This paper discusses the solutions adopted by Italian law (on which this study is mainly focused) and U.S. law as to the issue of recoverability of non-monetary damages suffered by one spouse for the intentional tortious conduct of the other. These suits are usually raised within the divorce proceeding and are grounded in the Italian law on the breach of conjugal duties. In Italian law, notwithstanding the absence of specific provisions ruling this issue, and therefore the application of the general provisions on tort law not being barred, there was in the past a sort of immunity of family from the operation of tort law rules, resulting from the almost total absence of lawsuits in this field.The unfavourable Italian approach towards admitting marital torts had its background in custom, and could be easily explained through the proverb “you shouldn’t wash your dirty linen in public.”The immunity rule was not only typical to the Italian legal tradition, but was present also in American law. Unlike Italian law, in U.S. the immunity rule was rooted in common law (in accordance with the English legal tradition).The transformation of the traditional family model occurred in the western world, characterized by a shift from the primacy of the family unit upon the single member to the primary relevance of the individuals within the family, together with a wider recoverability of non-pecuniary losses, paved the way for the acknowledgement of interspousal torts in both the legal systems.The modern approach to the issue adopted in the Italian legal system will be illustrated mainly through judgments, while in U.S. the overcoming in most states of the traditional immunity rule (occurred through judicial rulings or by legislation) will be explained mainly through references to scholarship.This survey, rather than suggesting new approaches to intraspousal tort liability aims at assessing differences and similarities on the ground of operational rules used in a field–that of family law- which in the past comparative law enquiries did not delve into because of its alleged ’exceptionalism.’
In questo articolo sono analizzate le soluzioni adottate nel diritto italiano e statunitense in merito alla questione dei danni non patrimoniali cagionati da un coniuge nei confronti dell'altro. Le azioni giudiziarie in questa materia vengono esperite congiuntamente all'azione volta ad ottenere la separazione personale e sono fondate sulla violazione dei doveri coniugali. Nel diritto italiano, nonostante l'assenza di specifiche previsioni in materia, e conseguentemente non essendo a priori precluso il ricorso alle norme generali regolanti la responsabilità extracontrattuale, nel passato operava una sorta d'immunità della famiglia rispetto all'applicazione della responsabilità extracontrattuale, con la conseguente pressoché totale inesistenza delle controversie fra marito e moglie. Su questa situazione dispiegava un'influenza decisiva la tradizione, efficacemente sintetizzata nell'adagio ' I panni sporchi si lavano in famiglia'. La regola dell'immunità non era solo osservata in Italia, ma era osservata anche negli USA. A differenza che in Italia, però, la soluzione era giuridicizzata, in quanto osservata come principio di common law.La trasformazione del modello tradizionale di famiglia avvenuta nel mondo occidentale, caratterizzata da uno spostamento dalla primazia dell'unità familiare alla rilevanza accordata ai singoli in seno al nucleo familiar, congiuntamente al riconoscimento di una più ampia risarcibilità dei danni non patrimoniali, ha posto le basi per la rilevanza degli illeciti endoconiugali in entrambi I sistemi. Il moderno approccio alla questione osservato nel diritto italiano sarà illustrato principalmente attraverso l'analisi della giurisprudenza, laddove negli Stati uniti sarà in particolare fatto riferimento alla dottrina.L'analisi non mira tanto a suggerire nuove soluzioni al problema, quanto piuttosto si propone di evidenziare similitudini e differenze sul piano delle regole operazionali in un settore, quale quello della famiglia appunto, non esaustivamente analizzato negli studi comparatistici per il suo asserito 'eccezionalismo'.
Interspousal claims at the crossroads of tort law and family law: the delicate balance between family and individual
ANDO', BIAGIO
2011-01-01
Abstract
This paper discusses the solutions adopted by Italian law (on which this study is mainly focused) and U.S. law as to the issue of recoverability of non-monetary damages suffered by one spouse for the intentional tortious conduct of the other. These suits are usually raised within the divorce proceeding and are grounded in the Italian law on the breach of conjugal duties. In Italian law, notwithstanding the absence of specific provisions ruling this issue, and therefore the application of the general provisions on tort law not being barred, there was in the past a sort of immunity of family from the operation of tort law rules, resulting from the almost total absence of lawsuits in this field.The unfavourable Italian approach towards admitting marital torts had its background in custom, and could be easily explained through the proverb “you shouldn’t wash your dirty linen in public.”The immunity rule was not only typical to the Italian legal tradition, but was present also in American law. Unlike Italian law, in U.S. the immunity rule was rooted in common law (in accordance with the English legal tradition).The transformation of the traditional family model occurred in the western world, characterized by a shift from the primacy of the family unit upon the single member to the primary relevance of the individuals within the family, together with a wider recoverability of non-pecuniary losses, paved the way for the acknowledgement of interspousal torts in both the legal systems.The modern approach to the issue adopted in the Italian legal system will be illustrated mainly through judgments, while in U.S. the overcoming in most states of the traditional immunity rule (occurred through judicial rulings or by legislation) will be explained mainly through references to scholarship.This survey, rather than suggesting new approaches to intraspousal tort liability aims at assessing differences and similarities on the ground of operational rules used in a field–that of family law- which in the past comparative law enquiries did not delve into because of its alleged ’exceptionalism.’I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.