Cass. civ. n. 31029 of 2024: The Statute of Limitations for Damages from Infected Blood Transfusions

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, n. 31029 of 2024, has brought clarity to a complex legal area concerning the statute of limitations for compensation rights for damages suffered as a result of infected blood transfusions. The case involved the Ministry of Health and the heirs of G.G., who died due to complications arising from such a practice, and emphasized the important distinction between the statute of limitations for damages suffered jure proprio and jure hereditario.

The Context of the Ruling

The litigation began when the heirs of G.G. sought compensation for the damages suffered due to the death of their relative, which occurred following an infected blood transfusion. Initially, the Court of Lecce declared the compensation claim proposed jure hereditario to be time-barred, applying a five-year statute of limitations, while it accepted the jure proprio claim with a ten-year statute of limitations.

The Court of Cassation stated that the statute of limitations for the right to compensation begins from the moment the damage becomes objectively perceivable.

The Legal Issues Addressed

The Court had to address whether the statute of limitations for damages suffered by G.G.'s relatives started from the moment of the victim's death or from the manifestation of the damage. The Court confirmed that, in the context of latent damages, the statute of limitations begins not from death, but from the knowledge of the damage, which in this case dates back to an earlier period when G.G. had already begun to show signs of infection.

  • Five-year statute of limitations for damages jure hereditario.
  • Ten-year statute of limitations for damages jure proprio, as the death constitutes involuntary manslaughter.
  • The statute of limitations begins from the date the damage is perceived or recognizable.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant implications for future compensation requests in similar cases, establishing that the relatives of victims of latent damages must act promptly, without waiting for the death of the injured party. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of recognizing the damage as a fundamental element for the beginning of the statute of limitations, thereby influencing defense and prosecution strategies in damage compensation cases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ruling n. 31029 of 2024 from the Court of Cassation represents an essential reference point for understanding the statute of limitations in cases of medical liability related to infected blood transfusions. The distinction between the statutes of limitations jure proprio and jure hereditario provides lawyers with valuable tools to assist their clients in similar situations, ensuring greater protection of the rights of victims and their families.

Bianucci Law Firm