Civil Liability and Custody of Things: Cass. No. 31949 of 2023

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 31949 of November 16, 2023, raises important questions regarding civil liability in cases of damage caused by things in custody. The case in question involves A.A., who suffered damage to his car due to a wheel detaching from a truck on the highway. The ruling of the Cassation provides significant insights into the assessment of the burden of proof and the causal link, crucial elements in such disputes.

The Case and the Judges' Decisions

The Court of Genoa had initially recognized the liability of Autostrade per l'Italia (ASPI) under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, condemning the company to compensate for the damages. However, the Court of Appeal of Genoa accepted ASPI's appeal, arguing that the Court had not adequately assessed the circumstances of the case. This led to A.A.'s appeal to the Cassation, which raised several grounds, all based on violations of legal norms.

The Legal Issues Raised

One of the central points of the ruling is the burden of proof. The Court of Cassation reiterated that, pursuant to Article 2051 of the Civil Code, the custodian of a thing is liable for the damages caused by it, unless they prove that the change in original conditions was sudden and that it was impossible to intervene. In this case, the Court highlighted that the Court of Appeal had erroneously reversed the burden of proof, placing a greater evidential burden on the injured party than that provided by law.

The Court of Cassation established that it is the custodian's responsibility to demonstrate the absence of liability, not the injured party's responsibility to prove the custodian's fault.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The implications of this ruling are relevant for all those operating in the field of road traffic and civil liability. The decision of the Cassation not only reaffirms established principles but also clarifies how the circumstances of the specific case should be evaluated. In particular:

  • The custodian's liability is presumed and can only be contested through concrete evidence.
  • It is essential for road management companies to ensure adequate monitoring services, especially under adverse environmental conditions.
  • The causal link must be demonstrated with clear evidence and cannot be based on conjecture.

Conclusions

The ruling No. 31949 of 2023 represents an important milestone in the jurisprudential journey concerning civil liability for damages caused by things in custody. It offers clear guidance on the application of Article 2051 of the Civil Code and on the burden of proof, essential aspects to consider in any dispute related to road traffic. Companies, in particular, should take lessons from this case to improve their monitoring and risk management procedures.

Bianucci Law Firm