Cass. civ., Sec. III, Judgment, no. 29492 of 2019: Reflections on the Compensability of Non-Pecuniary Damage

Judgment no. 29492 of the Court of Cassation, issued on November 14, 2019, addresses crucial issues regarding non-pecuniary damages, with particular attention to the compensability of biological, catastrophic, and terminal damage. The Court examined the case of a victim of chronic HCV hepatitis, contracted through blood transfusion, and established important principles relating to the statute of limitations for the right to compensation for family members. This article aims to analyze the implications of this judgment, clarifying the legal concepts involved and the importance of the correct interpretation of current regulations.

Distinctions Between Biological, Catastrophic, and Terminal Damage

The Court clarified that the notions of "terminal damage" and "catastrophic damage" do not have an autonomous legal meaning, but are rather descriptive terms used to outline different dimensions of biological damage. In particular:

• Terminal biological damage: refers to the temporary inability to carry out normal daily activities due to a fatal injury.
• Catastrophic damage: represents the intense moral damage arising from the awareness of one's terminal condition.
• Non-pecuniary damage: includes both biological damage and moral damage, both of which are compensable provided they are proven and quantifiable.

The liability of the Ministry of Health for damages resulting from HBV, HIV, and HCV virus infections contracted by transfused subjects is of an extracontractual nature.

The Role of the Statute of Limitations

Another relevant aspect of the judgment concerns the statute of limitations for compensation rights. The Court established that, in case of HCV virus infection, the right to compensation is extinguished after five years, and this also applies to damages suffered during the victim's lifetime. This is particularly significant for family members, as the right to compensation for damages "jure hereditatis" is based on the timeliness of the claim. The Court held that, since the patient was aware of the pathology and its origin, the statute of limitations had expired.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 29492 of 2019 provides fundamental guidance in understanding the compensability of non-pecuniary damages. The distinctions between the various types of damage and the importance of the statute of limitations are essential for legal professionals and victims' families. The correct application of these principles not only clarifies the legal position of the injured parties but also offers a basis for future legal interpretations and decisions.