Judgment No. 3767 of 2018: Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage and the Relevance of Residence
The Court of Cassation, with order no. 3767 of 2018, addressed a crucial issue regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage, clarifying that the socio-economic reality of the injured party must not influence the amount of compensation. This principle was reiterated in response to appeals filed by the relatives of a road accident victim, who contested the reduction of compensation by the Court of Appeal of Milan, considering their residence in Romania.
The Case Under Review
The proceedings arose from the tragic death of P.V., who was hit by a truck. The victim's relatives sought compensation for the damages suffered, but the Court of Milan initially rejected the claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeal partially granted the request but reduced the compensation amount for the relatives residing in Romania, applying a 30% reduction due to their economic situation.
The socio-economic reality in which the victim of a wrongful act lives is entirely irrelevant for the purpose of quantifying tortious damage.
Legal Principles Established by the Court
With judgment no. 3767, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, emphasizing several fundamental principles:
- Compensation for non-pecuniary damage must not vary based on the residence of the injured party.
- The consequences of the damage must be assessed based on the prejudice suffered by the victim, regardless of the socio-economic context.
- In cases of death of a close relative, moral suffering is presumed, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove the absence of an emotional bond.
Conclusions
The judgment of the Court of Cassation represents an important affirmation of principle in the field of damage compensation. It reaffirms the right of victims' relatives to receive fair compensation, without discrimination based on their residence. This jurisprudential trend is crucial for ensuring effective protection of the rights of the injured, stating that human suffering cannot be quantified based on economic or territorial criteria. The Court has therefore provided an important clarification, confirming that the dignity of the person and their right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage must remain inviolable, regardless of the socio-economic situation of the injured party.
