Medical Liability and Damages: Comment on Cass. civ. no. 3893/2016

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 3893 of 2016 offers a significant insight into the issue of medical liability, particularly concerning damages suffered by a newborn due to negligence during childbirth. The ruling, which involved parents of a minor with permanent disability, highlights the importance of a correct assessment of the causal link and the criteria for quantifying damages.

The Case Under Review

In the specific case, the parents of the minor C.E., born with a 100% permanent disability due to hypoxia during labour, appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Genoa which had reduced the amount of patrimonial damages awarded in the first instance. The Court of Appeal had justified its decision by stating that liability for the damage should be divided, recognizing a concurrent cause in the minor's Down syndrome, which predated the negligent conduct of the medical staff.

Liability must be attributed in proportion to what is effectively and causally imputable, according to the legal principle established by jurisprudence.

Legal Principles Affirmed by the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation upheld the parents' appeal, emphasizing that the reduction of compensable damages was unjustified. It stressed that the negligent conduct of the doctor, which caused the hypoxia, must be considered an autonomous and principal cause of the damage, regardless of Down syndrome. Furthermore, the Court recalled the principle that, in cases of medical liability, compensation must cover the entire damage caused by negligence, without penalizing the injured party for pre-existing conditions.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment represents an important affirmation for the rights of injured parties and clarifies some fundamental points regarding:

• Determination of the causal link: it is crucial to ascertain whether the doctor's culpable conduct was decisive for the harmful event.
• Quantification of damages: the calculation of damages must be fair and not penalize the injured party for their pre-existing condition.
• Proportionality of liability: each party must be held liable in proportion to what was effectively caused by their conduct.

Conclusions

The judgment no. 3893 of 2016 by the Court of Cassation represents a step forward in protecting patients' rights and holding healthcare professionals accountable. It clarifies that, in case of damage, the assessment must be careful and should not consider pre-existing conditions as a reason to reduce compensation. This approach is essential to ensure fairness and justice, protecting the most vulnerable, such as minors with disabilities.