Doppia dimensione del danno da perdita del rapporto parentale: una proposta pratica

With a couple of recent rulings, the Supreme Court has in fact distanced itself from an orientation dating back two decades, bringing to maturity a partial “Milanoexit” (threateningly inclined to erode the paranormativity of the Ambrosian tables). The new course involves the most advanced and controversial frontier of non-pecuniary damage, that of loss of parental relationship, which emerged, first with difficulty and then triumphantly, from the many resistances to endorse the compensation of a reflex vulnus; it emancipates itself from the majority logic distilled ten years earlier and turns towards an openly normative solution, which, while not expressly mentioning it, credits the Roman tabular epiphany as the most beautiful of this specific realm, because it does, or claims to do, what the Supreme Court identifies as optimal solution. Taking for granted the suitability of the table mechanism,whatever its version, to enhance the principles of uniformity and predictability, it is necessary to ask whether, with reference to the damage from killing (or impairment) of relatives, the table model is really capable of ensuring a elementary principle of “justice”, in the sense of reaching a liquidation proportionate to the seriousness of the injury. Thus, the idea takes shape that, if the unfailing objective is to grasp the double dimension, suffering and relational, of parental damage, the best solution might be to prepare - without looking far away, but making use of the tools offere