DANNO. — In general, denotes every diminution of being and of goods, both material and spiritual (fame, etc.). It therefore also extends to immaterial things, although its broadest and most frequent application is found in the sphere of material things. For this reason it is often defined as “diminution of assets.” It may occur either as the loss of goods already possessed (damnum emergens), or as the failure to acquire goods not yet possessed but which otherwise would have been acquired (lucrum cessam). It is therefore not identical with theft, although at times (e.g., in the formulation of the seventh commandment of the Decalogue) that term is understood to mean every form of damage. Its extent is determined by the difference between what one has and what one would have if the harmful event had not occurred.
From the moral and juridical point of view, the distinction between just and unjust damage, and between damage attributable to a free agent and damage not attributable to a free agent, is of the greatest importance. Indeed, only unjust damage caused by a free agent obliges that person to make restitution (v. RESTITUZIONE).
For a long time, the question of compensation for moral damages, that is, for unjustly caused anguish and suffering, aroused particular interest in Italian law. The question was settled in 1930 with regard to damage caused by offenses, and in 1942 with regard to damage caused by other causes. Indeed, art. 185 of the Italian Penal Code of 1930 states: “Every offense that has caused patrimonial or non-patrimonial damage obliges the guilty party and the persons who, according to the civil laws, must answer for his act to provide compensation”; and art. 2059 of the Civil Code of 1942: “Non-patrimonial damage must be compensated only in the cases determined by law.” Thus, on this point, the correspondence between the two fields, vigorously defended by many jurists, was abandoned.