Two spouses approached my firm to obtain protection and compensation for damages in connection with an accident that had occurred to them.

Specifically, they were transiting along a provincial road in central Italy in their car, on their way to their vacation destination, when a tree suddenly fell onto the roadway, sweeping away the vehicle in which they were traveling with their children.

The fire brigade had intervened to free the occupants of the car and clear the roadway, as well as the Carabinieri for the investigations that occur in similar cases.

However, the customers, miraculously unharmed, had had their vacations completely ruined and their car destroyed.

Analysis of the case led to speculation that the Public Administration was responsible as the owner of the land since the tree, based on the evidence provided by the clients, appeared to be within what is normally identified as an area of roadway appurtenance. Since the owner of the land is also the owner of the trees planted on it and the owner is primarily responsible as the custodian of the things belonging to him, the P.A. therefore had to be held liable also for damages from things in custody under Article 2051 of the Civil Code.

Moreover, the Public Administration, even if the tree had been owned by a third party, but in its capacity as the manager and owner of the road, could have been held liable under extra-contractual liability under Article 2043 of the Civil Code for failing to report the danger to the tree owner and to urge its maintenance.

The province in question was then contacted, but it failed to respond in any way to the requests.

All that remained was to take legal action, except that, before introducing the lawsuit, I advised the clients to make further cadastral investigations.

So here it was that, through the assistance of my firm, a technician operating in the area of the accident was identified, who, after an analysis directed by us, ascertained that the tree, instead of being in the area pertaining to the provincial road (and therefore owned by the Province) was actually within a piece of land that remained in the ownership of a private entity. All this, due to the fact that the Province, at the time of building the road, had not completed the expropriation procedure. All neighboring plots were found to be expropriated up to 2 meters from the edge of the road, except for the one where the tree existed.

A direct search then began to locate the private party, who eventually turned out to have moved to the United States many years ago.

After an international cease-and-desist letter, I would receive an initial negative response, from which, however, a negotiation was born, which, after numerous overseas contacts, led to the compensation of all damages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, suffered by my clients as a result of the damage to the vehicle, the expenses incurred and the ruined vacation.

Even a seemingly simple case, in reality, can hide pitfalls that can be avoided only through careful and thorough investigation.

Property damage in custody (Art. 2051 Civil Code) in fact constitutes a form of strict liability and provides a very simplified evidentiary burden for the injured party, while extra-contractual damage in general (Art. 2043 Civil Code) obliges the injured party to rigorous proof of the damage and its causes. The lawsuit to the Province could have become very complex and therefore potentially risky: in this case, it was avoided and prevented.