Compensation for damages caused by wildlife: ruling no. 17253/2024 and the allocation of the burden of proof

The recent ruling no. 17253 of June 21, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in the landscape of Italian civil law: compensation for damages caused by wildlife. In particular, the decision focuses on the choice between the application of Article 2043 of the Civil Code and Article 2052 of the Civil Code, highlighting that this choice does not pertain to the legal qualification of the claim, but rather to the allocation of the burden of proof.

The regulatory context of damage compensation

The Italian Civil Code provides two fundamental articles for compensation for damages: Article 2043, which governs liability for unlawful acts, and Article 2052, which deals with liability for damages caused by animals. The distinction between the two articles is crucial, as it determines the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff, that is, the person seeking compensation.

  • Article 2043 of the Civil Code: requires proof of the unlawful conduct and the damage suffered.
  • Article 2052 of the Civil Code: establishes a presumption of liability for those who own an animal, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

The principle of the ruling and its significance

In general. In the case of a claim for damages caused by wildlife, the choice between the application of Article 2043 of the Civil Code or Article 2052 of the Civil Code does not pertain to the legal qualification of the claim, but rather to the allocation of the burden of proof, with the consequence that a substantial judgment cannot be formed on any error in proceeding that may have been committed.

This principle reveals a fundamental aspect: the judge must focus on the allocation of the burden of proof rather than the qualification of the claim. The Court clarifies, therefore, that the methods of legal action should not compromise the possibility of access to compensation for the injured party. In this way, the ruling prevents procedural errors from hindering a fair compensation, keeping the focus on the actual responsibility of the damaging party.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 17253 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the protection of the rights of citizens harmed by wildlife. The distinction between the legal qualification of the claim and the allocation of the burden of proof is crucial to ensure equitable access to compensation. Legal practitioners and citizens must pay particular attention to these aspects to navigate effectively through the complex world of damage compensation.

Bianucci Law Firm