Whose responsibility is it?

Cass. civ., Division III, Order., 28 March 2022, n. 9864

President Spirito – Speaker Crescenti

It considers:

1.- BTT preferred a mixed breed of dog that lived with him in his country house for many years. The dog was killed by the wheels of a vehicle belonging to the Civil Protection Association (excluded), which occurred near the applicant’s home for fire control developed at the scene.

2.- The driver of the BT vehicle, PF, and the association “(OMISIS)” and (OMISIS) have acted against both insurance, in order to obtain compensation for both patriarchal losses determined by veterinary expenses. The death of a dog and the removal of a carcass are both non-financial losses that result from a wound in the emotional relationship with the dog or a superstition about the value of affection formed by the animal.

3. The Peace of Lake Judge granted the plaintiff’s request for damages by order of the plaintiff for both damages, but the decision was overturned on appeal where the court found the driver’s conduct and in fact considered that the damages were responsible for the same loss. In any case, non-financial compensation should be deducted from the loss of affection for animals.

4.- BT appeal with two grounds of condemnation, in which both the associations “(omissis)” and (omissis) insure the insurance company as baseless.


5.- The second ground of appeal should be examined first, which logically seems to be a priority, considering the driver’s liability in the accident: in fact, the trial judge ruled that he could be blamed for the death of the animal, and therefore, the relevance of this assessment or otherwise Priority is given to the damage caused by the incident, which is the second factor.

Specifically, the court held that, on the one hand, the driver of the emergency services vehicle and the fact that the acoustic and illuminated alarms were active did not oblige traffic operators to comply with the CDS rules, and secondly, the incident must have been blamed on the injured party Revealed for the accident.

6.- The second reason is the allegation of the examination of omission of two relevant information: the first consists of the situation which appeared in the court, for which the car was not in an emergency which has already ended: and indeed the flashing lights and siren have been turned off; The second is that the dog owner’s obligation is to keep the animal in a binding condition, not to prevent harm to the dog, but to prevent third party harm, and therefore a precautionary rule that cannot be stated here to determine the owner’s fault.

7.- The reason is baseless.

As a first aspect, in reality, this is not a matter, as the petitioner claims, a fact not examined by the judge, who instead confirmed that the car was in an emergency situation at that moment because the fire was burning dangerously. The result will be challenged, whether or not there was an emergency, and it needed to be dealt with, was examined by the judge and it cannot be considered as an excluded fact, or clearly assessed in the terms mentioned above. First, since this is an unacceptable factual inquiry into this reassessment session.

The second case, which was omitted or in any case was misjudged by the trial judge, included alleged violations of the dog restraint rule: the petitioner observed that this specific warning was provided by an order from the Ministry of Health, and precisely 2013 No. 209, set up to protect third parties from being attacked by dogs and to prevent subsequent runners from running away: consequently there will be a different motive for blaming the alleged rule for violating it and seeking to avoid its violation. There can be no cause of any event other than incident

However, this allegation is baseless because the trial judge did not mention the violation of this specific precaution, of course imposed by the Ministry of Health to protect the safety of third parties, but did mention a general precaution, and therefore not provided by law. Or regulations, to keep the dog in a safe place to protect it from being tied up or injured: a precaution should have been taken to avoid harm to the injured party considering the circumstances of the case.

Also regarding this aspect, it should be noted that confirming the consent of the injured party, if it is understood that it is a violation of the general precaution to keep the animal away from emergency tactics or in any case to keep it. Away from the presence of vehicles in the vicinity, an accurate assessment at a legal level and not a question mark over reality.

8.- The first reason which instead calls for compensation for non-financial loss due to injury to the value of affection should be considered exploited accordingly.


The court dismissed the second application, declaring the first one exploited. He ordered the appellant to pay 1000.00 Euros for legal costs and 200.00 Euros for general expenses.

According to Presidential Decree no. 115 of 2002, art. 13, paragraph 1 quarterly, the court acknowledges that the content of the device, such as to justify the payment, if arrears and the applicable amount, by the applicant, equal to the excess amount by the combined contribution, appeal

Leave a Comment