Liability for Wildlife Damage and Constitutional Referral

1. The facts

   The matter arises from a series of disputes brought by drivers following violent collisions with wild boars and deer on provincial and regional roads. According to reports published in «Altalex» and «Il Sole 24 Ore», the Tribunal of L'Aquila raised ex officio the question of constitutional legitimacy concerning a regional provision that made compensation contingent upon limited fund availability, thereby converting the right to full reparation into a mere symbolic indemnity. The proceedings, currently at the referral stage before the Constitutional Court following the first instance, pit damaged citizens against regional administrations. The latter argue that wildlife, as un-fenced non-disposable State property, cannot be subject to effective custody, thus requesting the application of a less burdensome liability regime than that governing domestic animals.

2. Relevant legal framework

   The core provision is Art. 2052 of the Civil Code, governing damage caused by animals and establishing strict liability for the owner or user, save for proof of a fortuitous event. This operates alongside Art. 2043 of the Civil Code, the general fault-based tort provision, which historically represented the sole path pursued by injured parties prior to the recent interpretative turning point. At the constitutional level, Art. 3 of the Constitution (principle of equality) is central to avoiding discriminatory treatment between victims of wild and domestic animal damage, alongside Art. 24 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to judicial protection of one's legal positions. Finally, national legislation on wildlife protection classifies wild animals as non-disposable State heritage, entrusting their management to the Regions.

3. What the case law says

   Case law from the Supreme Court of Cassation has undergone a radical turnaround in recent years. While it was previously held that wild animals could not be subject to custody, thereby excluding the applicability of Art. 2052 of the Civil Code, current authority clarifies that the Region is the liable entity as the holder of administrative management and control powers. The driver must therefore only prove the causal nexus between the wild animal and the accident, as well as compliance with traffic rules. The Supreme Court further specified that any delegation of functions to Provinces does not transfer legal standing to be sued, which remains with the Region. Conversely, the debate remains open regarding the validity of regional laws capping damages, an issue upon which the Constitutional Court must now rule to ensure uniform application across national territory.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Key takeaways for legal practitioners

   1. Evidentiary promptness: it is essential to immediately secure evidence of the causal nexus (police reports, biological traces, photographs) prior to any alteration of the accident site.
   2. Procedural strategy: practitioners should name the Region as the sole party with standing to be sued, joining Provinces or Park Authorities only on a subordinate basis.
   3. Constitutional monitoring: counsel should consider requesting a stay of proceedings or avoiding unfavorable settlements pending the Constitutional Court's decision on regional indemnity caps.

References: Art. 2052 c.c.Art. 2043 c.c.Art. 3 Cost.Art. 24 Cost.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 24 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction