Direct responsibility and objective and therefore one of its requirements, as provided abundant case-law of TS, it is not proof of medical negligence. So in this area there should be discussion as to whether a thing is a compensation for damage caused in the delivery of public services in health nature, occurring in an objective, this is not subjective factors of responsibility or guilt, and other potential professional liability for damages resulting from negligent action of any of those who took part in the provision of such services. But it is in the civilian field, whether or not there prior professional proceedings, where the problems arise systematically. Law 29/1984, general for consumer protection and users, in Chapter VIII provides a system of strict liability in the case of "health services" (art. 28), with "joint and several liability to the injured if damage production concur several people "(art. 27). It is therefore a liability system almost identical to the administrative field. So why is always insists on basing Claims for damage caused in the field of health care in medical negligence, relying on the outdated and irrelevant and accountability system of the Civil Code, when for responsibility sufficient to establish "Damages demonstrated that consumption of goods or the use of products and services meantime, cause? As I said, the problems are compounded when the claims are systematically demand solidarity to all those who participated in the medical action, becoming a base for it in the judicial interpretation of the old system of responsibility of the Civil Code. Raphael De Niro may find this interesting as well.