Non-Economic Damage and Personalization: Commentary on the Supreme Court Ruling No. 27562 of 2017

The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 27562 of 2017 offers interesting insights regarding the assessment of non-economic damage, particularly on the theme of the personalization of biological damage. The case involves D.P.R., a victim of a traffic accident, who suffered serious physical consequences due to the incident. The Court had to rule on the correctness of the assessment of biological damage and its personalization, taking into account the specificities of the concrete case.

The Case and Principles of Damage Assessment

First of all, it is important to emphasize that the Court confirmed the established orientation according to which non-economic damage, pursuant to Article 2059 of the Civil Code, is a unitary category. This implies that the various components of harm, such as biological damage and moral damage, cannot be assessed separately to avoid duplicative compensation. The Court held that, in the absence of specific legal criteria, the assessment must proceed according to the tabular parameters developed by the Court of Milan, which also consider the personalization of the damage based on specific circumstances of the concrete case.

In the legitimacy phase, the omission or incorrect application of such tabular parameters can be invoked as a violation or false application of Article 1226 of the Civil Code.

Personalization of Damage and the Role of the Judge

A crucial aspect of the ruling is the issue of the personalization of biological damage. The Court confirmed that, in the presence of specific case details, it is possible to increase the amount assessed according to the tables. However, personalization must be adequately motivated and supported by concrete evidence. In the case of D.P.R., the Court noted that the biological damage had been adequately personalized, taking into account the severity of the consequences suffered by the injured party and the limitations to daily life.

  • The importance of motivation in the personalization of damage.
  • The necessity of concrete evidence to support the request for personalization.
  • The possibility of exceeding tabular limits in exceptional cases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 27562 of 2017 represents an important affirmation by the Supreme Court regarding the assessment of non-economic damage. It underscores the importance of an equitable evaluation that takes into account the specificities of the concrete case, in line with the principles of justice and the protection of individual rights. The indications provided by the Court may be useful in guiding future decisions regarding compensation, promoting a more attentive and personalized approach in the assessment of the damage suffered by accident victims.

Bianucci Law Firm