abstract. European nations have yet to elaborate a developed body of decisional law, individually or collectively, in the subject matters of toxic torts and products liability. In the final decades of the twentieth century, European countries, and Italy particularly, were confronted with a surge of criminal litigation that placed in question whether the obstacles to proving individual causation have been overcome by the expedient of replacing the notion of condicio sine qua non, or but for causation, with the standard of risk elevation. Beginning in 2000, in Italy and elsewhere, courts took this different tack. There followed, however, an influential decision of the Italian Supreme Court that held that simple risk elevation would not suffice to prove individual causation in criminal prosecutions. Rather, the prosecution would be required to prove not only “but for” cause, but also sustain that burden beyond a reasonable doubt. The high bar established by the Italian court has been implemented in numerous holdings by inferior courts.

At the same time, in an increasing number of Italian universities, professors of civil liability systems have begun to teach the evidentiary and doctrinal approaches used by U.S. civil courts. The effect has been to make clear that toxic torts and products liability ought not be considered a part of criminal law, but instead should be discussed and litigated in civil trials, pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard. Should this development continue, the salutary effect of Italy's employment of U.S. tort model can only increase in the future, particularly in light of the Restatement (Third) of Torts to traditional causation standards.