Civil liability for things in custody: commentary on Cass. civ., Ord. no. 2481/2018

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 2481 of 2018, offers significant insights into civil liability concerning damages caused by things in custody, as provided for by art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code. The judgment analyzes the case of an injured party, S.V., who sought compensation from the Municipality of Vicenza for injuries sustained as a result of a fall on an uneven road surface. The Court reiterated some fundamental principles regarding the assessment of the causal link and the conduct of the injured party.

Principles of liability under art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code

The Court confirmed that liability for damages from things in custody is objective in nature, which implies that the injured party must only prove the existence of a causal link between the thing and the damage suffered. This principle is based on various elements, including:

• The custody relationship of the thing.
• The need to prove that the damage was caused by the thing in custody.
• The role of fortuitous event as an excuse for the custodian's liability.

Liability under art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code presupposes the existence of a custody relationship and a factual connection between a subject and the thing, such as to allow control over it.

In the case in question, the Court of Vicenza had considered S.V.'s conduct to be imprudent, thereby breaking the causal link between the damage and the Municipality. The Court confirmed that the conduct of the injured party must be assessed objectively, considering the circumstances and the context in which the accident occurred.

The conduct of the injured party and the causal link

A crucial aspect that emerged from the judgment is that the conduct of the injured party can constitute a fortuitous event, excluding the custodian's liability. The Court highlighted that the injured party has a duty to exercise reasonable care, especially in situations where the danger is evident. In the specific case, S.V. chose to cross a section of uneven pavement, despite safer alternatives being available.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 2481/2018 of the Court of Cassation offers a clear interpretation of the principles of liability for things in custody. It emphasizes the importance of the injured party's conduct in determining the causal link and the custodian's liability. This approach could influence future litigation, requiring greater attention to prudence on the part of users of public property.