Responsibility of the Region for damages caused by wildlife: analysis of the Supreme Court ruling no. 18817 of 2024
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, no. 18817 of July 9, 2024, offers important insights regarding the liability of public administrations for damages caused by wildlife. The case in question involved the Marche Region and the Province of Pesaro and Urbino, both deemed responsible for the damage suffered by a citizen following a collision with a deer. The Court confirmed the responsibility of the Region, clarifying the issue of passive legitimacy and the burden of proof in such situations.
The context of the ruling
The dispute arose following a traffic accident that occurred in 2010, in which a vehicle collided with a wild animal. The citizen A.A. requested compensation for the damage, involving both the Region and the Province. In the first instance, both entities were deemed responsible, but the Court of Appeal of Ancona subsequently upheld the Province's appeal, excluding the Region from liability. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, establishing that the responsibility for damages caused by wildlife rests solely with the Region.
Principles established by the Court
In its ruling, the Court clarified some fundamental points:
- The responsibility for damages caused by wildlife is attributable to the Region, as the competent entity for the management and protection of fauna.
- The issue of passive legitimacy must be evaluated according to Article 2043 of the Civil Code, which requires proof of fault on the part of the responsible entity.
- The Court highlighted that it is not necessary to demonstrate fault in the case of the application of Article 2052, which specifically regulates damages caused by animals.
The responsibility of the Regions for damages caused by wildlife is based on their regulatory competence and administrative functions for the protection and management of fauna.
Conclusions
Ruling no. 18817 of 2024 represents an important clarification for the liability of public administrations in the context of damages caused by wildlife. It underscores the need for a clear attribution of responsibility and effective coordination among local entities to prevent such events. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision contributes to better delineating the boundaries of the burden of proof, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability in the management of wildlife resources.
