Nesso causale, inadempimento e ripartizione dell'onere della prova

Il contributo segnala la necessità che la valutazione dell’inadempimento di un obbligo di facere non professionale e di dare, allorché se ne debba verificare l’astratta efficienza nella causazione dell’evento dannoso, si uniformi a soluzioni interpretative, che siano capaci di assicurare concreta operatività al principio dell’assorbimento del nesso causale nell’inadempimento, di recente statuito dalla Suprema Corte (con le sentenze nn. 28991 e 28992 dell’11 novembre 2019). Ciò in particolar modo quando venga in rilievo una fattispecie in cui l’evento di danno sia astrattamente riconducibile a più inferenze causali. In tal caso, infatti, la verifica causale, condotta secondo lo schema della causalità adeguata, rischierebbe di rendere in concreto inoperante il principio dell’assorbimento testé richiamato. As stated by the Court of Cassation (see, the twins judgments n. 28991/19 e 28992/19 published on November 11, 2019) the rule works for ascertaining the causation requirement between a breach of contract and a injury is not the same in every situations, which the article 1218 of the Civil code should apply. The proof of causal connection is not required, if the defendant’s conduct is connected with the failure to perform a “facere” or “dare” obligation; it’s required, if defendant’s conduct concerns a professional negligence (rectius a malpractice). This paper points out that the valuation of the failure to perform a classic obligation (rectius “facere” or “dare”), when the judge is called to check the adequate evidence of the causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, must follow hermeneutic approaches able to ensure respect for the principle of the “absorption” of the causality in the failure to perform the obligation (stated by the plaintiff). Right that principle stated by the twins judgments of the Court of Cassation above quoted. This approch will be required especially in circumstances of multiple or concurrent causation. In that situation the test to ascertains the causation according to the foreseeability inquiry in the context of proximate cause would not allow the principle of the absorption of causations to work.