Stray Dog Damage: Public Administration Liability and Burden of Proof According to Ruling 16788/2025

The phenomenon of stray animals represents a social and safety problem that, unfortunately, can lead to harmful events for citizens. Road accidents, attacks, or other damages caused by stray dogs raise crucial questions about the responsibility of public entities responsible for their management and prevention. On this complex issue, the Court of Cassation has intervened with a highly significant ruling: Ruling No. 16788 of June 23, 2025, which offers fundamental clarifications on the application of Article 2043 of the Civil Code and the burden of proof on the injured party.

The decision, stemming from the appeal filed by S. (M. F.) against G. (A. G.) and which rejected the findings of the Court of Trani dated 01/12/2023, focuses on the nature of the Public Administration's liability and the conditions necessary to obtain compensation. Understanding the implications of this ruling is essential for both victims and local authorities, who are called upon to ensure public safety.

Public Administration Liability: A Complex Framework

The issue of Public Administration liability for damages caused by stray dogs is by no means simple. Traditionally, jurisprudence has oscillated between the application of Article 2052 of the Civil Code (liability for damage caused by animals) and Article 2043 of the Civil Code (tort liability or non-contractual liability). Ruling No. 16788/2025 strongly reiterates that, in these cases, Article 2043 of the Civil Code applies. This means that the Public Administration is not objectively liable, as a pet owner would be under Article 2052 of the Civil Code, but its liability arises only if its "fault" is proven.

The fault of the Public Administration, in this context, is not manifested through direct action, but rather through an omission or insufficient organization of the stray animal prevention and control service. Regional laws, such as Regional Law Puglia No. 12 of 04/03/1995 (cited in the ruling in Articles 2, 6, 8), assign specific responsibilities to Municipalities, Provinces, and Regions for the capture, housing, and care of stray animals. Non-compliance or negligence in carrying out these duties can constitute fault on the part of the Public Administration.

Burden of Proof: What Must the Injured Party Prove?

One of the most delicate and crucial aspects, as highlighted by the Court of Cassation, concerns the burden of proof, governed by Article 2697 of the Civil Code. The ruling is clear: it is not enough to suffer damage from a stray dog to automatically obtain compensation. The injured party has the burden of proving two fundamental elements:

• The **fault of the Public Administration**: they must demonstrate that the Public Administration did not adequately fulfill its duties in preventing stray animals. This cannot be inferred from the mere fact that a stray animal caused the damage, but requires proof of "insufficient organization of the stray animal prevention service."
• The **causal link** between such fault (the omission or inefficiency of the service) and the suffered damage.

This means that the citizen cannot simply report the incident but must gather evidence attesting to a structural or organizational deficiency in the local authority's management of the phenomenon. For example, proof of previous unheeded reports, lack of sterilization campaigns, absence of adequate facilities for capture and housing, or an excessive and constant number of stray animals in a given area.

The liability of the Public Administration for damages caused by stray dogs is subject to the rules of Article 2043 of the Civil Code and, therefore, it is the burden of the injured party to prove the fault of the public administration and the causal link between it and the suffered damage: the subjective element of the unlawful act cannot be inferred from the mere fact that a stray animal caused the damage, but requires proof of insufficient organization of the stray animal prevention service; only once this proof is provided, the causal link between the omission and the damage can be admitted even by resorting to the criterion of "concretization of risk" (which is a criterion for explaining causality, not for ascertaining fault), according to which the very fact that the risk that the violated norm aimed to prevent has occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that a correct alternative conduct would have avoided the damage.

The headnote of Ruling 16788/2025, just reported, is of fundamental importance because it crystallizes the principle that the fault of the Public Administration is not automatic but requires concrete proof of its organizational negligence. This means that the injured party cannot simply point to the existence of stray animals as proof of fault but must investigate further, for example, by inquiring whether there were territorial control plans, whether they were adequate, and whether they were correctly implemented. This is not an easy proof, requiring an accurate reconstruction of the facts and administrative omissions.

The "Concretization of Risk" Criterion: A Key to Causation

Once the fault of the Public Administration is proven, the ruling introduces an innovative and crucial element for proving the causal link: the "concretization of risk" criterion. The Court of Cassation clarifies that this criterion is a tool for explaining causality, not for ascertaining fault. In practice, if the Public Administration has violated a rule or duty that aimed to prevent a certain risk (in our case, damage from stray animals), and that risk has actually materialized into the suffered damage, then it can be presumed that a correct alternative conduct by the Public Administration would have avoided the damage.

This means that:

• If the Public Administration had a duty to prevent stray animals (through capture, sterilization, etc.);
• If it omitted or inadequately performed this duty (fault);
• And if precisely the risk it was supposed to prevent (damage from stray dogs) occurred;

then the causal link between the omission and the damage can be recognized. It is as if to say that if an entity leaves a dangerous hole open and someone falls into it, the very fact that the risk (falling into the hole) has occurred demonstrates that the failure to close the hole is the cause of the damage.

Conclusions: The Importance of Diligence and Proof

Ruling No. 16788 of 06/23/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the complex matter of Public Administration liability for damages caused by stray dogs. For injured citizens, the ruling emphasizes the importance of not underestimating the burden of proof: it is essential to prove not only the damage but also the negligence or organizational inefficiency of the public entity. For Public Administrations, the ruling reiterates the need for careful and diligent management of the stray animal phenomenon, in accordance with current regulations, to avoid incurring compensatory liability. In both cases, specialized legal advice becomes fundamental to navigate a regulatory and jurisprudential framework that, as seen, is far from simple and linear.