Analysis of Judgment Cass. civ., Section III, No. 10578 of 2018: Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 10578 of 2018 represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence regarding employer liability in cases of occupational diseases. In this article, we will analyze the key points of the decision and its implications for the rights of workers and their families.

The Case and the Court of Appeal's Decision

The case in question involves B. G., who sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage following the death of her husband F. F., who suffered from mesothelioma, a disease attributable to asbestos exposure during his employment with Enel. The Court of Appeal of Venice partially granted the request, recognizing the company's liability for failing to adopt the necessary safety measures.

The Court found the causal link between asbestos exposure and the worker's illness to be established, affirming the employer's liability.

The Appellant's Criticisms and Arguments

Enel filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in recognizing its liability, citing the lack of fault and the right to use asbestos at that time. Among the grounds for appeal, the absence of certain proof regarding the causal link and the employer's lack of knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos were highlighted.

• Violation of the articles of the Civil Code concerning civil liability.
• Lack of certain proof of asbestos exposure during the period of employment with Enel.
• Absence of fault on the part of the employer, considering the regulatory context of the time.

The Court of Cassation's Response

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, reiterating that the causal link had been adequately proven and that the employer's liability was evident. It was emphasized that, even though asbestos was legally usable, this did not exempt the employer from the obligation to ensure the safety of its employees.

In particular, the Court stated that the scientific knowledge of the time did not justify the absence of preventive measures and that the employer's negligence was clear. Furthermore, the external judgment in a parallel case confirmed Enel's liability for the worker's illness.

Conclusions

Judgment Cass. civ., Section III, No. 10578 of 2018 represents an important reference for future disputes concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage following occupational diseases. It underscores the importance of employer responsibility in ensuring a safe working environment and in recognizing the rights of families of victims of occupational diseases.