Era il 2005 e la Corte d'Appello di Roma con Sentenza n. 1015/2005 per la prima volta nel panorama Italiano pronunciava un sentenza di condanna dei produttori di tabacchi per danno da fumo.
A distanza di qualche anno ci domandiamo se la Sentenza della Corte d'Appello di Roma non sia rimasta un caso isolato..
In effetti successivamente alla Sentenza 1015/2005 l'orientamento giurisprudenziale è stato tutt'altro che influenzato dalla pronunzia della corte.
Facendo il punto della situazione, è a dirsi che le pronunzie sull'argomento sono tanto esigue quanto rilevanti, quanto meno per l'acceso dibattito che hanno scatenato.
Sintenticamente possiamo dire che l'orientamento maggioritario nega la responsabilità Head in the tobacco company-and therefore the right to compensation from the consumer-and this is based on the belief that it would not be sufficient for the purpose of proving a causal link between the production and sale of tobacco products and the event damage resulting from the use of such products, the high statistical probability (even in the presence of a degree of probability to the certainty) that a given disease can be linked to smoking.
This denial is anchored to the idea that the event is dependent on a prejudicial abuse of the use of cigarettes deliberately perpetrated by the victim in that its damage.
is clear that this guideline aims to promote the empowerment the smoker, ruling that the vice-informed and voluntary, would interrupt the causal link thereby drowning the right to compensation for any damage caused to the smoker.
course following the mainstream thinking, you can get to deny the responsibility of the manufacturer towards smoking, assuming that the victim is aware that the head of its ills, however, one can not deny compensation to those who have been victims of passive smoking, thus opening a window at least for those who, through no fault, have suffered the negative effects of smoking do not have a choice to smoke.
This line of thought is opposed to drastically that part of the law, unfortunately, I must say, a minority, in contrast, considering the alleged causal link, for sure by now acquired the harmfulness of smoking (consider the event a disease of the normal consequences of smoking) melts vexed ques with a more simplistic, supported him that the production of cigarettes is a dangerous activity that causes serious damage to health, with a requirement for manufacturers to compensation for damages claimed by smokers, or rather, in most cases, the their surviving family members.
That said, however, it is necessary to point out that, on the one hand, according to this approach, the damaged would have the sole task of showing that it was a disease attributable to smoking statistically, it is for damaging evidence that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent damage to the other such simplistic solution is weighed by the conviction that he has settled abblighi the disclosure relating to the potential toxicity of the product, free from any liability the manufacturer.
Following this line of thought, might be covered in the series of claims, all those who, having made use of cigarettes identified as light or mild , however, have suffered the negative effects of the product, failing in this way ' liberating effect of the disclosure put in place by the manufacturer.
In contrast, the nomenclature described above, even integrate a form of advertising (the states in 2002, the Antitrust Authority), not the lower dose of nicotine, less exposure to the risk of contracting smoking-related diseases.
Indeed, the substances contained in cigarette tar, in particular the (main cause of cancer related to smoking) are present in cigarettes light as much as in the standard.
addition, the reference light , would lead the smoker to increase the consumption of cigarettes, to remedy the lack of nicotine in your body needs as a result of addiction due to the use persisted for years.
circumstances, could even be said that the use of light cigarettes increases the chances of contracting diseases related to smoking.
always followed the minority orientation, may be entitled to damages all those who have been smoking and then contract smoking-related diseases, in the years before 1990, which came into force on the L 428/1990, which introduced the requirement for affixing on cigarette packets of general information about the risks.
Only after the entry into force of that law, in fact, the cigarette companies can say they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent danni ai consumatori, sempre che abbiano ottemperato all'obbligo e sempre che tali misure possano considerarsi idonee e sufficienti.
Non bisogna dimenticare, inoltre, che qualora il fumatore che abbia subito danni a causa del fumo, abbia incominciato a fumare in un periodo precedente al 1990, il fatto che non esistesse un obbligo a carico delle case produttrici di informare il consumatore dei possibili rischi, non escluderebbe in ogni caso la responsabilità del produttore.
L'obbligo di salvaguardare i consumatori dai danni da fumo, deriva, infatti, direttamente dell'art 32 della nostra Costituzione, che tutela e garantisce il diritto alla salute quale fondamentale diritto del cittadino.
Ne discende che i produttori tobacco, are expected today, but they were even before the promulgation of a specific law to respect, to take all appropriate measures to prevent consumer damage typical of the smoke, the logical consequence that in the absence of information on risks , the smoker has the right to seek compensation for damages suffered due to the use of cigarettes.
Soon the publication of some sentence in the section MONITORING ANY SMOKE
0 comments:
Post a Comment