Pecuniary damage from loss of future income and the Milan Tables: the Court of Cassation clarifies with judgment no. 29054 of 2025

The assessment of future pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of earning capacity has always represented one of the most complex challenges for trial judges. With judgment no. 29054 of November 3, 2025, the Third Civil Section of the Court of Cassation addressed a crucial issue: the applicability of the Tables prepared by the Observatory on Civil Justice of the Court of Milan for the capitalization of future pecuniary damage. The ruling clarifies the boundaries of Article 1226 of the Italian Civil Code and the substantial difference between the assessment of non-pecuniary (biological) damage and that of pecuniary damage.

The case arises from the litigation between L. P. and R. F., which reached the Court of Cassation following the decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin. At the center of the debate is the nature of the Milanese tables and their value as a parameter of supplementary equity.

The distinction between biological damage and future pecuniary damage

While for non-pecuniary (biological) damage the Milan Tables are now recognized as the national reference parameter for equity to ensure uniformity of treatment, the same cannot be said for pecuniary damage from loss of future income. According to the Supreme Court, the needs underlying the two types of damage are profoundly different:

• Biological damage: addresses the need for uniformity of treatment across the national territory, as the value of the human person must be protected in a similar manner regardless of the geographical context.
• Future pecuniary damage: requires an assessment strictly linked to the specific situation of the injured party, their actual income, their working life expectancy, and other variable macroeconomic factors.

The principle of law of judgment no. 29054 of 2025

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is essential to analyze the official principle of law expressed by the Supreme Court:

The "table" prepared by the Observatory on Civil Justice of the Court of Milan for the liquidation, in the form of an annuity, of pecuniary damage from the loss of future income, unlike that relating to non-pecuniary damage, does not constitute the equitable parameter referred to in Article 1226 of the Civil Code, because the identification of the scientifically correct criteria to be used for capitalization is not based on a census of past liquidation practices but requires a series of factual findings and a specific equitable assessment of the circumstances of the concrete case, which may legitimately justify the appropriateness, in individual cases, of criteria that may even differ from one another, unlike what occurs for the liquidation of biological damage, for which, instead, the need for uniformity of treatment regarding the value of the human person prevails.

The principle of law clarifies that the judge cannot merely apply the Milanese tables uncritically as if they were a standardized equitable parameter under Article 1226 of the Civil Code. On the contrary, the capitalization of future income requires rigorous factual findings and the application of flexible mathematical-actuarial criteria, adaptable to the specificities of the concrete case.

The role of Article 1226 of the Civil Code and the judge's power

Article 1226 of the Civil Code allows the judge to assess damages on an equitable basis when they cannot be proven in their precise amount. However, equity must not translate into arbitrariness or unjustified standardization. In the case of loss of future income, the calculation must be based on precise scientific and demographic data (such as rates of return and life expectancy), leaving the judge the discretion to choose the capitalization method most suitable for the specific situation of the injured party, rather than binding them to a pre-established tabular practice.

Conclusions

With judgment no. 29054/2025, the Court of Cassation reaffirms the centrality of the personalization of pecuniary damage. For legal professionals, this ruling serves as a warning not to rely blindly on tabular automatisms, but to support claims for damages with solid factual evidence and targeted actuarial expert reports, thereby ensuring real justice and equity for the injured party.