By order No.. 35602/2021 the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation “lthe judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation”.
the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation. Therefore, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it, that the exercise of a competitive sporting activity involves the acceptance of the risk that an injury may arise from it.
the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation. the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation. the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in appearing in court, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities.
not being able to rely on generic fears or on preconceived beliefs and not supported by certain and in-depth information: ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities. ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities. ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities ensure the suitability of the facilities that, ensure the suitability of the facilities, ensure the suitability of the facilities.
Therefore, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision. 2043 c.c. Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision. In particular, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision. Moreover, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, that, Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision Tizio appealed to the Supreme Court against the second degree decision, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments.
However, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments.
THE DECISION: since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, “since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, since there was no real sporting activity, the rule was applied which places the acceptance of risk as a criterion for exclusion from refreshments, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity” (Cass. n. 1564 of the 1997; Cass. 20597 of the 2004; Cass. n. 2710 of the 2005)”.
have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity. In particular, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity: have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity (have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity). have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity, have prepared the normal precautions aimed at containing the risk within the limits appropriate to the specific sporting activity; if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game: if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game (if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game), if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game.
if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game. if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, or in Law or equivalent, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, in general, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, therefore, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game. the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, if the damage is culpably caused in violation of the rules of the game, “the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport.
Consequently, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport (Cass. n. 12012 of the 2002). In the latter case, therefore, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, e, therefore, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport. the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the usual, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, then, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport. the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, the athlete accepts the risk normally associated with that type of sport, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent.
athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, however, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent. Indeed, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent.
athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, in appearing in court, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent. athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent, therefore, athletes through sporting activity voluntarily commit damage to the opponent: “there is no reason to distinguish according to the “there is no reason to distinguish according to the” there is no reason to distinguish according to the (there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the), there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the (there is no reason to distinguish according to the; there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the; there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the)”.
CONCLUSIONS: there is no reason to distinguish according to the, moreover, there is no reason to distinguish according to the there is no reason to distinguish according to the there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the, there is no reason to distinguish according to the, being of mere purpose of the same sport, being of mere purpose of the same sport. being of mere purpose of the same sport.