Order no. 16780 of 2024: The Causal Link in Transfusion Damages
The recent order no. 16780 of June 17, 2024, from the Court of Cassation addresses a highly relevant issue in the field of damages compensation, particularly concerning the consequences of infected blood transfusions. This ruling highlights how the recognition of the right to compensation provided by Law no. 210 of 1992 can significantly influence the proof of the causal link in the context of a damages claim.
The Regulatory Context of the Ruling
Law no. 210 of 1992 is fundamental regarding compensation for damages arising from infected blood transfusions. Under this legislation, individuals who suffer damages due to blood transfusions can obtain compensation. However, proving the causal link between the transfusion and the damage suffered is often complex. The order in question clarifies that the measure recognizing the compensation is not an out-of-court confession but constitutes significant evidence.
The Principle of Causality
CAUSALITY (LINK OF) In general. In a damages lawsuit filed for damages arising from the transfusion of infected blood, the administrative measure recognizing the right to compensation pursuant to Law no. 210 of 1992, while not constituting an out-of-court confession, is a serious and precise element, sufficient on its own to justify the use of presumptive evidence and to consider the causal link proven, through this means, not only against the Ministry of Health but also against other parties potentially liable for damages (in this case, the liquidation management of a dissolved USSL), due to the nature of simple presumption of the means of proof.
This excerpt highlights the importance of the compensation measure as circumstantial evidence. It allows for the establishment of a simple presumption of the causal link, meaning that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the recognition of compensation can be used to demonstrate that the damage suffered is directly connected to the transfusion. This is particularly relevant not only for the Ministry of Health but also for other parties who may be held liable, such as former USSLs.
Practical Implications of the Ruling
The consequences of this order can have a significant impact on future damages claims by injured parties. It is crucial for lawyers specializing in damages law to consider this ruling in their work. Some key implications can be outlined:
- Recognition of the compensation measure as circumstantial evidence in proving the causal link.
- Possibility of extending compensatory liability to parties other than the Ministry of Health.
- Greater clarity in the procedures for claiming damages resulting from transfusions.
Conclusions
In conclusion, order no. 16780 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of individuals harmed by blood transfusions. By recognizing the compensation measure as circumstantial evidence, the path to justice is facilitated for those who have suffered damages. Lawyers and legal professionals should pay close attention to this pronouncement to ensure that their clients' rights are adequately protected.
