STORIA DI UN'AMBIGUITÀ. PRESUPPOSTI, LIMITI E SVILUPPO DELL'AZIONE DI REGRESSO, ANCHE CON RIFERIMENTO ALL'EVOLUZIONE NORMATIVA E GIURISPRUDENZIALE DEL DANNO ALLA PERSONA, NONCHÉ AI NUOVI FENOMENI DI ORGANIZZAZIONE DELL'ATTIVITÀ DI IMPRESA.

The issue concerning the relationship between civil liability and social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases has been debated for over a century as an outstanding jurisprudence focus. A heated debated, indeed, due to an underlying equivocation never solved, born in that constituent period of social and labour law represented by the liberal policies at the end of 19th century, looking for remedies against the dramatic burden of injuries at work during industrial revolutions without theoretical tools to understand the real meaning of the rising welfare provisions. An underlying equivocation able to repeat itself affecting a large part of theoretical debate even under the new constitutional order, withstanding tenaciously over the ride of living law. Moving from the analysis of that period, the A. investigates in depth the current conditions and limits of the INAIL regressive action, also considering the actual theorical structure of the traditional idea of the regressive actions as an original and autonomous right of INAIL. This thesis, starting from the various positions of the past and present debate, overcomes the many inconsistencies of the traditional thesis, recognizing to the INAIL regressive action a specific constitutional value, and according to these assumptions, investigates both the actuality of the distinction between the special action of art. 11 T.U. and the subrogation action of art. 1916 c.c., and the actual relationship between civil liability and social insurance, in the context of new conceptions of personal injury.