Moral and Biological Damages: Commentary on Cassation Ruling No. 26996 of 2018

Ruling No. 26996 of 2018 by the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone in the understanding of non-pecuniary damages, particularly concerning the distinction between moral and biological damages. In this article, we will analyze the key points of this decision and its impact on Italian law.

Context of the Ruling

The case involved M. A., a worker who suffered a workplace injury and sought compensation for the damages incurred from the defendant companies. The court of first instance partially granted the request, recognizing moral damages and quantifying them based on Milanese tables. However, the Court of Appeal of Catania overturned the decision, rejecting the compensation claims filed by M. A.

The Court of Appeal excluded the recognition of moral damages, arguing a lack of specific allegations by the claimant.

Legal Issues Raised

The main issue concerned the correct quantification of non-pecuniary damages. The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's position, emphasizing that non-pecuniary damages must be considered as a whole. Therefore, the separate quantification of biological and moral damages, in the absence of adequate specific allegations, is inadmissible and leads to a duplication of compensation.

• Unity of non-pecuniary damages
• Need for detailed allegations
• Exclusion of compensation duplication

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that non-pecuniary damages are compensable only in cases provided for by law, and that the victim must demonstrate the existence of damages beyond those already recognized by INAIL (National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work).

Implications for Future Jurisprudence

This ruling is part of a jurisprudential trend aimed at clarifying the distinctions between various types of non-pecuniary damages. The Court of Cassation, referencing previous rulings by the United Sections, clearly established that moral damages must be specifically alleged and proven, and cannot be claimed in a generic manner.

The implications are significant for future cases seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages, as judges will be more inclined to require exhaustive and specific documentation to ensure that damages are adequately compensated.

Conclusions

In summary, Cassation Ruling No. 26996 of 2018 offers an important reflection on the subject of non-pecuniary damages, highlighting the necessity of proper specific allegations and the distinction between different types of damages. It represents a significant step in the protection of workers' rights, but also a warning to those intending to seek compensation, urging them to prepare adequately and not underestimate the importance of the evidence to be presented in court.