Order No. 18518 of 2024: Keeper's Liability and Burden of Proof

The recent order no. 18518 of July 8, 2024, from the Supreme Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding liability for things in custody, pursuant to Article 2051 of the Italian Civil Code. This case, involving the parties C. (D. A.) and C. (S. B.), highlights the burden of proof resting on the injured party, helping to better define the concept of the keeper's objective liability.

Nature of the Keeper's Liability

The keeper's liability, as established by Article 2051 of the Civil Code, is of an objective nature. This means that the keeper is liable for damages caused by the thing under their custody, regardless of fault. In other words, the injured party must demonstrate only two fundamental elements:

  • the derivation of the damage from the thing in custody;
  • the custody of the thing by the party deemed responsible.

It is not necessary to prove that the keeper acted with fault or negligence. This legal framework aims to protect the injured party by simplifying the compensation process.

The Specific Case and the Court's Referral

In the order under examination, the Court annulled and referred back a previous decision from the Court of Appeal of Salerno, which had dismissed the compensation claim due to lack of evidence regarding the victim's diligent driving conduct. This aspect is crucial, as the Court emphasized that, concerning liability under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary to prove the absence of fault on the part of the injured party in relation to the thing in custody, provided that the two aforementioned elements are demonstrated.

Keeper's liability - Objective nature - Burden of proof on the injured party - Causal link between thing and event - Custody - Sufficiency - Diligence in relation to the object of custody - Exclusion - Hypothesis. In matters of liability under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, given the objective nature of the keeper's liability, the burden of proof rests solely on the injured party to demonstrate the derivation of the damage from the thing and the custody of the same by the alleged responsible party, not the absence of fault in relation to it. (In application of this principle, the Supreme Court annulled and referred back the ruling that had dismissed the compensation claim for lack of proof regarding the victim's diligent and prudent driving conduct).

Conclusions

This order represents an important step in defining the keeper's liability, clarifying the rights of the injured party and simplifying the path to obtaining compensation. The approach of the Court of Cassation tends to ensure greater protection for injured parties, emphasizing that the burden of proof to demonstrate the keeper's liability is limited to essential aspects. In a complex legal context such as the current one, it is crucial for the parties involved to understand these dynamics to best protect their rights.

Bianucci Law Firm