Non-pecuniary damage and personalization: Comment on Cass. Judgment no. 27562 of 2017

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 27562 of 2017 offers interesting insights regarding the liquidation of non-pecuniary damage, particularly on the issue of the personalization of biological damage. The case involves D.P.R., a victim of a road accident, who suffered serious physical consequences due to the accident. The Court had to rule on the correctness of the liquidation of biological damage and its personalization, taking into account the specificities of the concrete case.

The case and the principles of damage liquidation

Firstly, it is important to emphasize that the Court confirmed the consolidated orientation according to which non-pecuniary damage, pursuant to art. 2059 of the Italian Civil Code, is a unitary category. This implies that the various components of prejudice, such as biological damage and moral damage, cannot be liquidated separately to avoid double compensation. The Court held that, in the absence of specific legal criteria, liquidation should proceed according to the tabular parameters elaborated by the Court of Milan, which also consider the personalization of damage based on peculiar circumstances of the concrete case.

In cassation proceedings, the omission or erroneous application of these tabular parameters can be asserted as a violation or misapplication of art. 1226 of the Italian Civil Code.

Personalization of damage and the role of the judge

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the issue of the personalization of biological damage. The Court confirmed that, in the presence of specificities of the case, it is possible to increase the value liquidated according to the tables. However, personalization must be adequately motivated and supported by concrete evidence. In the case of D.P.R., the Court noted that the biological damage had been adequately personalized, taking into account the severity of the consequences suffered by the injured party and the limitations to daily life.

• Importance of motivation in damage personalization.
• Need for concrete evidence to support the request for personalization.
• Possibility of exceeding tabular limits in exceptional cases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 27562 of 2017 represents an important affirmation by the Court of Cassation on the matter of non-pecuniary damage liquidation. It emphasizes the importance of an equitable assessment that takes into account the specificities of the concrete case, in line with the principles of justice and the protection of personal rights. The indications provided by the Court can be useful for guiding future decisions on compensation, promoting a more attentive and personalized approach in assessing the damage suffered by accident victims.