Civil liability and custody: commentary on judgment Cass. civ., Section III, Ord. no. 8306 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Section, no. 8306 of March 27, 2024, offers important food for thought on the civil liability of public bodies in the event of damage caused by objects left on the road. The judgment is part of the legal debate concerning the application of art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code and the burden of proof in matters of custody.

The case under examination

The Municipality of Altavilla Milicia was held responsible for the damage caused by the death of a motorcyclist, who lost control of his vehicle due to a tire abandoned on the roadway. The victim's family had requested compensation, and initially the Court of Termini Imerese had recognized the Municipality's liability. However, on appeal, the Court of Palermo reduced the amount of compensation, leading the Municipality to appeal to the Court of Cassation.

In the context of liability under art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code, for the reconstruction of the causal incidence in determining the damage, the conduct of the injured party must be taken into account, in light of the principle of self-responsibility.

Relevant legal principles

The Court of Cassation reiterated some fundamental principles regarding liability for things in custody. In particular, art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code provides that the custodian is liable for damage caused by a thing in custody, unless they prove the fortuitous event. This implies that, in the case of liability for things in custody, the burden of proof shifts to the custodian, who must demonstrate the absence of fault in maintaining the thing in adequate conditions.

• The injured party must only prove the damage and the causal link.
• The custodian must prove the fortuitous event to be released from liability.
• The conduct of the injured party can influence the assessment of liability.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 8306 of 2024 emphasizes the importance of a correct assessment of the conduct of all parties involved. The Court clarified that not only the Municipality, as custodian of the road, must be held responsible for the presence of dangerous objects on the roadway, but also the motorcyclist's conduct must be considered. The principle of self-responsibility, referred to in art. 2 of the Constitution, invites reflection on how imprudent conduct can affect the causal dynamics of an accident. Ultimately, the judgment represents an important step towards greater clarity in the regulation of civil liability for damage from things in custody, highlighting the need for a balance between the responsibilities of public bodies and those of citizens.