Fall on uneven road: when inattention excludes compensation according to Court of Cassation no. 29147/2025

Walking the streets of our cities often holds unpleasant surprises, including potholes, uneven sidewalks, and damaged pavement. However, the presence of a road hazard does not always guarantee the right to compensation for damages. The Court of Cassation, with the recent order no. 29147 of November 4, 2025, has returned to clarify liability for things in custody under art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code, precisely outlining the boundaries of the "fortuitous event" represented by the negligent conduct of the injured party themselves.

The specific case: the fall in the market area

The dispute, which involved F. A. A. and A. F., originated from a woman's fall in an area used as a market during daylight hours. The woman had tripped into a hole of significant dimensions (approximately 30-40 centimeters long and as deep as a shod foot). In the lower courts, the Court of Appeal of Rome had declared the claim for compensation inadmissible, attributing full responsibility for the accident to the victim herself. The Court of Cassation confirmed this decision, rejecting the appeal. But what are the legal reasons behind this decision?

The judges noted that the square presented a condition of general and visible disrepair. In such a context, the road user cannot rely on the regular flatness of the ground, but must exercise caution proportionate to the state of the premises.

The principle of law: the ruling of the Court of Cassation

To fully understand the scope of this decision, let us analyze the principle expressed by the judges of the court of last resort:

Regarding liability for things in custody, in order to establish whether the victim's conduct constitutes a fortuitous event under art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code, it is necessary to assess whether the injured party, in compliance with the general duty of reasonable caution, could have foreseen and avoided the damage, with the circumstance that such conduct was abstractly foreseeable remaining irrelevant.

This ruling emphasizes the citizen's duty of self-responsibility. The custodian of the road (for example, the Municipality) is indeed liable for damages caused by things in their custody, but such liability is excluded if a fortuitous event is proven. The conduct of the injured party can constitute a fortuitous event when it is so imprudent as to break the causal link between the thing and the damage.

Evaluation criteria: foreseeability and avoidability

The Supreme Court clarifies that the focus should not be on the foreseeability of the victim's conduct by the custodian, but rather on the foreseeability of the danger by the victim themselves. In particular, the following elements must be considered:

• The visibility of the hazard: in this specific case, the accident occurred during daylight hours, making the hole easily visible.
• The dimensions of the anomaly: a 30-40 cm hole cannot be considered a hidden hazard.
• The spatial context: being in a market area known for its general disrepair, the victim should have paid particular attention while walking.

In essence, the more visible and foreseeable the dangerous situation is, the stronger the pedestrian's duty of caution to avoid the damage.

Conclusions and practical implications

Order no. 29147/2025 fits into a now-consolidated jurisprudential trend that aims to make road users more responsible. It is not enough to prove the presence of a hole to obtain compensation; one must also prove that they adopted diligent behavior and that the hazard was objectively unavoidable and not signaled. For those facing similar situations, it is essential to immediately collect photographic evidence of the state of the premises and testimonies that attest to the actual insidiousness and lack of visibility of the danger.