1 Most of the debate is thoroughly discussed in J-S Borghetti, ‘Les intérêts protégés et l’étendu des préjudices réparables en droit de la responsabilité civile extra-contractuelle’ in Études ofertes à Geneviève Viney (Paris, LGDJ, 2008) 145. 2 For a comparative assessment of such concepts, see T Weir, ‘La notion de dommage en responsa- bilité civile’ in Pierre Legrand Jr (ed), Common law d’un siècle l’autre (Cowansville, Yvon Blais, 1992) 1. 3 See M Bacache, ‘La recodifcation des principes classiques – Articles 1235 à 1238; 1241 à 1249; 1253 à 1256’ JCP G Suppl to nos 30–35 (25 July 2016) 20; F Leduc, ‘Faut-il distinguer le dommage et le préjudice?: point de vue privatiste’ RCA 2010, 3, dossier no 3. 4 See G Viney, P Jourdain and S Carval, Traité de droit civil, Les conditions de la responsabilité civile, 4th edn (Paris, LGDJ, 2013) [246-1]. 5 P le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, 11th edn (Paris, Dalloz, 2017) [1304]f. 10 Te Concepts of ‘Harm’ in the French and Italian Laws of Civil Liability PIETRO SIRENA I. Te French Distinction between Dommage and Préjudice Te Projet de réforme de la responsabilité civile of March 2017 seeks to provide a certain recognition of the distinction between dommage (‘harm’) and préjudice (‘loss’), which may as a result have a major impact on the future development of French tort law. 1 At present, the two terms dommage and préjudice, 2 which correspond to those of damnum and praeiudicium in Roman law, seem to be used interchangeably by French courts and most scholars. 3 Since the 1950s, however, there has been a strand in legal scholarship that seeks to diferentiate between them sharply when addressing issues of civil liability. 4 Tis approach is intended not only to attain an allegedly higher level of precision and appropriateness in legal language but also, and more importantly, to regulate, if not to restrain, the relentless and sometimes chaotic growth of compensation for harm that has tended to characterise French law. 5 On the other hand, there is a widespread view which, while not denying the soundness of the distinction, plays down its value, considering that it is merely a matter of terminology, or style of reasoning, and could prove unnecessary, as