Injury on the football field was translated, in the first place, as caused by the responsibility of the facility manager. (Civil Cassation, Section VI, 04/03/2022, No. 7172).
Accident on the football field and its consequences according to Art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code in the hands of the director of the facility, in the first instance judgment. The party’s appeals failed and the Palermo court completely overhauled the first aid ruling, denying objective responsibility.
In short, the appellant had been sentenced pursuant to Art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code for compensation for damage caused to a player as a result of an injury on the football field due to a fall due to the poor condition of the playing field.
The affected limb recurs veto Denouncing the apparent inference, as inappropriate for understanding the reasons for the regional court’s conviction that it would have been limited to the assertion that it did not agree with the reasons given by the judge of first instance as a basis for accepting the plaintiff’s request.
The Court of Appeal decided not to agree with the Court’s opinion – according to which the causal relationship between the condition of venues and the injury on the football field was “indisputable” and in some respects “indisputable” – because it remained so. Proving the modalities of truth, in particular the causal relationship between the fall of the actor and the conditions of the field.
Therefore, the motive given by the impugned sentence, even if brief, escapes the alleged defect of the omission or the apparent motive because, in effect, it makes the factual and legal grounds for refusing the request, in substance, lacking in the evidence. .
Again, guardianship of the football field, as the authority over things exercised by the owner and manager of the stadium, is not a crucial omitted fact, but part of the legal action noted by the judge for evaluation purposes. Existence or non-liability of the defendant under Section 2051 CPC.
Finally, with regard to the reason given as a violation of the law pursuant to Section 360 CPC Paragraph 1, n. 3, it is equally inadmissible by virtue of the uniform orientation for which, Art. 2051 cc, in affirming the guardian’s responsibility for the damage it causes, simply sets a criterion of calculation independent of any indication of guilt by working at the objective level to ascertain the causal relationship between the thing and the damage. event, but nevertheless does not exclude the injured party from establishing the above causal link between the injuries sustained and the alleged injury on the football field.
The appeal was declared definitively inadmissible, with confirmation of the judgment of the Court of Appeal that rejected the aggrieved party’s request for lack of evidence of the dynamics and method of injury on the football field, in particular the causal relationship between the fall of the ball. The actor and the conditions of the playing field.
Distraction and self-responsibility in terms of falling off the road
“Alcohol enthusiast. Twitter ninja. Tv lover. Falls down a lot. Hipster-friendly coffee geek.”