Principle of Reliance and Road Accidents: The Duty to Foresee Others' Recklessness According to the Supreme Court (Judgment 8870/2024)

Road safety is a topic of constant relevance and, unfortunately, a source of countless disputes. At the heart of many legal discussions is the so-called "principle of reliance," meaning the legitimate expectation that every road user will behave in compliance with the rules. But to what extent can we rely on others' compliance? And when, instead, are we required to foresee and prevent even the reckless behavior of others? A recent and significant ruling by the Court of Cassation, Judgment no. 8870 of November 28, 2024 (filed on March 4, 2025), provides clarity on these questions, offering important food for thought for all drivers and legal professionals.

The Principle of Reliance: A Foundation of Road Traffic

The principle of reliance represents one of the pillars on which road traffic regulations are based. It implies that every road user, when driving, can rely on the fact that other users will comply with the rules of the Highway Code. This principle is essential for the fluidity and predictability of traffic: if every driver had to constantly doubt others' compliance with the rules, traffic would become chaotic and dangerous. However, like any general principle, reliance is not absolute and has precise limits, especially when tragic events like road accidents occur.

When Reliance Gives Way to Foreseeability: The Case Examined by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, with Judgment no. 8870/2024, has reiterated a fundamental concept: the principle of reliance does not exempt road users from the responsibility of foreseeing even the reckless behavior of others, provided that such behavior falls within the limits of foreseeability. The legal proceedings concerned a case of involuntary manslaughter (art. 589 bis of the Italian Criminal Code) in which a truck driver, while making a right turn, failed to notice a cyclist coming from a cycle path parallel to the road he was traveling on, colliding with the bicycle as it was crossing the pedestrian crossing. Although the cyclist's maneuver was reckless, the Court of Appeal of Bologna had found the truck driver liable, and the Supreme Court confirmed this decision.

In the context of road traffic, the principle of reliance is tempered by the opposite principle that road users are also responsible for the reckless behavior of others, provided it falls within the limits of foreseeability. (Case in which the Court deemed unimpeachable the finding of liability, for involuntary manslaughter, of a truck driver who, while making a right turn, failed to notice a cyclist approaching from the cycle path parallel to the road he was traveling on, colliding with the bicycle as it was crossing the pedestrian crossing, a reckless maneuver, but one that fell within the parameters of foreseeability).

This maxim is of crucial importance. The Supreme Court, presided over by E. D. S. and with F. L. B. as rapporteur, emphasized that, although cyclist J. L. V. R. had not behaved entirely correctly (crossing the pedestrian crossing with his bicycle), such conduct still fell within the realm of foreseeability for an attentive and prudent driver. This means that those driving cannot limit themselves to respecting their own rules but must also consider the possibility that other users may make mistakes or commit violations, especially in situations of potential conflict such as intersections or turns.

Practical Implications for Driving and Road Safety

The judgment in question reinforces the idea of "culpability for failure to foresee" (art. 43 of the Italian Criminal Code) that rests on every driver. It is not enough not to have violated a specific rule of the Highway Code; it is necessary to adopt all necessary precautions to prevent harmful events, even when these arise, in part, from the conduct of others. This is particularly true in urban contexts or in the presence of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. The Court referred, among others, to Article 141 of the Highway Code, which requires speed to be regulated in such a way as to avoid any danger to the safety of people and property.

• Increased attention near intersections and cycle paths: Drivers must be particularly vigilant, slowing down and checking for the absence of cyclists or pedestrians, even if they may not have the right of way.
• Foreseeing atypical behavior: It is not enough to expect everyone to behave correctly; one must also consider the possibility of distractions, recklessness, or minor violations.
• Aggravated responsibility for larger vehicles: Drivers of heavy vehicles, such as trucks, have an even greater duty of care, given the greater potential for harm of their vehicles.

Conclusions: An Invitation to Maximum Prudence

The ruling of the Supreme Court no. 8870/2024 represents an important warning for all drivers: the road is not a place where reliance is unlimited. It is a dynamic environment that requires constant attention and the ability to anticipate even the risks arising from the recklessness of others. Criminal liability for involuntary manslaughter, as in the case in question, or for involuntary personal injury, can be incurred even when the victim's conduct has not been impeccable. What matters is the foreseeability of the risk and the possibility for the driver to avoid it by exercising maximum prudence. This principle, reiterated by the Supreme Court, underscores the importance of conscious and responsible driving, aimed at protecting the life and safety of all road users.