Cass. civ., Sez. III, Ord. n. 28458/2024: Recognition of the Causal Link Between Work and Occupational Illness
The Court of Cassation, with order no. 28458 of November 5, 2024, addressed a crucial case concerning the liability of companies for occupational diseases related to asbestos exposure. The central issue was the causal link between the worker's employment and their death due to lung cancer. This article will explore the details of the ruling and the implications for workers' rights and corporate responsibilities.
The Case at Hand
The appeal filed by A.A. and B.B. concerned the request for compensation for the death of their relative C.C., who was exposed to asbestos during his working career. Although INAIL recognized the occupational origin of the condition, the Court of Appeal of Venice rejected the claim based on the lack of a certain causal link between the illness and the asbestos exposure. The Court excluded that the cancer was pleural mesothelioma, considering the cause of the illness to be uncertain.
Once the presence of a risk factor is established, the existence of a causal link between that risk factor and the illness, and thus the death, must be affirmed, even possibly in terms of contributing causality.
The Arguments of the Court of Cassation
The Court of Cassation accepted the appeal, criticizing the decision of the Court of Appeal for not adequately considering the totality of the evidence and the work context. It emphasized that the exclusion of mesothelioma does not automatically imply the absence of a causal link. The Court invoked the principle of equivalence of causes as provided by Article 41 of the Penal Code, highlighting that even without a specific diagnosis of mesothelioma, the correlation between asbestos exposure and lung disease could be demonstrated through the criterion of "more likely than not."
- Recognition of the occupational risk related to asbestos.
- Importance of evidence of the work context.
- Practical application of the principle of equivalence of causes.
Implications for Workers and Companies
This ruling represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of workers exposed to occupational risks. It clarifies that the causal link does not need to be demonstrated with absolute certainty, but rather through a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances. Companies must be aware of their responsibilities in protecting workers and adopting appropriate preventive measures.
Conclusions
In conclusion, order no. 28458/2024 of the Court of Cassation reaffirms the importance of a holistic approach in analyzing cases of occupational disease. The ruling not only reaffirms workers' rights but also provides an important precedent for future disputes related to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. Companies must therefore pay attention to these aspects to avoid liability and ensure the safety of their employees.
