Compensation for damage caused by wild animals: ruling no. 17253/2024 and the allocation of the burden of proof

The recent order no. 17253 of June 21, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a topic of significant importance in the landscape of Italian civil law: compensation for damages caused by wild animals. In particular, the decision focuses on the choice between applying Article 2043 of the Civil Code and Article 2052 of the Civil Code, highlighting that this choice does not pertain to the legal qualification of the claim, but rather to the allocation of the burden of proof.

The regulatory framework for damage compensation

The Italian Civil Code offers two fundamental articles for damage compensation: Article 2043, which governs liability for wrongful acts, and Article 2052, which deals with liability for damage caused by animals. The distinction between the two articles is crucial, as it determines the burden of proof on the plaintiff, i.e., the one seeking compensation.

• Art. 2043 of the Civil Code: requires proof of the wrongful act and the damage suffered.
• Art. 2052 of the Civil Code: establishes a presumption of liability for those who keep an animal, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

The ruling's maxim and its meaning

In general. When a claim for compensation for damage caused by wild animals is filed, the choice between applying Art. 2043 of the Civil Code or Art. 2052 of the Civil Code does not pertain to the legal qualification of the claim, but rather to the allocation of the burden of proof, with the consequence that substantial judgment cannot be formed on any procedural error that may have been committed.

This maxim reveals a fundamental aspect: the judge must focus on the allocation of the burden of proof rather than on the qualification of the claim. The Court thus clarifies that the methods of legal action must not compromise the possibility of accessing compensation for the injured party. The ruling, in this way, prevents procedural errors from precluding fair compensation, keeping the focus on the actual liability of the party causing the damage.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 17253 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in protecting the rights of citizens harmed by wild animals. The distinction between the legal qualification of the claim and the allocation of the burden of proof is crucial to ensure equitable access to compensation. Legal professionals and citizens must pay particular attention to these aspects to effectively navigate the complex world of damage compensation.