Cass. civ. n. 28722/2024: civil liability and causation in road accidents
The ruling n. 28722 of November 7, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important advancement in the understanding of civil liability related to road accidents. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the causal link between the malfunction of airbags and the damages suffered by a driver in an accident. The decision offers significant points for reflection for lawyers and legal practitioners.
The case examined
In the case under review, A.A. and B.B. appealed against the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Venice, which had upheld the rejection of the claim for damages caused by the malfunction of the side airbags of an Opel Corsa. The Court of Appeal had determined that there was no causal link between the malfunction of the airbags and the injuries sustained by B.B. during the 2008 accident.
In terms of civil liability, the causal link between conduct and damage cannot be denied simply because there are multiple possible and alternative causes.
The grounds for the appeal
The appeal presented by A.A. and B.B. was based on three main grounds:
- Violation of Article 2043 of the Civil Code and Articles 40 and 41 of the Penal Code, emphasizing that the causal link should not be excluded due to the presence of contributing causes.
- Misperception of evidence, particularly regarding the expert report, which indicated a connection between the malfunction of the airbags and the injuries.
- Violation of Articles 1223 and 2056 of the Civil Code, asserting that the lack of certain evidence of preventable injuries does not exclude the compensable damage.
The decision of the Court of Cassation
The Court accepted the appeal, highlighting that the causal link in civil cases must be evaluated according to the rule of "more likely than not." It emphasized that the trial judge must consider all the evidence and not limit themselves to an isolated examination of individual elements. In the presence of contributing causes, it is the judge's responsibility to ascertain which hypothesis is the most probable explanation for the damage suffered.
In particular, the Court noted that the ruling of the Court of Appeal had disregarded the principles regarding the causal link, as it had not adequately considered the possibility that the malfunction of the airbags could have significantly contributed to the injuries suffered by B.B.
Conclusions
The ruling n. 28722/2024 is an important decision regarding civil liability, clarifying the criteria for establishing causation in the case of road accidents. It reiterates the importance of a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, avoiding the a priori exclusion of the causal link in the presence of contributing causes. This decision could have a significant impact on future legal disputes related to liability for damages in road accidents, emphasizing the need for a more flexible and inclusive evidentiary assessment.
