Liability of ANAS for road accidents: the case I.A. and T.F. v. ANAS S.p.A. (Supreme Court, Civil Section, Order no. 6651/2020)

The order of the Supreme Court no. 6651 of 2020 represents an important reference point in the regulation of the civil liability of public bodies, particularly ANAS, in relation to road accidents. The case in question involved I.A. and T.F., who had suffered damages due to a tree falling onto the roadway of a state road, an event that caused a collision. The Court had to address crucial issues concerning liability for custody and supervision of areas adjacent to the road.

Context of the ruling

In the specific case, the Court of Appeal of Florence had confirmed the decision of the Court of Pisa, rejecting the claim for damages against ANAS. The appellants argued that the entity had failed to exercise due diligence and maintenance over an area potentially dangerous to road users. The central issue concerned the interpretation of ANAS's liability under Articles 2043 and 2051 of the Civil Code.

The Court clarified that the injured party does not have the burden of proving the unforeseeability of the event; it is incumbent upon the entity to prove that it adopted adequate measures to prevent the danger.

Legal principles established

The Supreme Court distinguishes custody of the road from the duty to monitor dangers arising from neighbouring private land:

• The road authority does not become the custodian of neighbouring private land and is not responsible for maintaining it. It must, however, monitor dangers arising from that land for road users and take steps to remove them or have them removed.
• For property in its custody, the authority may avoid liability by proving a fortuitous event under the conditions explained by the Court. These include external causes that could not have been discovered or removed promptly even with diligent maintenance.
• In a claim under Article 2051 of the Civil Code, the injured party must prove the damage and its causal connection with the property in custody. As regards private land, failure to monitor may constitute negligence under Articles 1176(2) and 2043 where the danger could have been identified with ordinary diligence and the authority failed to act.

In particular, the Court highlighted that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal was illogical, as it had not adequately considered the position of the fallen tree and the responsibilities related to its maintenance and supervision.

Conclusions

This ruling represents a significant development in case law concerning the liability of public bodies in the event of road accidents. It emphasizes the importance of maintenance of the roads entrusted to ANAS and monitoring of dangers arising from surrounding land, highlighting that the safety of road users is a fundamental obligation that cannot be overlooked. It is now up to the Court of Appeal of Florence to re-examine the case in light of what was established by the Supreme Court, reconsidering liability, the evidence and the issue of a fortuitous event: the order does not automatically award compensation.

Source (Italian): Cass. civ., order 6651/2020: full copy hosted by Noi Radiomobile.