Civil Liability and Custody: Commentary on Cass. Civ. No. 29632 of 2024

The recent ordinance of the Court of Cassation, No. 29632 of 2024, offers important food for thought on civil liability in relation to the custody of goods and roads. The central issue concerns the liability of the company Autostrade per l'Italia S.p.A. following a road accident caused by the presence of debris on the carriageway. The decision overturns a previous ruling by the Court of Teramo, raising questions about the correct burden of proof in cases of damage caused by unforeseeable events.

The Case Under Review

The accident occurred on May 16, 2016, when A.A.'s car collided with a piece of debris in the third lane of the A1 motorway. Initially, the Justice of the Peace of Teramo upheld A.A.'s claim for compensation, but the motorway company appealed, arguing that it was not liable as it could not have foreseen the presence of the debris. The Court upheld this argument, citing the unforeseeability of the event, but the Court of Cassation contested this viewpoint.

Burden of Proof and Custodian's Liability

The custodian's liability for damage arising from things in their custody is governed by Article 2051 of the Civil Code, which provides for a reversal of the burden of proof in cases of unforeseeable events.

The Court clarified that, in order to exclude the motorway company's liability, it would have had to demonstrate not only the unforeseeability of the event but also that it had implemented adequate control and maintenance activities. The mere absence of reports from road users is not sufficient to prove that the dangerous situation was indeed sudden and unavoidable. In other words, the Court of Cassation emphasized the importance of a diligent approach to road safety management.

Legal Implications

• The ruling clarifies the expected conduct of a custodian entity regarding road safety.
• It reiterates the need for rigorous proof in cases of accidental events, to avoid incorrect attribution of responsibility.
• It refers to previous case law, highlighting the continuity and evolution of law on civil liability.

The referral back to the Court of Teramo for further investigation represents an opportunity to redefine the boundaries of liability in similar situations, with the aim of ensuring greater safety for road users.

Conclusions

The decision of the Court of Cassation No. 29632 of 2024 not only reiterates principles already affirmed by case law but also draws attention to the importance of proactive and vigilant management by entities responsible for road custody. In a context where road safety is paramount, every actor involved must assume their responsibilities to prevent accidents and ensure the protection of users.