Professional liability and burden of proof: commentary on the ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 8109 of 2024
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 8109 of 2024 provides significant insights into professional liability in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding the supervision and control of facilities caring for patients with severe mental disorders. The legal case originated from a request for damages by A.A., the father of the patient C.C., who passed away in a care facility. The Court, confirming the decisions of lower courts, excluded the liability of the healthcare facility, clarifying the modalities of attributing the damage and the burden of proof.
The context of the ruling
A.A. argued that his daughter's death was attributable to a lack of supervision by the healthcare facility, which allegedly failed to adequately monitor the patient, thus allowing her to suffer from medication intoxication. However, the Court of Appeal had already excluded the liability of the facility, stating that there was no obligation for continuous monitoring, given the reassuring diagnosis issued by the doctors and the patient's behavior.
- Duty of supervision: the Court established that there was no obligation for continuous control over the patient.
- Civil liability: relatives of a psychiatric patient can act for extracontractual liability.
- Burden of proof: it is up to the injured party to demonstrate the unlawful act and the fault of the perpetrator of the damage.
Analysis of liability
The jurisprudence of this Court has consolidated in the sense that the action for damages brought by the close relatives of a patient with mental issues must be framed within the realm of extracontractual liability.
The Court clarified that A.A.'s claim for compensation falls within the scope of extracontractual liability pursuant to Article 2043 of the Civil Code, and not within contractual liability. This implies that it is up to the petitioner to demonstrate the existence of an unlawful act, the fault of the facility, and the damage suffered. The Court highlighted how the facility had complied with its supervisory obligations, based on medical diagnoses and the patient's behavior.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the ruling No. 8109 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the liability of healthcare facilities and the burden of proof in cases of damage inflicted on psychiatric patients. It is essential for the relatives of patients to be aware of the distinctions between contractual and extracontractual liability and the importance of providing solid evidence in court to support their claims for compensation. The clarity provided by the Court on these points serves as a useful reference for legal practice and for the protection of the rights of patients and their families.
