Manslaughter from Dog Attack: The Court of Cassation, Judgment no. 15701/2025, Reaffirms the Holder's Liability

What obligations fall upon those who keep a dog – or more dogs – when the animal can pose a danger to the safety of others? The Court of Cassation, Criminal Section 4, with judgment no. 15701 of April 22, 2025, offers a clear answer: the mere holder assumes a position of guarantor and is liable for manslaughter if they do not adopt "every precaution" suitable to prevent attacks. The case arises from the death of a passer-by, who fell into a river while fleeing from three of the four dogs owned by the defendant, G. D. P., which had escaped through a gap in the fence.

The Facts and Procedural History

The Court of Appeal of L'Aquila had convicted the defendant, finding a causal link between the negligent custody and the victim's death. Before the Court of Cassation, the defense complained of the absence of specific culpable conduct, arguing that the presence of a fence was sufficient. The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, confirming the criminal liability.

• Crime charged: manslaughter under Article 589 of the Criminal Code.
• Legal references: Articles 43 and 672 of the Criminal Code; constitutional case law on negligence.
• Conforming precedents: Cass. 51448/2017, 18814/2012, 13464/2020.

The Holder's Position of Guarantor

The Court recalls the notion of a position of guarantor, which obliges those who direct or control a source of danger to prevent harmful events. In the case of potentially dangerous animals, this obligation translates into:

In matters of manslaughter, the position of guarantor, assumed also by the mere holder of an animal, imposes the obligation to control and keep it by adopting every precaution to prevent attacks on third parties. It is not sufficient for this purpose that the animal is kept in a private place or, in any case, fenced, as a placement that is concretely suitable to prevent it from escaping the holder's custody or control is required.

In other words, "the fence" is not enough: it is necessary to constantly check that it is intact, suitable for the animal's nature, and free of gaps. The holder must foresee possible structural failures and intervene promptly. The Court considered the dogs' escape through an existing opening to be foreseeable, and therefore the omission of supervision to be negligent.

Criminal and Civil Aspects

From a criminal perspective, the judgment consolidates the case law according to which Article 672 of the Criminal Code (negligent keeping of animals) can serve as a reference precautionary rule to constitute specific negligence in manslaughter when a fatal event occurs. On the civil level, liability under Article 2052 of the Civil Code remains autonomous and objective: the owner or holder is liable for damages unless they can prove force majeure, a burden of proof that – in light of the decision – becomes particularly onerous.

The ruling also follows the line of EU Directive 2019/1937 on the precautionary principle: managing a risk source entails the obligation to prevent even rare but concretely foreseeable events.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 15701/2025 serves as a warning to all owners or holders of animals: criminal liability does not stop at the garden gate. Anyone keeping a dog – especially more than one – must constantly assess the effectiveness of containment measures and, if necessary, adopt further precautions (muzzle, double fencing, supervision). Otherwise, the risk not only entails administrative sanctions but can lead to serious criminal consequences, including charges of manslaughter.