When mobbing affects a person, the consequences can also enter couple life: routines, domestic peace, and the possibility of planning and supporting each other change. If you are the spouse of the worker who has suffered harassing conduct, it is natural to wonder whether that prejudice can also be relevant for you, in addition to the damage directly suffered by the worker.
Compensation is not automatic, but it may be granted. I want to clarify what indirect damage means, because it does not coincide with a share of the spouse's compensation, and what facts make the claim more solid. We will also see the difference between understandable but non-compensable family difficulties and a concrete injury to the couple's relationship caused by a wrongful act in the workplace environment.
The spouse's damage is their own damage, not a part of the worker's damage
The spouse can claim compensation iure proprio. This expression indicates damage suffered personally: it is not claimed on behalf of the mobbing victim, nor is it received as a percentage of the sums possibly recognized to them. The claim concerns pain, the compromise of the emotional relationship, or the concrete consequences that the injury suffered by the partner has produced in your life.
The marital relationship matters, but on its own it does not conclude the matter. The Supreme Court of Cassation has clarified that close relatives of a person injured by a wrongful act may be entitled to non-pecuniary damage for the infringement of the family relationship, provided it is concretely ascertained. The close relationship can constitute a presumption of suffering, i.e., a fact from which the judge can infer suffering; however, it remains possible to demonstrate that the bond was not effective or that the alleged prejudice did not occur. Supreme Court of Cassation Order no. 13540 of May 17, 2023
It is therefore not enough to prove that you are married. It is necessary to link the harmful conduct at work to the consequences suffered by the worker and, from these, to the injury of the couple's life. For example, relevance is assumed by an illness resulting from the facts, a lasting change in daily activities, the necessary assistance provided to the partner, the loss of shared opportunities, or demonstrably personal suffering through precise facts.
First condition: ascertaining the harmful fact at work
The spouse's claim depends first and foremost on liability for what happened to the worker. Mobbing is not a label applied to every professional conflict. Generally, a series of hostile and harassing behaviors are discussed, connected to each other and capable of marginalizing or prejudicing the employee. Facts, damage, and the causal link between conduct and consequences must emerge.
Article 2087 of the civil code also protects the moral personality of the worker. The rule requires the employer to adopt the measures necessary to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the employee. In the context of mobbing or straining, i.e., stress-inducing working conditions even without a complete persecutory design, the point is not the name attributed to the affair: what counts is the violation of protection obligations and the damage that followed. Civil Code, including arts. 2043, 2059 and 2087
A single unfavorable company choice does not in itself prove mobbing. A transfer, a disciplinary warning, a change in duties, or a conflict with a superior need to be read in their context. They can be lawful, unlawful but isolated, or part of a harassing sequence. This distinction affects first of all the worker's right and, consequently, the spouse's possibility of asserting their own damage.
The worker's damage is not presumed. Both the existence of conduct contrary to protection obligations and the connection with a prejudice to health, dignity, or professional life must emerge. A ruling by the Court of Taranto in 2024 recalls that, in these disputes, the worker must allege and prove the facts, the damage, and the connection with the workplace environment; only afterwards does the employer's proof on the precautions adopted assume relevance. Institutional summary of the judgment of the Court of Taranto no. 631/2024
What prejudice the spouse must prove
The suffering must have a concrete consequence in the spouse's personal sphere. It is not necessary for you to have suffered a diagnosed illness in turn to claim non-pecuniary damage. Indeed, jurisprudence distinguishes the loss of health, which requires medical assessment, from inner pain and the alteration of daily life deriving from the serious conditions of the family member.
Indirect damage is not damage in re ipsa. This formula means that it does not arise automatically from the wrongful act alone or from the family relationship alone. The spouse must offer elements showing how the primary victim's condition has affected the relationship and their own life. Proof can also be presumptive: direct testimony of every single moment of suffering is not always necessary, but coherent and verifiable circumstances must emerge.
Personal pain and change in couple life
Two profiles can coexist without being duplicated. The first is moral suffering for the deterioration of the partner's health or balance. The second concerns dynamic-relational consequences: the stable modification of family tasks, shared activities, sociality, or mutual assistance. These are not categories to be added mechanically; the judge must recognize a sum that takes into account the actual prejudice without compensating the same effect twice.
Expenses and economic losses of the spouse
Pecuniary loss requires a precise economic loss. If the spouse has incurred care, transport, or assistance expenses that actually remained their responsibility, or has had a loss of income directly connected to the situation, these items must be distinguished from non-pecuniary damage and documented. Conversely, it is not sufficient to state that the family budget has worsened: one must avoid claiming the income due to the injured worker once again.
