Compensation for Grandfather's Death: The Court of Cassation and the Irrelevance of Cohabitation (Order No. 17208/2025)

In the complex landscape of family law and damages, the Supreme Court of Cassation intervenes once again to define increasingly precise, yet broader, boundaries for the protection of emotional ties. Order No. 17208 of June 26, 2025, serves as an important beacon, clarifying a crucial aspect of non-pecuniary damages for "death," particularly when the action is brought by grandchildren for the loss of their grandfather. The central question is whether cohabitation constitutes an indispensable prerequisite for obtaining compensation.

The Context of the Ruling: Grandchildren's Claim for Damages

The case involved P. P. versus C., with the grandchildren bringing a claim for damages "iure proprio" for the death of their grandfather. The Court of Appeal of Trieste, in its judgment of December 23, 2021, had rejected the claim, presumably based on the lack of a cohabiting relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, or at least not deeming the bond sufficiently proven in the absence of such an element. The matter thus came before the Court of Cassation, which was called upon to determine whether cohabitation is an absolute requirement or if, conversely, other elements can demonstrate the substance of the familial relationship.

The Supreme Court's Ruling: Emotional Bond Beyond Cohabitation

The Supreme Court, with Order No. 17208 of 2025, provided a clear and illuminating answer that deserves in-depth analysis. The ruling states verbatim:

In matters of claims for non-pecuniary damages for "death," brought "iure proprio" by the deceased's relatives, the latter must prove the effectiveness and substance of the familial relationship, for which cohabitation does not constitute a necessary prerequisite, but rather only useful evidentiary material to demonstrate its breadth and depth. This applies even when the action is brought by a grandchild for the loss of their grandfather, precisely because the "natural society," to which Article 29 of the Constitution refers, is not limited to the so-called "nuclear family." Therefore, the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, to be considered legally qualified and relevant, cannot be anchored to cohabitation but to proof of the existence of constant relationships of mutual affection and solidarity with the deceased relative.

This pronouncement is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation unequivocally clarifies that cohabitation is not a necessary prerequisite for obtaining compensation for damages from death, not even in the delicate relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. Instead, it represents evidentiary material, one of the possible proofs to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the emotional bond. The true focus of the issue shifts to proving the "effectiveness and substance of the familial relationship."

The Court bases this interpretation on a reference to Article 29 of the Constitution, which recognizes the family as a "natural society founded on marriage." The