Cass. civ., Sez. III, Sent., n. 29492 of 2019: Reflections on the Compensability of Non-Economic Damages
The ruling no. 29492 of the Court of Cassation, issued on November 14, 2019, addresses crucial issues regarding non-economic damages, with particular attention to the compensability of biological, catastrophic, and terminal damage. The Court examined the case of a victim of chronic HCV hepatitis, contracted through blood transfusion, and established important principles related to the prescription of the right to compensation for family members. This article aims to analyze the implications of this ruling, clarifying the legal concepts involved and the importance of the correct interpretation of current regulations.
The Distinctions between Biological, Catastrophic, and Terminal Damage
The Court clarified that the notions of "terminal damage" and "catastrophic damage" do not have an autonomous legal meaning, but are rather descriptive terms used to outline different dimensions of biological damage. In particular:
- Terminal biological damage: refers to the temporary inability to perform normal daily activities due to a lethal injury.
- Catastrophic damage: represents the intense moral damage resulting from the awareness of one's terminal condition.
- Non-economic damage: includes both biological damage and moral damage, both compensable provided they are proven and quantifiable.
The responsibility of the Ministry of Health for damages resulting from infections by HBV, HIV, and HCV viruses contracted by transfused individuals is of an extracontractual nature.
The Role of Prescription
Another relevant aspect of the ruling concerns the prescription of compensation rights. The Court established that, in the case of HCV virus infection, the right to compensation extinguishes after five years, and this also applies to the damages suffered by the victim during their lifetime. This is particularly significant for family members, as the right to compensation for damages "jure hereditatis" is based on the timeliness of the request. The Court held that, since the knowledge of the pathology and its origin was known to the patient, the prescription period had elapsed.
Conclusions
The ruling no. 29492 of 2019 provides fundamental guidance in understanding the compensability of non-economic damages. The distinctions between the various types of damage and the importance of prescription are essential for legal professionals and the families of victims. The correct application of these principles not only clarifies the legal position of the injured parties but also offers a basis for future interpretations and legal decisions.
