Civil Liability and Damages from Things in Custody: Analysis of Cass. civ., Ord. no. 4288/2024

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 4288 of 2024 offers significant insights into the civil liability of public administrations, particularly regarding damages caused by public works. In this article, we will explore the highlights of the decision, analyzing the implications for citizens and public administrations.

Context of the Judgment

The case originated from a dispute between A.A. and the Municipality of Gragnano, as well as the Campania Region, concerning damages suffered by a property owned by A.A. following the collapse of a retaining wall. The Court of Appeal of Naples had initially recognized the Municipality's liability for the damage caused by the collapse, but had denied compensation for further damages deemed unnecessary.

Principles of Liability and Custody

The liability of the custodian is based not on a legal title, but on the possibility of exercising de facto control over the thing in custody.

One of the key points of the judgment concerns the application of art. 2051 of the Civil Code, which establishes the liability of the custodian for damages caused by the thing in custody. The Court emphasized that, in the case at hand, the damage complained of was not directly caused by the collapse, but by the manner in which the restoration works were carried out, which were performed by the Region and not by the Municipality. This aspect is crucial because it highlights how the absence of de facto control over the property by the Municipality excludes its liability.

Procedural Aspects and Conclusions

• The Court accepted the second ground of the main appeal, finding that there was an omission in the examination of a decisive fact, namely the need for consolidation works on the land.
• The Municipality obtained the acceptance of the incidental appeal, establishing that it was not liable for damages caused by the restoration works.
• The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal for a new assessment of compensable damages, taking into account the geomorphological conditions of the land.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 4288/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important reflection on the liability of public administrations in relation to damages from things in custody. It highlights the need for a careful analysis of the execution methods of public works and the rights of citizens to be compensated for damages suffered. This case underscores the importance of clarifying the boundaries of liability in complex contexts and offers a significant precedent for future disputes concerning civil liability and public works.