Check if you are entitled to compensation under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code.
Calculate the quote
The neminem laedere principle requires individuals to refrain from causing harm to others and, when such harm occurs, imposes an obligation to compensate the injured party. This article explores this fundamental tenet of tort law, tracing its evolution from Roman law to contemporary applications. It also examines how legal systems are addressing new challenges, particularly those arising from harm caused by artificial intelligence systems.
The Latin maxim neminem laedere, meaning “to harm no one,” constitutes a foundational principle of civil liability and underpins the legal framework for tortious responsibility. It is enshrined in Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, which provides:
“Any intentional or negligent act that causes unjust harm to another obliges the person who committed it to provide compensation.”
This principle has ancient origins, rooted in Roman law. One of its earliest formulations can be found in the well-known maxim of the jurist Ulpian:
“Honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum cuique tribuere”
(To live honorably, to harm no one, to give each their due)
This statement encapsulates the essential values of justice and social coexistence, emphasizing the moral and legal duty to refrain from inflicting harm on others.
Over time, neminem laedere has assumed a central role in the law of civil liability, which serves not only to redress harm but also to deter and prevent wrongful conduct. However, the principle does not imply that every harm inflicted upon another is inherently unlawful or compensable.
How, then, does the law determine when damage must indeed be compensated?
In order to establish tortious liability, the mere occurrence of harm is not sufficient. Four essential elements must be present:
An unlawful act refers to conduct that causes unjust damage. It may involve a positive act—such as a cyclist running a red light and injuring a pedestrian—or an omission, as in the case of a property owner who fails to maintain a deteriorating building, leading to injury from falling debris.
However, not all harmful conduct is deemed unlawful. If the act is performed in the legitimate exercise of a legal right, liability may be excluded. For example, an enforcement officer executing a lawful seizure may cause financial loss to a debtor, yet the act remains lawful and non-compensable.
2. Unjust damage
For liability to arise, the harm must violate a legally protected interest. Mere economic loss or personal inconvenience is not sufficient; the damage must infringe upon a right recognized and protected by the legal system—such as the right to health or environmental interests.
Damages are generally categorized into economic (pecuniary) and non-economic (non-pecuniary) losses:
Economic damages include:
Non-economic damages (per Art. 2059 of the Civil Code, as interpreted in light of constitutional principles and Cass. Sez. Unite, Nov. 2008) include:
While economic damages may be quantified with reference to monetary loss, non-economic damages require a more nuanced, case-by-case assessment.
3. Causal link
A direct and immediate causal connection must exist between the unlawful conduct and the resulting harm. The prevailing test is the conditio sine qua non: an event is considered a cause only if, absent that event, the damage would not have occurred.
Complex causal chains—such as those involving concurrent causes or unforeseeable intervening events—require judicial evaluation. If an extraordinary and unforeseeable event is deemed to have broken the causal chain, liability may be excluded.
4. Fault or intent
Lastly, liability depends on whether the act was committed intentionally or negligently. Intentional acts include, for instance, arson motivated by revenge. Negligence refers to behavior arising from carelessness, imprudence, or lack of skill—such as a physician administering the wrong medication due to inattention.
There are also instances of strict liability, where neither intent nor fault is required—such as damage caused by animals or minors under an adult’s supervision.
In conclusion, tort liability arises only when harm results from intentional or negligent conduct, unless specific legal provisions impose liability regardless of fault.
In summary, tort liability does not arise automatically: to obtain compensation, it is necessary to prove the existence of an unlawful act, unjust damage, a causal link, and the fault or intent of the tortfeasor. In the absence of all these elements concurrently, no obligation to compensate arises.
Over time, tort law has expanded to address evolving societal, technological, and cultural concerns. Initially focused on compensating material damage, it now increasingly protects non-material interests such as emotional suffering, identity violations, and reduced quality of life.
A milestone in this evolution is the Italian Supreme Court’s United Chambers judgment of 5 July 2017, No. 16601, which acknowledged the potential admissibility of punitive damages—a concept rooted in common law systems such as the United States. The Court held that punitive damages are not inherently incompatible with the Italian system, provided they are established by statutory provisions and comply with constitutional principles such as legality (Art. 25 Italian Constitution) and the prohibition of arbitrary obligations (Art. 23).
Today, civil liability faces new frontiers, particularly concerning artificial intelligence (AI). In response, the European Union adopted the Product Liability Directive in 2024 (in force as of 2025), which extends strict liability to damage caused by software, digital updates, and AI systems—even when not embedded in physical hardware. The Directive also introduces presumptions of defectiveness, eases the burden of proof for claimants, and broadens the definition of damage to include data loss, reputational harm, and psychological injury.
A parallel proposal for an AI Liability Directive—intended to govern high-risk AI harm—was withdrawn in 2025 due to lack of political consensus and concerns over regulatory overreach. The withdrawal was formalized in the 2025 Commission Work Programme, alongside 37 other legislative retractions.
However, the AI Act, the EU regulation governing the use and development of AI systems, has since been adopted. Although it does not directly regulate civil liability, it imposes stringent obligations on developers and users of high-risk AI, including risk management, transparency, traceability, human oversight, and disclosure requirements. Breach of these duties may significantly influence judicial assessments of fault or negligence.
In the absence of harmonized rules on AI liability, national legal systems remain responsible for regulating this area—leading to potential legal fragmentation and uncertainty. Nonetheless, both legislative and judicial developments indicate a trend toward a more adaptive and forward-looking model of civil liability.
