Damage caused by animals: owner liability according to Order no. 28839/2025

When a pet causes damage to third parties, the question naturally arises as to who is actually liable to compensate the injured party. There is often a tendency to assume that liability falls upon the person who had physical custody of the animal at that time. However, the Court of Cassation, with the significant Order no. 28839 of October 31, 2025, has redefined and clarified the boundaries of civil liability provided for by Article 2052 of the Italian Civil Code, placing the emphasis on the concept of 'utilization' rather than that of mere 'custody'.

The specific case and the decision of the Court of Cassation

The matter arises from the appeal filed by G. (represented by lawyer V. F.) against M., following damage caused by a dog to a flock. The dog was kept inside a villa by an employee of the owner, who was tasked with caring for the animal during the owner's frequent absences. The Court of Appeal of Florence had already excluded the liability of the employee-custodian, placing the entire compensation burden on the owner of the animal. The Supreme Court confirmed this approach, dismissing the appeal and establishing a fundamental principle in the field of civil liability.

The criterion of utilization versus custody

The ruling in question focuses on the literal and systematic interpretation of Art. 2052 of the Civil Code. According to the Court of Cassation, liability for damage caused by animals is not based on the duty of supervision or de facto custody, but rather on deriving utility from the animal itself. Here is the official legal principle expressed by the Court:

In matters of damage caused by animals, the criterion for the imputation of liability provided for by Art. 2052 of the Civil Code is based not on the notion of custody (the relevance of which is expressly excluded by the provision) but rather on that of utilization, understood as the economic or functional exploitation of the animal to derive one's own benefit, with the consequence that the owner or the person who uses the animal to satisfy their own interest is alternatively liable for the damage.

This means that in order to be exempt from liability, it is not enough to prove that the animal was entrusted to a third party (such as a dog sitter or a property caretaker), if such entrustment occurred in the exclusive interest of the owner. The custodian, in fact, acts as a mere executor of the owner's directives, without deriving an autonomous utility (economic or emotional) from the animal.

When does alternative liability arise?

Art. 2052 of the Civil Code provides for alternative liability between the owner and the person who uses the animal. To understand when this transfer of liability occurs, it is necessary to verify who is the subject deriving an actual benefit from the animal at that specific moment. For example:

• The owner: is liable for damages if the animal is cared for by third parties on their behalf and in their interest (e.g., dog kennels or domestic caretakers).
• The user: is liable if they use the animal for their own autonomous interest, as in the case of a horse leased for commercial or recreational activity.

Conclusions

Order no. 28839/2025 of the Court of Cassation offers a clear guide for managing risks related to animal ownership. Anyone who owns a pet must be aware that civil liability remains with them even when they temporarily delegate the care of the animal to domestic staff or caretakers. This decision highlights the importance of taking out adequate civil liability insurance policies in order to protect oneself from unforeseen and potentially very costly events.