News Supreme Court rulings July 2016

Disco too noisy? Neighbors always compensated. Damage to health is presumed
The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 13208/2016, ruled that the discotheque that causes harm to neighbors with noise immissions exceeding normal tolerability is liable for compensation regardless of proof of harm.
Indeed, the courts of legitimacy have clarified that, for the purposes of compensation for damages, the rule of common experience applies, according to which noisy immissions that exceed normal tolerability are in themselves capable of impairing the psycho-physical balance of the person repeatedly exposed to them.

Come out we’re going to fight: if the grandfather says it, it is not a crime

A recent ruling by the Criminal Court of Cassation (25080/2016) shows that an 84-year-old person who addresses an individual more than 20 years younger with the expression “Come out we’re going to punch,” is not punishable for threatening, as the agent’s advanced age renders the conduct engaged in completely harmless.

Customer slips due to dripping umbrellas: shopkeeper pays damages

The Supreme Court of Civil Cassation, in ruling no. 13222/2016, ruled that a store owner is liable, by way of failure to provide custody pursuant to Article 2051 of the Civil Code, for the damage caused to the customer who slipped on the wet floor due to water dripping from umbrellas and the clothing of other customers on the premises, unless he can prove that the damage is attributable solely to chance.
In fact, the judges made it clear that the store owner himself, being able to dispose of the premises and being burdened with powers of effective control over it, should have taken all appropriate measures to prevent and avoid damage to third parties, such as preventing access with dripping umbrellas, placing umbrella stands at the entrance or outside, affixing non-slip mats on the floor or equipping the premises with a suitable ventilation system.