"It constitutes ius receptum that the operator of the dangerous activity is obliged to adopt, in relation to the context of reference, precautionary measures even beyond those strictly imposed by law (Cassation No. 13579 of 05/21/2019), also and above all in reference to information, in order to avoid the business risk resulting from placing on the market of an ontologically harmful product without specific information regarding the type of damage to health (leading, as in the present case, even to death) to which the consumer is exposed, and the related unaware consumption by the smoker. Consumers unaware of the specific risks to which they are exposed by reason of the marketing of cigarettes in fact laying down the exclusion that the conduct of the consumer can be considered marked by effective freedom of determination in this regard and as such can therefore rise to a proximate cause of relevance in the determination of the harmful event in the terms that the trial court erroneously recognized in the appealed ruling."
Heirs of Decedent [redacted names] v. Tobacco Products Manufacturer [redacted name]
Heirs of Decedent [redacted names] v. Tobacco Products Manufacturer [redacted name], Case No. 13844, Supreme Court of Cassation (Third Civil Division), Jan. 17, 2025 (published May 23, 2025)
- Italy
- Jan 17, 2025
- Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy (Third Civil Division) (Terza Sezione Civile della Corte Suprema di Cassazione)
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
"The lower court of jurisdiction, in essence, precisely because of the qualification of the activity of tobacco production and marketing as dangerous, should not have limited itself to deeming the consumer’s choice a proximate cause of importance, since the conduct of the injured party not only has to be evaluated differently depending on the dangerousness of the activity, but also because the regulation of dangerous activities requires specific and especially strict exonerating circumstances, that do not properly coincide with evidence of the unforeseeable event (including the victim’s culpable act), it being undeniable that in practice “the difference with the limit of the unforeseeable event is significantly attenuated” (Cassation No. 7298 of 05/13/2003)."
"In particular, taking into account that [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] was charged without having adequately informed the injured party of the harmfulness of smoking, in order to verify the victim’s negligence in causing the damage and ascertain its exclusive or concurrent causal effectiveness, the lower trial court should indeed have first assessed whether the harmful event would have likely occurred if one of the two parties involved had maintained the alternative correct conduct, to then repeat the operation with the parties’ roles reversed (see Cassation No. 23804 of 09/04/2024; Cassation No. 12676 of 05/09/2024), having the obligation to evaluate each relevant causal factor in order to establish its contributing cause in the determination of the injurious event (Cassation No. 22801 of 09/29/2017)."
The heirs of a woman who smoked approximately twenty MS cigarettes per day between 1965 and 1995, and who subsequently died of lung cancer, brought an action against the manufacturer, alleging its failure to warn consumers of the product’s health risks despite the existence of established scientific evidence. The trial court recognized the company’s liability but attributed 50 percent contributory negligence to the deceased. It ultimately denied compensation, reasoning that her voluntary decision to smoke constituted an intervening cause that severed the causal link.
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation annulled this ruling, reaffirming that the production and sale of tobacco constitute inherently dangerous activities under Article 2050 of the Italian Civil Code. As such, manufacturers bear a heightened duty to adopt preventive measures and to provide adequate warnings to consumers. The Court held that the lower court erred in treating the victim’s conduct as the exclusive cause of harm without first assessing whether she possessed specific knowledge of smoking’s carcinogenic risks, and remanded the case for reconsideration.