Imagine a worker involved in an accident inside a company warehouse, struck by a vehicle manoeuvring in the private yard of an establishment. Who is liable for the damage? The vehicle's insurer? The employer? Both? These questions, by no means uncommon in everyday practice, receive a more nuanced answer thanks to the recent order of the Civil Court of Cassation No. 19364 of 12 June 2026, which provides important clarifications on the concept of road traffic liability in contexts that appear, at first glance, unrelated to public roads.
The Central Issue: What Is Meant by "Road Traffic"?
In common parlance, road traffic tends to be understood as something that occurs exclusively on public roads: streets, motorways, squares open to transit. In reality, the Italian legal system adopts a broader and more functional interpretation of this concept.
With this order, the Court of Cassation reaffirms a principle already well established in case law: the private nature of the area in which an accident occurs does not automatically exclude the application of the rules governing road traffic liability. What matters, instead, is whether the vehicle involved in the accident was performing its typical transport function — that is, whether it was being used in accordance with its ordinary purpose.
In other words, the judge must not stop at the question «where did the accident occur?», but must ask «how was the vehicle operating at that moment?». A distinction that may appear subtle, but which in practice can make the difference between the application of compulsory insurance regulations and recourse to other liability regimes.
Occupational Injury and Civil Liability: Two Tracks That Are Not Mutually Exclusive
Another significant aspect addressed by the Court concerns the relationship between the classification of an event as an occupational injury and road traffic liability. It is often incorrectly assumed that once INAIL coverage has intervened and the event has been classified as a work-related accident, there is no longer any scope for further claims for damages connected to the vehicle involved.
The Court of Cassation refutes this oversimplification: the existence of an occupational injury does not in any way preclude an analysis of road traffic liability. The two frameworks — the social security framework and the civil liability framework — coexist and must be examined separately by the judge. This means that the victim of an accident in a private company area may be entitled to cumulative forms of protection, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
What Happens If Road Traffic Liability Is Excluded?
The Court also takes care to outline the path to be followed in cases where, following the assessment, the judge