News Supreme Court rulings November 2018

Loss of companion animal, moral damage

In the case at hand, a motorist involved in a traffic accident unintentionally ran over a companion animal, causing it numerous injuries.

The trial judge denied the compensability of non-pecuniary damage referring to the injury of the animal.

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 26770/2018, confirmed a well-established guideline: in the above-mentioned order, the following reasoning was given: “the loss of a pet animal, caused by a tort, does not fall under any compensable category of non-asset damage.”

According to the Court, the loss of one’s pet, resulting from the wrongful act of a third party, does not qualify as a human interest in maintaining emotional integrity.

The court made it clear that for the purpose of recognizing the aforementioned damage, it is not sufficient to refer to the generic reference of “loss of quality of life,” an expression of the broader, constitutionally guaranteed human interest.

Disavowal of one’s investment authorization signature causes its cancellation

By order no. 30104/2018, the Supreme Court clarifies that in cases where the investor, disowns his signature, the transactions made by the bank in the name and on behalf of the client are illegitimate and therefore void. In the face of the aforementioned disallowance, which, moreover, must be timely and must involve not only individual orders but also the upstream contract, the bank must return the sums invested by the customer.

Parent who does not let ex-spouse see child commits crime

In ruling no. 51960/2018 the Supreme Court ruled that, in the hypothesis of shared custody, the behavior of the parent who removes the child from the visitation of the other, against the latter’s will, commits the crime of child abduction, regulated 574 c.p.p.

In the same pronouncement, the Ermellini clarified that sporadic visits, such as summer visits, do not exclude the application of the aforementioned rule.