Liability of a Motocross Track Operator: Ruling No. 17942 of 2024

The civil liability of a motocross track operator is a subject of legal debate, especially when an accident occurs. The recent ordinance No. 17942 of June 28, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers interesting insights for understanding the current regulations on liability for things in custody, particularly under Article 2051 of the Civil Code.

Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, M. (M. A.) sued A. (D. C.), asserting the latter's liability for an accident that occurred during a sporting event on a motocross track. The Court of Appeal of Venice had previously excluded the operator's liability, stating that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of an "atypical" danger on the track that caused his fall.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation

In general. In the event of an accident on a motocross track, the causation required by art. 2051 of the Civil Code, in relation to the custody incumbent on the circuit operator and their connected liability, must be assessed against an "atypical" danger, not easily avoidable even by a sufficiently experienced rider, with any other event attributable to the "normal" or "typical" danger associated with this motor sport being relegated to ordinary causation. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision which had excluded the custodian's liability, as the plaintiff had not proven that his fall occurred due to the presence of an "atypical" danger on the track, i.e., an obstacle that was difficult to see and therefore not easily avoidable even by a diligent motorcyclist).

This ruling highlights a fundamental principle in Italian civil law: the custodian's liability is triggered only in the presence of dangers that cannot be avoided even by an experienced individual. The Court reiterated that the operator of a motocross track cannot be held liable for events that fall within the normal risks of the sport.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The ruling offers a clear distinction between:

• Atypical Danger: A risk that is uncommon and unforeseeable, which would justify triggering the operator's liability.
• Typical Danger: The risks inherent in practicing motocross, which every experienced rider is expected to know and manage.

This distinction is crucial for understanding responsibilities in sports and, more generally, for the custody of property and play areas. The Court clarified that it is necessary to prove the existence of an atypical danger to invoke the custodian's liability.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 17942 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding civil liability related to sporting activities. The Court of Cassation has emphasized that the liability of a motocross track operator is limited to situations where atypical dangers are evident, thus excluding liability for accidents attributable to normal and typical risks of motocross. This jurisprudential trend offers greater protection to operators of sports facilities, outlining a clearer and more predictable framework of responsibility.