Commentary on Judgment No. 16755 of 2024: Joint Liability and Prescription

Judgment No. 16755 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation provides an important reflection on the theme of joint liability and the prescription of obligations arising from unlawful acts. With this ruling, the Judge established that the diversity of titles of liability among co-debtors does not affect the interruption of the prescription. This aspect is crucial for understanding how the right to compensation for damages is articulated in situations of shared responsibility.

The Context of the Judgment

In this specific case, the Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples, which had deemed the interruptive effect of the prescription extended in favor of individual condominium complexes. This decision was made following the establishment of a civil party in the criminal proceedings against the former administrators, held responsible for an unlawful act that caused the death of a person due to the collapse of a railing.

Legal Principles Involved

JOINT LIABILITY - PRESCRIPTION Obligation arising from unlawful act - Diversity of titles of liability of co-debtors - Impact on the regime of interruption of the prescription period - Exclusion - Rationale - Case. Regarding the prescription of the right to compensation for damages from unlawful acts attributable to multiple subjects, jointly liable among themselves, the diversity of titles of liability assignable to the various co-debtors does not affect the interruption of the prescription, which remains regulated by the principles on joint obligations and, specifically, by Article 1310, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code, for whose applicability the existence of the joint obligatory bond arising from the uniqueness of the harmful act provided for by Article 2055 of the Civil Code is necessary and sufficient. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the merits ruling that had deemed the interruptive effect of the prescription extended, concerning individual condominium complexes, produced by the establishment of a civil party in the criminal proceedings against the former administrators, authors of the unlawful act, consisting of the failure to maintain a railing and the omission of suitable precautions to prevent its collapse, which caused the fall and subsequent death of a person).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several practical implications, including:

  • It confirms that, in cases of joint liability, the interruption of the prescription occurs even if the co-debtors are liable under different titles.
  • It underscores the importance of establishing a civil party, which can have a significant interruptive effect on the terms of prescription.
  • It reinforces the principle of solidarity in obligations, making it easier for victims to obtain compensation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 16755 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding joint liability and prescription. It offers a regulatory framework that protects the victims of unlawful acts, ensuring them the ability to pursue compensation even in the presence of co-debtors with different liabilities. This is a step forward in the protection of individuals' rights, confirming the importance of solidarity in obligations.

Bianucci Law Firm