I criteri di comparazione tra indennizzo Inail e risarcimento civilistico alla luce della giurisprudenza delle Sezioni unite, del Consiglio di Stato e della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea

Abstract

Articles 10 and 11 of Law 1124/1965 provide that INAIL recover the amount paid to the injured worker by those responsible for the accident. If the compensation is less than what is due under civil liability rules, the difference (so-called differential damages) goes to the injured worker.
There are three guidelines in legal doctrine and jurisprudence regarding the criteria for calculating differential damages: that of homogeneous items, currently dominant in Supreme Court jurisprudence, according to which the comparison must be made separately for each item of damages, civil patrimonial damages with the so-called patrimonial indemnity, non-patrimonial damages with biological damages INAIL, and the difference between each comparison goes to the worker; those proposed by the doctrine of overall comparison, in the two sub-guidelines, excluding, or including, complementary damages, i.e. damage items not compensated by INAIL.
The author analyzes the motivational and decision-making process of the sentences mentioned in the title to deduce that the only calculation method compatible with the criteria set forth by the Supreme Magistrates is that of an overall comparison, with the corrective introduced by constitutional jurisprudence, according to which in no case can the compensation due to the injured worker be less than the amount of compensation that would be due to the ordinary citizen for the same injuries.