Damages Compensation: Commentary on the Sentence Cass. civ., Sez. III, Ord. n. 31730/2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 31730 of December 10, 2024, offers important insights into civil liability regarding food products and the respect for technical consultations in the process. The case originates from an incident of illness suffered by A.A. due to a contaminated food product, and it unfolds through various levels of judgment, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision that accepted the appeal of the injured party.

The Case and the Ruling of the Court of Appeal

The appellant, A.A., had suffered damages following the ingestion of food infested with insects, purchased from Iperfamila, which is now in liquidation. The Court of Catania had initially recognized the liability of the selling company, condemning it to compensate the damage quantified at 3,000 euros. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the incidental appeal of the company, imposing on PEDON Spa to indemnify Iperfamila, creating confusion regarding final responsibility and the amount of compensation.

The Court highlighted the necessity of adequate reasoning when the judge deviates from the conclusions of the technical consultancy.

The Reasons for the Appeal

A.A. challenged the appellate ruling on three main grounds: lack of reasoning, contradictions, and violation of the judge's duty to provide reasoning. In particular, the appellant argued that the Court of Appeal did not adequately consider the evidence provided by the technical consultancy, which confirmed a causal link between the illness and the harmful event. Furthermore, he contested the alleged lack of medical documentation regarding his pre-existing health conditions.

  • Deficient reasoning on the technical consultancy.
  • Contradictions in the assessment of damages.
  • Unjustified allocation of legal costs.

The Implications of the Cassation Decision

The Cassation, accepting the appeal, emphasized that a judge who deviates from the conclusions of the consultancy must provide specific and well-argued reasoning. The Court noted that the challenged ruling did not meet such requirements, presenting apparent and generic reasoning. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights the importance of transparency and consistency in judicial decisions, especially in complex cases like the one at hand.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the sentence no. 31730/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of the significance of reasoning in legal decisions and the proper application of technical consultancies. The Court referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal of Catania, underscoring the need for a thorough and reasoned review of the evidence and damages claimed by A.A., thus ensuring a fair trial and adequate protection of citizens' rights.

Bianucci Law Firm