Hit-and-run: 'You are 75 per cent at fault, pay the legal fees'

Crossing outside the zebra crossing, he challenges the 'insufficient' compensation up to the Court of Cassation to be ordered to pay also the court costs: it was (mostly) his fault. This was stated by the third civil section of the Supreme Court in Order 26670/2025.

The Supreme Court, in fact, recalls that whoever crosses a road in a place where there are no road signs must do so carefully, so as to avoid situations of danger to himself or others, and giving precedence to vehicles. In fact, the pedestrian, given that at the time of the investment it was daytime, traffic was normal and visibility was good, should have seen the vehicle that was turning at a reduced speed. Consequently, before crossing he should have waited for the most opportune moment and then acted with caution.

In this case, in fact, the principle according to which, in the event of an investment, full liability falls on the driver does not apply, unless he is able to prove that the pedestrian, appearing suddenly and unpredictably on the roadway, made it impossible to avoid the investment. The judges on the merits had assessed only the weight of the pedestrian's behaviour to define the compensation, attributing to him 75 per cent of the contributory negligence and, to the driver of the bus who had run him over, only 25 per cent.