[Autom. eng. transl.] This comment takes a position on the issue of the relevance of the natural cause (in this case it was a pathology of the unborn child, then a victim of an incorrect obstetric intervention) for the purpose of reducing the responsibility of the author of the human conduct that contributed to cause the harmful event. If the sentence under review confirms the traditional teaching, contrary to legitimize, in such cases, a proportional responsibility, the a. takes a critical position with respect to this restrictive orientation, considering that (i) the law of positive law does not seem to offer certain hints in this sense, rather persuading of the existence of a principle that tends to proportion the responsibility to the actual causal contribution of each unlawful conduct; (ii) the rule of proportional liability, if "managed" on the basis of an objective ascertainment of causal efficiency, does not ineluctably carry with it, as the sentence in question believes, equitable derives. Such deviations, moreover, are not at all extraneous to the ruling in question, for which the previous pathology could be subject to consideration, in the context of the judgment for quantification of the indemnifiable damage, activating precisely the equity fees referred to in art. 1226 cod. civ.
|Translated title of the contribution||[Autom. eng. transl.] Contest of natural cause and proportional responsibility: the apparent orthodoxy of the supreme court.|
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||LA NUOVA GIURISPRUDENZA CIVILE COMMENTATA|
|Publication status||Published - 2016|
- responsabilità proporzionale