Municipality's Liability for Road Pothole Damage: Cass. Civ. No. 15761/2016
The recent ruling No. 15761/2016 by the Court of Cassation addresses the delicate issue of public bodies' liability for damages caused by dangerous road conditions, such as potholes. This judgment is significant for understanding how case law interprets civil liability regulations and citizens' rights regarding road safety.
The Case Under Review
In the specific case, C.F. suffered damages following a fall caused by a pothole on the road. The Court of Appeal of Taranto had initially rejected the compensation claim, holding that the claimant's conduct had broken the causal link between the property in custody and the damage suffered. However, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, emphasizing that the public body's liability cannot be excluded solely based on the conduct of the injured party.
Liability under art. 2051 of the Civil Code presupposes the existence of a custody relationship and a factual connection between a subject and the property itself.
Principles of Civil Liability
The Court recalled that, according to art. 2051 of the Civil Code, liability for damage caused by property in custody is objective. This means that the injured party must prove the causal link between the dangerous property and the damage suffered, while the custodian must prove the absence of fault or the occurrence of an unforeseeable event. In this context, the Court of Cassation reiterated that the dangerousness of the property must be assessed in relation to its nature and the predictability of the dangerous situation.
- The public body's obligation to adopt safety measures.
- Presumption of liability in case of road anomalies.
- Possibility of contributory negligence by the injured party.
Conclusions
Ruling No. 15761/2016 by the Court of Cassation represents an important affirmation of citizens' rights regarding road safety. It emphasizes that the municipality's liability cannot be excluded simply based on the conduct of the injured party but must be examined in light of the specific circumstances of the case. The decision urges public bodies to maintain roads in safe conditions, reiterating that diligence in road custody is an essential duty to ensure citizens' safety.
