Professional Liability and Burden of Proof: Commentary on Judgment Cass. civ., Section III, No. 8109 of 2024

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 8109 of 2024 offers significant insights into professional liability in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding the supervision and control of facilities caring for patients with severe psychiatric disorders. The legal case originated from a claim for damages by A.A., father of patient C.C., who died in a care facility. The Court, upholding the lower court decisions, excluded the liability of the healthcare facility, clarifying the modalities of damage imputation and the burden of proof.

Context of the Judgment

A.A. argued that his daughter's death was attributable to a failure of supervision by the healthcare facility, which allegedly did not adequately monitor the patient, thus allowing her to overdose on medication. However, the Court of Appeal had already excluded the facility's liability, stating that there was no obligation for continuous monitoring, given the reassuring diagnosis issued by the doctors and the patient's behavior.

• Duty of Supervision: The Court established that there was no obligation for continuous monitoring of the patient.
• Civil Liability: Relatives of a psychiatric patient can pursue claims for non-contractual liability.
• Burden of Proof: The injured party bears the burden of proving the wrongful act and the fault of the party causing the damage.

Analysis of Liability

The jurisprudence of this Court has consolidated to the effect that claims for damages brought by close relatives of a patient with psychiatric problems must be framed within the scope of non-contractual liability.

The Court clarified that A.A.'s claim for damages falls under non-contractual liability pursuant to Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, and not contractual liability. This implies that the appellant must prove the existence of a wrongful act, the fault of the facility, and the damage suffered. The Court highlighted how the facility had complied with its supervisory obligations, based on medical diagnoses and the patient's behavior.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 8109 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation provides an important reflection on the liability of healthcare facilities and the burden of proof in cases of harm to psychiatric patients. It is essential for patients' families to be aware of the distinctions between contractual and non-contractual liability and the importance of providing solid evidence in court to support their claims for damages. The Court's clarity on these points represents a useful reference for legal practice and for the protection of the rights of patients and their families.