The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 6826 of 2021, offers significant insights regarding civil liability and the correct formulation of appeals. In the case at hand, a motorcyclist, N.A., requested compensation for damages due to a road accident, claiming that the fall was caused by an oily substance present on the roadway. However, the Court deemed the appeal inadmissible for multiple reasons, highlighting the importance of strictly adhering to procedural rules.
The appellant reported violations related to Article 2700 of the Civil Code and Article 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court emphasized that the appeal did not meet the requirements set forth in Article 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure, paragraph 1, no. 6. In particular, the appellant referred to documents from the merits proceedings without providing precise indications, limiting themselves to generic references. This made it impossible for the Court of Cassation to conduct an adequate examination.
It is sufficient that even one of the rationes decidendi on which the challenged decision is based has not been appropriately contested for the appeal to be rejected in its entirety.
A central aspect of the judgment concerns the liability of public administration in the event of road accidents. The Court confirmed that the public administration can be exempted from liability under Article 2051 of the Civil Code if it demonstrates that the harmful event was caused by external and unknowable factors. In the specific case, the Court considered that the release of the viscous substance occurred shortly before the accident, which excluded any possibility of intervention by Rome Capital.
Judgment No. 6826 of 2021 represents an important ruling on the issue of civil liability and the requirements for the admissibility of appeals. It underscores the importance of a correct formulation of the grounds for appeal and the necessity to clearly and precisely demonstrate the responsibilities of the parties involved. Jurisprudence continues to reiterate that the burden of proof lies with those requesting compensation, and documentary deficiencies can compromise even the most deserving cases.
We constantly follow regulatory and jurisprudential developments, offering updated analyses and innovative solutions. We share legal developments to foster a more informed legal culture.
Accident accident prevention law accidents accountant acoustic emissions active legitimacy art. 141 Insurance Code article 2087 civil code asbestos asbestos exposure biological damage blood transfusions burden of proof case law case_law Cassation Cassation ruling Catanzaro court catastrophic damage causal link childbirth civil law civil liability cohabitation compensatio lucri cum damno compensation compensation action compensation for damages compensation tables congenital malformations Consob Consumer Code contagion contractual liability corporate liability Court of Appeal Court of Cassation Court of Cassation 19744/2014 Covid-19 criminal law criminal liability damage assessment damage compensation damage evidence damages damages assessment damages compensation death diagnostic errors differential damage disability insurance dismissal emotional bond emotional bonds employer liability employer_liability equity evidence failure to supervise family law guidelines gynecologist HCV health law healthcare liability heating systems heirs hepatitis C virus I.N.A.I.L. iatrogenic damage iatrogenic injury INAIL income tax indemnity indemnity law informed consent injury from fall insurance insurance coverage insurance policies insurance policy intentional injuries joint liability judgment judgment 3767/2018 jurisdiction jurisprudence labor law landlord liability law law 194 legal expenses Legislative Decree 81/2008 legitimate reliance liability Lyell syndrome maintenance of public works malpractice Marche Region medical expenses medical liability medical malpractice medical negligence medical record mesothelioma Milan Court Milan ruling Ministry of Justice mobbing monetary penalty moral damage municipal liability Naples negligent arson newborn non-economic damage non-economic_damage non-pecuniary damage nosocomial infection nosocomial infections oath occupational disease occupational diseases occupational health package travel parental damage parental liability parental supervision passengers pension personal injuries personal injury pets premature birth professional liability property rights psychological suffering public administration public liability refusal of transfusion remedy Revenue Agency right to compensation right to health right to life road accident road accidents road traffic accidents ruling ruling 1361/2014 ruling 2023 ruling 5947 ruling Court of Naples safety safety of systems safety regulations self-determination settlement statute of limitations strepitus fori substitution Supreme Court Supreme Court 2023 Supreme Court ruling Supreme Court ruling 2023 surgical intervention survivor's pension survivors' pension tax law taxation technical consulting technical liability testimonial evidence tort liability traffic accident unjust detention unlawful occupation usufruct VAT water damage wildlife witness testimony Work work environment work-related liability. work-related stress worker health workers' rights workplace accident workplace accidents workplace injuries workplace safety