News Supreme Court rulings May 2015

Poolside “faux pas”? No compensation for the victim
The Third Civil Section of the Supreme Court, in ruling no. 9009/2015, that there is no compensation for tumbling poolside even in the presence of a slippery liquid, unless the “nature” of the liquid itself is specifically proven.
Thus ruled the Justices in rejecting the grievances of a man who was the victim of a mishap at a sports center. In fact, the Court recalled that the edge of the swimming pool is by its very nature “wet” precisely because of the activity that takes place there, and therefore the risk “must be dutifully calculated and avoided,” perhaps by wearing appropriate footwear and in any case by adapting to the utmost prudence, not being able to invoke, as a source of liability, the existence of a dangerous situation that falls within the generic risk proper to places, avoidable on the basis of normally diligent conduct. And again, the Court continues, the lack of any further specification of the liquid that allegedly caused the fall renders the reasoning of the appealed judgment insufficient.

Supreme Court: a judge’s handwritten judgment is not void unless it is totally incomprehensible

In ruling no. 8481 of April 27, 2015, the Justices of the Supreme Court said that to be null and void, the judgment written in the judge’s own handwriting must be absolutely illegible. The Ermellini, in the aforementioned ruling, rejected the appeal brought by the interested parties, who complained of infringement of their right of defense for not being able to effectively read the grounds and the operative part of the appealed judgment. Indeed, the judges specified that the content of the decision that is translatable on close examination gives rise to a simple irregularity.
The court pointed out that when faced with an initial impact of “difficult reading,” careful rereading allows for the full understanding of the text.

Supreme Court: Insurance company must also compensate for damage produced by parked vehicles

The United Sections of the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 8620/2015), clarifying that the concept of road traffic may well include the “position of stopping,” ordered an insurance company to pay compensation for damages produced by a parked vehicle.
The said company had argued in its defenses that the insurance coverage was inoperative outside the cases of actual road traffic. The Supreme Court made it clear that the concept of “road traffic” under Article 2054 of the Civil Code must include not only the maneuvers of loading and unloading and the opening of a door as they are related to the initiation of the vehicle into the flow of traffic, but also the “stopping position.”
The aforementioned principle is also in accordance with a previous ruling of the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 2092/2012), which had enunciated the principle that the parking of a motor vehicle in a public area integrates a case of “vehicle circulation” with the consequence that the insurance company must be liable for any damage caused to third parties by the vehicle.