Order No. 11140 of 2024: Liability of the Road-Owner Entity and Parking Barriers

The recent order no. 11140 of April 24, 2024, has brought to light crucial issues regarding civil liability, particularly concerning the custody of public assets such as roads. This ruling offers a clear interpretation of Article 2051 of the Civil Code, highlighting the presumption of liability of the owning entity for damages caused by structural conditions and appurtenances, including parking barriers.

The Presumption of Liability

According to the Court's ruling, the road-owning entity is deemed responsible in the event of accidents related to the configuration of the road itself and its accessories. In particular, parking barriers, which are often the cause of accidents, fall under this liability. However, the law provides a possibility for the entity to prove that:

  • The installation of the barriers was carried out by third parties, in areas assigned to them.
  • These third parties had a valid permit for the installation.
  • There was no power of control by the custodian.

In the absence of such evidence, the entity is considered liable. This legal framework is based on a logic of protecting road users, who must be able to rely on the safety of public infrastructure.

The Content of the Maxim

In general. Regarding liability for things in custody under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, the owner of a road is presumed liable for accidents attributable to the conditions of the structure and its configuration, including so-called "parking barriers," unless it is proven that the installation of such structures was carried out by third parties in an area assigned to them and under a specific permit, and excluding any power of control by the custodian owner, or, failing the aforementioned conditions, with such rapid timing, concerning the occurrence of the accident, as to prevent the intervention of the custodian entity.

This maxim underscores the importance of exculpatory evidence and establishes the burden of proof on the entity, which must justify its lack of involvement in the events to avoid liability. It is essential that the owning entity can demonstrate the absence of control and that the installation of the barriers was not carried out by it or under its supervision.

Conclusions

Order no. 11140 of 2024 represents an important reflection on the issue of civil liability of public administrations, particularly concerning road safety. It confirms the necessity for rigorous control and accountability by public entities, in a context where citizens must be able to travel safely. The implications of this ruling may influence not only future legal decisions but also how public administrations manage infrastructure and address road safety.

Bianucci Law Firm