News Supreme Court rulings December 2018

Overtaking between vehicles, safety distances must also be maintained laterally
The Third Civil Section of the Supreme Court in ruling no. 31009/2018 affirmed that, on the subject of road traffic, the driver of a vehicle intending to overtake must take into account not only the distance from his vehicle to any obstacles or cars coming from the opposite lane, but also the lateral distance subsisting between his vehicle and the vehicle to be overtaken, since the same must be adequate and sufficient to carry out the maneuver safely.
This obligation, prescribed in Art. 148 C.d.S., is particularly intense and significant in all cases where the vehicle to be overtaken is a motorcycle or a velocipede that manifests abnormalities in driving, since, in such a case, if the overtaking maneuver involves reason for danger to the safety of road users, the same must be considered prohibited and, the driver of the vehicle intent on overtaking, must give up momentarily, until the driving conditions do not allow a safe maneuver.

Dismissal for objective reason, repêchage obligation
In the judgment of Dec. 12, 2018, no. 32158 the Supreme Court has ruled that, an employee who is dismissed for objective justification because he or she has become unfit for the duties performed up to that time is entitled to be reinstated if the employer, in imposing the dismissal, violates the repêchage obligation.
In other words, the employer, before notifying the employee of the termination of the previously established relationship with consequent removal from the workplace, if triggered by reasons inherent to the production activity, must, first verify whether it is possible to relocate the employee to other activities, consequently assigning him to possible tasks compatible with his health condition, and only if it is not possible to proceed.

Damage of the child: the quantification of the loss from work capacity
Where the victim of property damage caused by medical liability is a child, for the quantification of damages, the Judge must take into account “the coefficient of impairment for advance capitalization.” Therefore, at the time the liquidation of future and permanent property damages is made, the Judge must distinguish them into two categories: damages that are occurring at the time of liquidation and will continue to occur in the future and, those that at the time of the judgment have not yet occurred, since they will begin to occur only when the child reaches working age. The Supreme Court in ruling no. 31235, Dec. 4, 2018, clarified that when settling, the judge must consider that he is settling today a damage that will occur at a later time.