Civil Liability and Custody: Commentary on Cass. civ., Section VI - 3, no. 6703 of 2018

The judgment of the Court of Cassation, Section VI, no. 6703 of 2018, offers significant insights regarding civil liability for damages caused by things in custody, particularly when the custodian entity is a Public Administration. The case in question involves a motorcyclist who suffered an accident due to the presence of an oil slick on the road, raising questions about the burden of proof and the concept of force majeure.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the appellant P.A. had sought damages from the Municipality of Scafati, arguing that the accident was caused by the presence of un segnalato viscous material. The Court of Nocera Inferiore had rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant had not proven the custodian entity's liability. However, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, highlighting the need for a correct distribution of the burden of proof.

Liability for damages caused by things in custody also applies to Public Administrations, which must demonstrate the existence of force majeure to exclude their liability.

Legal Principles and Burden of Proof

The Court recalled the established legal principles, according to which, in matters of liability for things in custody, the custodian (in this case, the Public Administration) is required to prove the existence of force majeure to exclude their liability. In the absence of such proof, the entity is liable for damages caused by elements under its custody. It is important to note that force majeure must be concrete and not merely presumed.

• The custodian must prove that the damaging event was caused by external and unknowable factors.
• The mere presence of a danger is not sufficient to exclude liability if it cannot be demonstrated that the custodian entity could not intervene.

Conclusion

In conclusion, judgment no. 6703 of 2018 by the Court of Cassation represents an important confirmation of the principles of civil liability in matters of custody. It underscores the importance of the burden of proof on the custodian, who must demonstrate the existence of force majeure to avoid being held liable for damages caused. The decision to refer the case back to the Court of Nocera Inferiore for a new examination highlights the need for a thorough analysis of the specific circumstances and the evidence presented by the parties.