Summary: 1.Nozione of mass torts . - 2.Classificazione of mass torts. - 3.Delimitazione institution.
Bibliography: CALABRESI, Bobbit, tragic choice, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006; CALABRESI, The gift of the evil spirit , Giuffrè, Milano, 1996; FREZZA, Paris, Responsibility civil and economic analysis , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006; Trimarchi, Risk and responsibility objective, Giuffrè, Milan
1.Nozione of mass torts.
catastrophic events, which cause harm to a variety of subjects, are defined in the literature of civil common law, as mass torts.
The institute was established in the Anglo-Saxon legal systems (and in this case the U.S.) since the 70s of last century, and the dogmatic point of view comporta notevoli problemi interpretativi. Taluni autori, infatti, si sono chiesti se i mass torts potessero essere inquadrati, dal punto di vista giuridico, come species nel genus della responsabilità aquiliana, ovvero se rappresentano una categoria autonoma (1) .
Tralasciando le dispute dogmatiche tra cattedratici, è bene evidenziare che negli anni novanta, in U.S.A., il contenzioso concernente i mass torts , nelle cause di responsabilità del produttore, ha toccato la quota del 75%.
Il dato dimostra la rilevanza del problema in parola, e la forte tendenza dei cittadini americani ad intraprendere azioni legali, fa immaginare that this percentage will increase in coming years.
2.Classificazione of mass torts.
To better understand the scope of the phenomenon on mass disasters is useful to make a classification of development that they have had in American society. Some commentators have found that they differ essentially in three phases:
a) mass accident cases: in these circumstances, the harm is realized by a plurality of damaging, easily identified, and affects a multitude of subjects easily traceable;
b) pharmaceutical products and medical devices: these assumptions relate to prejudice made by the administration of pharmaceuticals;
c) ; mass toxic torts: the situation that concerns the case where the emission of toxic chemicals or causes injury to several persons (2).
This classification gives an idea about the actual harm that may cause this type of accidents to society. Not infrequently, the mass media denounce the population, the inherent danger of certain activities, for both citizens and the environment, think of the chemical industries, or firms that provide electricity or to nuclear power plants (3) . Despite this, the legislature is forced to accept this dangerous activity, because they allow the whole of society has got many benefits.
The question of the adoption of certain choices, of promoting a dangerous activity is evaluated by our legislators, on the basis of balance economic interests between the revenue that will be achieved through the use of that particular activity, and damage caused by the same population (4) . In other words, as argued by the best legal economists doctrine, the choice of legislators is tragic, they must consider who should live and who shall die, and that impasse is impossible to escape, as each solution is not neutral and involves in However injury to the entire community (5).
3.Delimitazione institution.
As stated nelle argomentazioni predette, i mass torts sono eventi catastrofici che cagionano nocumento ad una pluralità di persone. L’istituto presenta una connotazione giuridica ibrida rispetto al modello tradizionale dei torts .
Dal punto di vista processualcivilistico, è possibile che vi siano una pluralità di attori ( tutte le vittime del disastro ) che, mediante lo strumento della class action, esercitino la propria azione, congiuntamente, in giudizio (6).
Per quanto concerne il nesso eziologico, esso potrà anche non essere accertato immediatamente, giacché nelle ipotesi di rischio incrementale ( o stocastico) il pregiudizio si realizzerà later.
are also major problems raised by the assessment of the damage, not to mention that excessive compensation may also lead to the insolvency of the qualified persons. By virtue of these elements carefully explained that the doctrine mass torts are a separate category, distinct from the traditional torts , it is characterized by:
a) multitude of victims of the accident,
b) possibilities that arise after the accident the unlawful act;
c) difficulty of quantifying the damage;
d) problem of identification of beneficiaries of the injury was caused ;
s) plurality of multiple causes indistinguishable (7).
The civil action for damages may be enforced in a court in the U.S. system, by means of class action, which is le sue radici in fattori economici, politici e sociali.
Note:
(1) FREZZA, PARISI, Responsabilità civile e analisi economica , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, pg. 285
(2) FREZZA, PARISI, Responsabilità civile e analisi economica , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, pg. 288
(3) TRIMARCHI, Rischio e responsabilità oggettiva , Giuffrè, Milano, 1961
(4) CALABRESI, BOBBIT, Scelte tragiche , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006; CALABRESI, The gift of the evil spirit , Giuffrè, Milano, 1996
(5) CALABRESI, Bobbit, tragic choice, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006; CALABRESI, The gift of the evil spirit , Giuffrè, Milano, 1996
(6) FREZZA, Paris, Liability and Economic Analysis , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, pg. 289
(7) FREZZA, Paris, Liability and Economic Analysis , Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, pg. 290
you 
0 comments:
Post a Comment