Liability of the motocross track manager: ruling no. 17942 of 2024

The civil liability of the manager of a motocross track is a subject of legal debate, especially when an accident occurs. The recent ruling no. 17942 of June 28, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides interesting insights into the current regulations regarding liability for things in custody, particularly under Article 2051 of the Civil Code.

The context of the ruling

In the case at hand, M. (M. A.) sued A. (D. C.), claiming the latter's liability for an accident that occurred during a sporting event on a motocross track. The Court of Appeal of Venice had previously excluded the liability of the manager, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an "atypical" danger on the track that caused his fall.

The principle of the Court of Cassation

In general. In the event of an accident on a motocross track, the causality required under Article 2051 of the Civil Code in relation to the custody burden on the track manager and their associated liability must be measured against an "atypical" danger, not easily avoidable even by a sufficiently experienced rider, while all other events related to the "normal" or "typical" danger associated with this motorsport remain relegated to ordinary causality. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the merits decision that excluded the liability of the custodian, as the plaintiff did not prove that his fall occurred due to the presence of an "atypical" danger on the track, meaning an obstacle that was difficult to see and, therefore, not easily avoidable even by a diligent motorcyclist).

This principle highlights a fundamental concept in Italian civil law: the liability of the custodian is activated only in the presence of dangers that cannot be avoided even by an expert individual. The Court reiterated that the manager of a motocross track cannot be held liable for events that fall within the normal risks of the sport.

Practical implications of the ruling

The ruling offers a clear distinction between:

  • Atypical danger: an uncommon and unpredictable risk that would justify the activation of the manager's liability.
  • Typical danger: the risks inherent in practicing motocross, which every experienced rider is expected to know and manage.

This distinction is crucial for understanding responsibilities in the sporting context and, more generally, for the custody of goods and play areas. The Court clarified that it is necessary to prove the existence of an atypical danger in order to invoke the custodian's liability.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 17942 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding civil liability related to sporting activities. The Court of Cassation emphasized that the liability of the manager of a motocross track is limited to situations where atypical dangers are evident, thus excluding liability for accidents attributable to normal and typical risks of motocross. This judicial orientation offers greater protection to managers of sporting facilities, outlining a clearer and more predictable framework of liability.

Bianucci Law Firm