Useful evidence tells the facts, not just the distress
The evidence must bring together work, health, and family relationship. For the first segment, company communications, service orders, emails, disciplinary notices, changes in duties, health documents, and statements from people who witnessed the facts may be relevant. For the second, elements that make the consequences in the couple's life visible are required, without exposing intimate aspects that do not serve the claim.
Clinical documents explain the worker's damage, but do not replace the proof of the spouse's damage. Certification can show the onset or worsening of a disorder and the course of treatment. To prove the family reflection, facts such as the need for accompaniment, the interruption of habitual activities, the stable redistribution of duties, or the change in communication and common life can also be useful.
Temporal consistency is decisive. If family consequences begin after work conduct and follow the evolution of the partner's conditions, the connection is more understandable. If, on the other hand, previous difficulties, extraneous causes, or a relationship broken for some time emerge, these elements do not automatically eliminate the claim, but require a more accurate reconstruction of the damage actually attributable to work facts.
How to distinguish claims and possible consequences
The worker and the spouse have different positions. The primary victim can claim compensation for damages caused directly by mobbing conduct or by the breach of the protection obligation. The spouse can claim compensation for their own prejudice in the family relationship. The two claims are connected on a factual level, but are not superimposable: the same documentation can be useful to both, while proof and quantification remain personal.
There is no fixed percentage of the worker's compensation. The economic value is not derived by applying an automatic share to the biological or moral damage of the primary victim. The Supreme Court of Cassation has pointed out that, for injuries to the relatives of a severely injured person, assessment criteria suited to indirect damage and proven circumstances are needed. The severity of the injury, the quality of the relationship, the concrete impact on family habits, and the proven suffering assume relevance in the single case. Supreme Court of Cassation sheet on order no. 13540/2023
One should not necessarily expect damage identical to the partner's. The worker may have a clinically ascertained disorder, while the spouse may prove pain and a serious compromise of relational life without an independent pathology. Conversely, if the spouse claims to have developed a health disorder, they must also prove that personal damage and its causal link with the affair.
What steps to consider without confusing the plans
The first useful choice is to separate facts from conclusions. Noting chronology, subjects involved, episodes, repercussions on health, and changes in family life helps understand whether one is talking about mobbing, another violation of Article 2087, or a non-compensable conflict. It is important not to alter messages, not to select documents in a misleading way, and not to base the claim solely on personal judgments.
The protection of the worker and that of the spouse must be coordinated, not confused. A contradictory reconstruction of conduct, dates, or damages can weaken both positions. If you intend to explore the possibility of a personal claim, I can help you distinguish the worker's damage from the consequences that directly affected your life and the couple's relationship.
Frequently asked questions
Can I claim compensation even if I do not have a personal medical diagnosis?
Yes, a diagnosis is not always necessary. Indirect damage can consist of personal pain and the concrete compromise of couple life. However, you must prove the wrongful act, the partner's damage, and the consequences suffered by you. If you also claim damage to your health, that different prejudice requires specific medical and causal proof.
Does the compensation obtained by my spouse automatically include mine as well?
No, they are two distinct damages. The worker's compensation concerns the injuries suffered by them; yours concerns the impact of those injuries on your person and on the family relationship. The claims may be based on a common reconstruction of facts, but it cannot be presumed that a sum recognized to the partner also compensates the spouse.
Is a period of stress or absence from work enough to talk about mobbing?
No, more precise facts are needed. Stress and absence can be important consequences, but they must be connected to unlawful employer conduct and proven damage. Mobbing normally requires a plurality of harassing behaviors; even when this qualification does not emerge, stress-inducing working conditions or other violations of Article 2087 of the civil code may be relevant.
Does lack of cohabitation prevent the spouse from claiming indirect damage?
No, but it makes proof of the effective relationship central. Cohabitation is a useful element to show the depth of the relationship and changes in daily life, not an automatic requirement in every situation. If spouses live apart but maintain an affective bond and mutual support, that concrete reality must be described and proven.
Can I also claim expenses incurred to assist my spouse?
Yes, if they are your expenses, documented and causally connected. Costs of care, transport, or assistance can constitute pecuniary loss distinct from non-pecuniary damage. It is necessary to identify who incurred the expense, why it was necessary, and whether it has not already been claimed or reimbursed under another item, to avoid duplications.
Essential references
To guide this guide, I recalled arts. 2043, 2059, and 2087 of the civil code, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 13540/2023 on the damage of relatives of the injured person, and the institutional summary of the Court of Taranto no. 631/2024 regarding mobbing, straining, proof, and employer liability.