Accidents on private land, now the Fund intervenes and takes revenge on the owner

In a recent order (no. 15237/2024 of 30 May) the Supreme Court of Cassation accurately described the cases in which the liability of the owner of a vehicle is excluded in relation to an accident that occurred while the vehicle was circulating prohibente domino (i.e. "against his will", as per Article 2054 of the Civil Code). A pronouncement that should also be read in light of the new rules that require a vehicle to be insured even when it remains in private areas (Legislative Decree 184/2023): for accidents occurring in the latter, the novelties are significant.

In the case examined by the Supreme Court, the driver had taken possession of the vehicle by taking advantage of the fact that the person who had been entrusted with it by the owner had left the ignition key in the ignition.

The entrusting of the vehicle to a third party by the owner was not considered by the judges to be sufficient to exclude the owner's liability, since this conduct was in itself incapable of preventing the use of the vehicle in concrete terms.

The pronouncement in itself has no new elements: circulation prohibente domino can be said to be integrated only in cases of particular gravity, where the vehicle, although adequately placed in a condition not to circulate, has been taken away from the owner by violence, threat or burglary. On the other hand, the failure to take concrete precautions, on a case-by-case basis, as well as the consensual entrusting of the vehicle to a person who then causes an accident (or who, in any case, allows himself to be taken away by a third party due to carelessness or negligence) entail the full liability of the owner.

In other words, mere objection to an unauthorised use is not enough; instead, proof of having taken all necessary precautions is required in order to free oneself.