Liability of the custodian: commentary on ruling no. 51452 of 2023

The ruling no. 51452 of September 12, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important decision regarding civil liability, particularly concerning the role of the custodian of goods. In this case, the owner of an agriturismo was called to answer for the involuntary manslaughter of a customer who fell due to the collapse of a fence in an area. The Court established that the user of a good, even if not the owner, can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence.

The custodian's position of guarantee

The Court applied the principle of "position of guarantee" contained in article 40, paragraph two, of the Penal Code, which states that anyone using a good is considered a custodian and, therefore, has the obligation to prevent harmful events. This means that the custodian must signal risks related to the use of the good, acting with the diligence required by the situation. In this case, the custodian has the obligation to keep the area safe and to inform users of any dangers.

Position of guarantee - Existence - Source - Custody of the area - Utilization "uti dominus" - Sufficiency - Case. In terms of liability for fault, the user "uti dominus" of a good is holder, in the capacity of custodian, of a position of guarantee ex art. 40, paragraph two, penal code, even if they are not the owner. (In applying the principle, the Court annulled the acquittal decision for the crime of involuntary manslaughter of the owner of an agriturismo, to whom the fall of a customer, originating from the collapse of a fence in an area, was attributed, on the grounds that the custodian is required to signal the dangers related to its use, due to the proximity to the source of danger).

Implications of the ruling

The decision of the Court of Cassation has important implications for business owners and those managing others' goods. It emphasizes that liability is not limited only to the owner of the good but extends to anyone who uses it. It is crucial, therefore, that custodians implement adequate preventive measures and inform customers about risks. Below are some practical considerations:

  • Periodic checks on the condition of the goods and areas used.
  • Clear signaling of any existing dangers or risks.
  • Training of staff to ensure user safety.

Conclusions

The ruling no. 51452 of 2023 represents a step forward in defining civil liability in the criminal context. It clarifies that custody entails specific obligations of prevention and information in order to reduce risks for users. Therefore, business owners must be aware of their responsibilities and adopt all necessary measures to ensure the safety of their clients.

Bianucci Law Firm