Civil Liability and Admissibility of Appeal: Commentary on Judgment Cass. civ., Ord. no. 6826 of 2021

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, no. 6826 of 2021, offers significant insights into civil liability and the correct formulation of appeals. In the case in question, a motorcyclist, N.A., sought compensation for damages due to a road accident, claiming that the fall was caused by an oily substance on the roadway. However, the Court deemed the appeal inadmissible for multiple reasons, highlighting the importance of strictly adhering to procedural rules.

Procedural Violations and Inadmissibility of Appeal

The appellant alleged violations relating to Article 2700 of the Italian Civil Code and Article 132 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court emphasized that the appeal did not meet the requirements of Article 366, paragraph 1, no. 6 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, the appellant referred to documents from the merits proceedings without providing precise indications, limiting himself to general references. This made adequate examination by the Court of Cassation impossible.

It is sufficient that even one of the grounds for decision on which the challenged decision is based has not been adequately contested, for the appeal to be rejected in its entirety.

Liability of Public Administration

A central aspect of the judgment concerns the liability of the public administration in case of road accidents. The Court confirmed that the Public Administration can be exempted from liability under Article 2051 of the Italian Civil Code if it proves that the harmful event was caused by external and unknowable factors. In the specific case, the Court held that the release of the slippery substance had occurred shortly before the accident, which excluded any possibility of intervention by Roma Capitale.

Conclusion

Judgment no. 6826 of 2021 represents an important ruling on the issue of civil liability and the admissibility requirements for appeals. It underscores the importance of correctly formulating grounds for appeal and the need to clearly and precisely demonstrate the responsibilities of the parties involved. Jurisprudence continues to reiterate that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking compensation, and documentary deficiencies can compromise even the most deserving cases.