Prescription and Civil Liability: Analysis of the Ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 19568 of 2023
The ruling No. 19568 of July 10, 2023, of the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the issue of prescription in the context of civil liability, particularly for damages arising from blood transfusions. The specific case involves A.A. and B.B., who sought compensation for the death of a relative caused by an HCV infection transmitted through blood transfusion. The Court's decision provides significant insights into understanding the timeframes for prescription and the ways to access compensation.
The Case and the Parties' Arguments
A.A. and B.B. sued the Ministry of Health, claiming that the relative's death occurred due to liver cirrhosis resulting from blood transfusions carried out in 1972. However, the Ministry raised the defense of prescription of the right to compensation, asserting that the prescription period had elapsed. The Court of Venice rejected the claim, confirming the expiration of the prescription, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal of Venice.
The Court of Cassation reiterated the importance of correctly identifying the dies a quo of the prescription, establishing that the right to compensation starts from the date of the victim's death.
Reasons for Appeal and the Court's Decision
The appellants presented three grounds for appeal, all of which were rejected by the Court of Cassation. In particular, the Court stated that:
- The first ground, concerning the lack of reasoning, was deemed unfounded, as the contested ruling contained adequate motivational content.
- The second ground, relating to the commencement of the prescription, was confirmed by established case law, which recognizes the date of death as the dies a quo for compensation for damages jure proprio.
- The third ground, which referred to the medical commission's report as a starting point for the prescription, was also considered unfounded.
Implications of the Ruling and Final Considerations
The ruling No. 19568 of 2023 represents a clear example of how case law addresses crucial issues regarding civil liability and prescription. It confirms that, in cases of damages arising from blood transfusions, the prescription period begins from the date of the victim's death, making access to compensation for relatives more complex. The decision of the Court of Cassation also emphasizes the importance of having a clear awareness regarding the cause of the damage, an essential element for the validity of compensation claims.
Conclusions
Ultimately, the ruling provides important points for reflection for all those facing similar cases. It is essential that the injured parties are aware of the prescription terms and the legal implications related to civil liability, so that they can act promptly and adequately protect their rights.
