Liability of Municipalities for Damages Arising from Poor Maintenance: Analysis of Judgment Cass. civ., Sec. II, Ord. no. 8772 of 2021

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 8772 of March 30, 2021, offers a particular insight for reflection on the liability of public bodies in the management of public works and their potential liability for damages caused by poor maintenance. The case involved T. A., owner of a property, who suffered damage due to the collapse of a boundary wall, attributing responsibility to the Municipality of Civitella Roveto for the poor management of rainwater coming from a municipal road.

The Case and the Court's Decision

The Court of Appeal of L'Aquila had initially rejected T.'s claim for compensation based on art. 913 of the Italian Civil Code (c.c.), which governs liability in cases of water drainage. However, the Court of Cassation upheld T.'s appeal, emphasizing that the case did not involve a simple neighborly relationship between properties, but rather direct liability of the public body for failure to maintain.

The liability of the local authority does not stem from the superior position of the road, but from the breach of the general obligation to maintain public assets.

The Court of Cassation clarified that art. 913 c.c. cannot be applied in this context, as public works such as roads are not intended to produce specific agricultural benefits, but must adhere to the principle of *neminem laedere*, according to which no one should cause harm to others. Therefore, the local authority is obliged to ensure that rainwater is managed in a way that does not damage adjacent properties.

Legal Principles Affirmed by the Judgment

The judgment is based on some fundamental legal principles that deserve to be highlighted:

• The Municipality has the obligation to ensure the maintenance of public works to prevent damage to third parties.
• In the event of damage arising from public works, the general principle of tortious liability applies, pursuant to art. 2043 c.c.
• Liability cannot be limited to the application of rules concerning relationships between properties, but must consider specific rules of diligence and prudence.

In essence, the Court established that, for the Municipality's liability, it is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the damage and its causal link to the malfunction of the public work, without the need to prove that works were carried out to alter the state of the premises.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in protecting citizens' rights against public bodies. It reiterates that administrations must act with due diligence and responsibility in managing public works. This judgment not only offers clarity on the liability of local authorities but can also serve as a precedent for future similar cases, where citizens seek justice for damages suffered due to negligence in the maintenance of public infrastructure.