Liability of the Region for Wildlife Damage: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 18817 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, No. 18817 of July 9, 2024, offers important insights into the liability of public administrations for damages caused by wildlife. The case in question pitted the Marche Region and the Province of Pesaro and Urbino against each other, both held liable for the damage suffered by a citizen following a collision with a roe deer. The Court confirmed the Region's liability, clarifying the issue of passive standing and the burden of proof in such situations.

Context of the Ruling

The dispute arose from a road accident in 2010, in which a vehicle collided with a wild animal. Citizen A.A. sought compensation for the damage, involving both the Region and the Province. In the first instance, both entities were held liable, but the Court of Appeal of Ancona subsequently upheld the Province's appeal, excluding the Region from liability. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, establishing that liability for wildlife damage rests solely with the Region.

Principles Established by the Court

In its ruling, the Court clarified some fundamental points:

• Liability for damages caused by wildlife is attributable to the Region, as the competent authority for the management and protection of fauna.
• The issue of passive standing must be assessed according to Article 2043 of the Civil Code, which requires proof of fault on the part of the responsible entity.
• The Court highlighted that proof of fault is not necessary in the case of the application of Article 2052, which specifically governs damages caused by animals.

The liability of Regions for wildlife damage is based on their regulatory competence and administrative functions for the protection and management of fauna.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 18817 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding the liability of public administrations in the context of damages caused by wildlife. It underscores the need for clear attribution of responsibility and effective coordination among local entities to prevent such events. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation's decision helps to better define the boundaries of the burden of proof, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability in wildlife resource management.