A fourteen-year-old boy grabs the crossbar of a football goal to celebrate a goal. The structure, not anchored to the ground, collapses on him, causing serious injuries. The educators who were supposed to supervise him were absent. This episode, apparently isolated in nature, gave rise to a ruling by the Court of Cassation — Ordinance No. 21717/2026 — set to become a leading authority on the liability of public bodies towards minors entrusted to their care.
The Background: Municipal Educational Projects and the Duty of Protection
An increasing number of Italian Municipalities are promoting educational projects aimed at preventing juvenile delinquency, engaging young people in recreational, sporting, and educational activities. These are commendable initiatives; however, they entail the assumption of precise legal responsibilities towards the minors admitted to participate in them.
In the case examined by the Court of Cassation, a Municipality in the Etna area had admitted the fourteen-year-old to such a programme. At the time of the accident, the educators responsible for supervision were absent. No one had verified that the sports equipment — in particular the football goal — was adequately secured and safe. The result: serious physical and psychological harm to the minor and to his family.
The Nature of Liability: Contractual, Not Tortious
The most legally significant aspect of the ruling concerns the characterisation of the public authority's liability. The Court of Cassation confirmed that, in cases such as this, the matter does not involve mere non-contractual liability (the so-called tortious liability under art. 2043 c.c.), but rather liability of a contractual nature.
Why is this distinction so important? For several practical reasons:
- Reversed burden of proof: under contractual liability, it is not the injured party who must prove the fault of the public authority. Rather, it is the latter that must demonstrate it duly fulfilled its obligations of custody and supervision, or that the event was unforeseeable and unavoidable.
- Longer limitation periods: a contractual claim is ordinarily time-barred after ten years, compared to five years for a non-contractual claim — an aspect by no means secondary for families who often take considerable time before consulting a lawyer.
- Greater scope of compensation: contractual liability allows, in principle, for a broader recovery of the damages suffered.
The basis for this approach lies in the fact that, upon admitting the minor to the programme, the Municipality assumes towards the child and his family a specific duty of protection, comparable in certain respects to that of a teacher or educational institution. A relationship is thereby established, in other terms, that goes well beyond a generic duty of care owed to any member of the public, giving rise instead to obligations of a distinctly contractual character.
