Analysis of Judgment No. 931 of 2025: Presumption of Driver Liability in Case of Pedestrian Knockdown

The recent ordinance no. 931 of January 14, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications regarding civil liability in road accidents, particularly concerning pedestrian knockdowns. This judgment is part of a highly relevant legal debate and emphasizes the need to assess the specific circumstances in which an accident occurs, going beyond a mere check of the maximum permitted speed.

The Regulatory Framework

The presumption of driver liability is governed by Article 2054 of the Civil Code, which establishes that, in the event of a road accident, the driver is considered liable unless proven otherwise. In this ordinance, the Court clarifies that it is not sufficient to prove that the vehicle's speed was within the maximum limit allowed by law. In other words, the driver must also prove that their speed was appropriate to the circumstances at the time of the accident, as established by Article 141 of the Highway Code.

The Guiding Principle

In general. In matters of road traffic and in cases of pedestrian knockdown, in order to overcome the presumption of driver liability, provided for by art. 2054, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code, it is not sufficient to prove that the speed maintained by the vehicle was equal to the maximum permitted limit; rather, it must be demonstrated that it was adequate to the circumstances of time and place at the time of the accident, pursuant to art. 141 of the Highway Code, given that the road owner regulates speed by establishing the maximum permitted in relation to optimal conditions.

This guiding principle highlights how the assessment of driver liability cannot disregard the analysis of the specific conditions in which the accident occurs. Speed, while a crucial element, must be contextualized in relation to factors such as visibility, traffic, and weather conditions.

Practical and Jurisprudential Implications

The implications of this judgment are significant for drivers, pedestrians, and insurance companies, as they emphasize the need for prudent conduct that is attentive to circumstances. Some key points to consider include:

• Driver liability is not automatic but requires an overall assessment of the situation.
• It is essential to collect detailed evidence of the conditions at the time of the accident to contest the presumption of liability.
• Insurers must consider not only speed but also the specific circumstances of each case.

In summary, judgment no. 931 of 2025 represents an important step forward in defining liability in road accidents, underscoring the importance of a contextualized and in-depth assessment.

Conclusions

The Court of Cassation, with its ordinance, reiterates a fundamental principle: driver liability cannot be assessed solely on the basis of speed but must take into account environmental conditions and the specific context of the accident. This approach not only protects the rights of pedestrians but also promotes greater responsibility on the part of drivers, contributing to safer and more aware road traffic.