If a stray dog he suddenly crosses the road and is hit by a car, he wonders who is responsible for the damage caused by this event. In this regard, it can be both damage caused to the vehicle and injury to the driver or to third parties due to the investment. Generally, it can be said that the Municipality responsible for the stretch of road on which the event occurred is responsible.
However, the local territorial authority is not responsible if the road section is the responsibility of Anas. This is what the Supreme Court with a sentence filed two days ago, precisely n. 12112 of 2020. With it was rejected the appeal brought against the Municipality by a person damaged precisely by virtue of the event indicated above. The application had already been rejected in the two previous court cases.
Who is responsible for the damage caused by the investment of stray animals. The decision of the Cassation
The College has established that in these cases the source of the compensation liability for damages caused by things in custody it cannot be configured in a road section managed by Anas. Therefore, the claim for compensation was rejected for reasons related to the lack of evidence and the type of road on which the event occurred. In the decided case, a motorcyclist had suffered serious personal injuries following the investment of a dog that had suddenly crossed the roadway. The Cassation, for this purpose, made a distinction, according to whether the so-called animal wandering you enter on a highway or on ahighway.
In fact, the latter, as well as the fast-flowing one, given the limited and delimited character, can be kept away from the entry of external agents from the surrounding areas. Therefore, there would be a governmental power over the thing by themanaging body of the highway that would justify the application of the rule on the responsibility of things in custody. The body in question is normally Anas. However, according to the Court, the same principle does not apply to non-motorway sections. Here, the owner or operator, which is usually the Municipality, cannot guarantee that the road is not crossed by wild animals.
Consequently, the harmful event cannot be automatically attributed to him.
This is what happened in the decided case, where the proof of damage he was born in causal link between the harmful event and the dog’s conduct. Beyond the specific event, however, as a rule, it is possible to obtain compensation for the damage resulting from the circulation of the stray animal. This is done by suing the body which from time to time is required to guarantee the safety of people with respect to the uncontrolled presence of animals. This may be the Common or even theAsl, if regional laws have entrusted it with the tasks of prevention of stray dogs.
Or, as said, it can be thereAnas especially on the motorway sections entrusted to its custody and maintenance. But the path to obtaining compensation is often difficult due to the restrictive orientation adopted on this point by the judges of legitimacy. It derives, above all, from the institution’s assumed difficulty in controlling certain stretches of road, such as the state road, so that it can effectively avoid the event.