that the employer's liability was evident. It was emphasized that, although asbestos was legally usable, this did not exempt the employer from the obligation to ensure the safety of their employees.

In particular, the Court stated that the scientific knowledge of the time did not justify the absence of preventive measures and that the employer's negligence was clear. Furthermore, the external judgment of the parallel case confirmed Enel's liability for the worker's illness.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 10578 of 2018 represents an important reference for future disputes regarding compensation for non-economic damages resulting from occupational diseases. It highlights the importance of employer liability in ensuring a safe working environment and recognizing the rights of the families of victims of occupational diseases.

Bianucci Law Firm