Civil Liability and Custody: Commentary on the Ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, Order No. 8306 of 2024

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III Civil, No. 8306 of March 27, 2024, offers important insights regarding the civil liability of public entities in cases of damage caused by objects left on the road. The ruling is part of the legal debate concerning the application of Article 2051 of the Civil Code and the burden of proof in matters of custody.

The Case Under Examination

The Municipality of Altavilla Milicia was called to respond for the damages caused by the death of a motorcyclist, who lost control of his vehicle due to a tire abandoned on the roadway. The victim's family had requested compensation, and initially, the Court of Termini Imerese had recognized the Municipality's liability. However, on appeal, the Court of Palermo reduced the amount of compensation, leading the Municipality to appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Regarding liability under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, in reconstructing the causal incidence in determining the damage, it is necessary to take into account the behavior of the injured party, in light of the principle of personal responsibility.

Relevant Legal Principles

The Court of Cassation reiterated some fundamental principles regarding liability for things in custody. In particular, Article 2051 of the Civil Code states that the custodian is liable for damages caused by a thing in custody, unless they prove an act of God. This implies that, in cases of liability for things in custody, the burden of proof shifts to the custodian, who must demonstrate the absence of fault in maintaining the thing in adequate conditions.

  • The injured party only needs to prove the damage and the causal link.
  • The custodian must demonstrate an act of God to be relieved of liability.
  • The behavior of the injured party may influence the assessment of liability.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 8306 of 2024 emphasizes the importance of a correct assessment of the behaviors of all parties involved. The Court clarified that not only the Municipality, as the custodian of the road, must respond for the presence of dangerous objects on the roadway, but also the behavior of the motorcyclist must be considered. The principle of personal responsibility, invoked by Article 2 of the Constitution, encourages reflection on how reckless behaviors can affect the causal dynamics of an accident. Ultimately, the ruling represents an important step towards greater clarity in the regulation of civil liability for damages caused by things in custody, highlighting the need for a balance between the responsibilities of public entities and those of citizens.

Bianucci Law Firm