Thanatological damage or immediate death.

[:it]The 'tanatological damage' must be brought within the sphere of moral damage, in its broadest exception, i.e. as the suffering of the subject who consciously witnesses his or her own death.

On this point, the most authoritative jurisprudence teaches that the so-called "Thanatological damage"or immediate death must be brought within the dimension of non-pecuniary damage, understood in its widest exception, as the suffering of the victim who lucidly witnesses the extinguishing of his or her life and, therefore, can only be such that of the victim surviving at least for an appreciable length of time after the accident and before the final outcome.

Hence, the claim for damages from "loss of the right to life"or 'tanatological damage', brought jure hereditatis by the heirs of the deceased, is not admissible when the occurrence of the fatal event takes place immediately or a short time after the harmful event, since this entails the loss of the legal asset of life in the person's hands, which cannot result in the simultaneous acquisition in the victim's estate of a corresponding right to compensation, then transferable to the heirs.

There have also been quite recent rulings on this point, and among these we can mention, in particular, the Court of Rovigo which verbatim reads '... the non-pecuniary damage jure ereditaria cannot be recognised ... because A.R. suffered intensely for less than an hour ... circumstance that, although touching from a 'moral' point of view, does not fulfil the prerequisites required by the Supreme College to consider that the right to claim has entered the legal sphere of the injured party: an appreciable period of time ...".[1]

To conclude, in hypotheses such as the one above, only one damage could be identified, namely that consisting in the suffering endured by the victim's relatives over the death of their relative.

The Supreme Court recently pronounced on this issue, confirming a well-established jurisprudential direction.

"Injury to the right to health occurs when the subject remains alive with an impairment and only when there is a time lapse between the harmful event and death that makes the right to compensation accrue, which is consequently transmissible to the heirs. Consequently, compensation for tanatological damage "iure hereditatis" does not arise when death occurs immediately as a consequence of the injury, since in this case there is no injury to the legal right to health.".[2]

ABSTRACT

[:]