Cass. Civ., Section VI - 3, Order no. 8218/2021: Civil Liability and Damages for Loss of Parental Relationship

The recent order of the Court of Cassation no. 8218 of 2021 offers an important opportunity for reflection on the criteria for compensation for the loss of a parental relationship. The decision, which confirmed the rejection of the compensation claim by D.I.N., D.I.R., and D.I.I. for the death of their aunt, has raised questions about the standing of non-cohabiting heirs and the assessment of emotional bonds.

Context of the Judgment

The case originated from a road accident in which the parties' aunt died. The Court of Velletri and subsequently the Court of Appeal of Rome excluded the standing of the appellants to claim compensation, based on the lack of cohabitation with the deceased. In particular, the Court recalled the principle that, for individuals outside the immediate nuclear family, cohabitation is necessary to attest to the intimacy of emotional relationships.

Analysis of the Reasoning of the Court of Cassation

The appealed judgment, assigning decisive importance to the lack of a cohabiting relationship, adopts a perspective diametrically opposed to the correct legal reconstruction.

The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal of the appellants, arguing that the rule of judgment applied by the Court of Appeal was erroneous. The judges highlighted that cohabitation should not be considered an exclusive requirement for the recognition of the right to compensation for damages due to the loss of a parental relationship. In fact, cohabitation could be just one piece of evidence among many, and not an indispensable criterion.

• The family cannot be limited to the nuclear family alone.
• Emotional relationships can exist even outside of cohabitation.
• Rigorous proof of the elements attesting to the injury of the parental relationship must be provided.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 8218 of 2021 represents an important step forward in Italian jurisprudence regarding non-pecuniary damages. It reaffirms that emotional bonds, even in the absence of cohabitation, can justify a claim for compensation for the loss of a family member. This approach invites a broader reflection on the definition of family and emotional ties, which cannot be reduced to mere formal requirements.