Cass. civ., Sec. III, Ord. no. 6443/2023: Reflections on the Assessment of Moral and Biological Damages

Judgment no. 6443 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation is part of the legal debate concerning the assessment of damages in road accident cases, emphasizing the distinction between biological damage and moral damage. This ruling offers interesting insights for understanding compensation dynamics and the evaluation criteria used by judges.

The Case and the Decisions of the Lower Courts

In the case at hand, A.A. suffered damages following a road accident, and the Court of Foggia had initially assessed biological damage at 7%. However, on appeal, the judge reduced this amount to 4%, justifying the decision with the need to avoid double compensation between moral damage and biological damage. This aspect is crucial, as the Court highlighted that moral damage might already be included in biological damage, particularly when psychological disorders such as emotional stress are involved.

The Court emphasized the obligation to avoid duplication by assigning different names to identical harms.

The Importance of Proof in Moral and Biological Damages

The Court recalled the principle that, to obtain compensation, it is essential to provide clear and distinct evidence regarding the consequences of the damage suffered. In this case, A.A. failed to convincingly demonstrate that the psychological consequences of the incident went beyond what was already considered in the biological damage. This leads to reflection on the burden of proof in compensation matters, where it is essential to demonstrate the actual impact of injuries on an individual's daily and relational life.

Conclusions: A Necessary Approach

Judgment no. 6443 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step in the legal process concerning damage compensation. It emphasizes the need for a rigorous distinction between biological damage and moral damage, highlighting the importance of adequate and specific evidence for each type of damage. This approach not only ensures greater fairness in compensation but also contributes to greater clarity in legal decisions, reducing the risk of double compensation. The Court therefore reiterated that, in cases of psychological damage, adequate proof of its extent and specificity must be provided to obtain fair and just compensation.