Damn boars… Their presence in the surroundings of the inhabited centers is more and more widespread. The search for food is stronger than the fear of invading the territory of man. Not to mention the risks associated with the road traffic. But in the event of a claim, can compensation be requested? If so, to whom? A sentence of the third civil section of the Court of Bari provides important information on this. First, the driver must demonstrate that he has done everything to avoid the impact. Above all, once the fright is disposed of, we must remember to take pen and paper to write to the Region, not to the Province. The story has its roots in November 2010: a motorist traveling along the provincial road 234 in the direction of Minervino Murge struck a large boar, causing damage to the car about 3 thousand euros.
The owner of the vehicle, a Fiat Panda Cross, sued the Region before the Justice of the Peace to obtain compensation. The body complained about what in law is called a lack of passive legitimacy, in essence it says "I have nothing to do with it, it is up to the Bat province to eventually compensate". The contradictory is thus enlarged e the justice of the peace agrees with the owner of the Panda, condemning the province to pay 3 thousand euros. But the Province is not there. And, assisted by the lawyer Piero de Nicolo, she challenges the sentence, this time asking her for the lack of passive legitimacy: "What do I have to do with it, at most the Region is competent".
The Court (judge Luca Sforza) thus gave reason to Bat. Meanwhile, he established that the motorist has no right to compensation: the "mere presence of the animal on the roadway or the impact between the vehicle and the same" is not enough, but it is necessary "to provide proof of the exact dynamics of the accident, from which it emerges that the driver has taken every possible precaution in his driving behavior, a circumstance to be assessed rigorously in the case of circulation in areas where the possible presence of wild animals was reported or in any case known ». The consequence of this principle is that "The regional body is therefore required to provide proof that the animal's conduct was not reasonably foreseeable or that it was not avoidable, even by means of the adoption of the most adequate and diligent measures for the management and control of the fauna, concretely payable in relation to the factual situation ». In other words, if all the precautions are respected and the accident is a coincidence, then nobody pays.
But the problem lies with the Region, which "performs not only the functions of legislation, regulation, programming and coordination, for the purposes of wildlife-hunting planning, but also control ones and substitutes ". And therefore it must intervene if, as in this case, "the Provinces are in default in the exercise of one or more functions or in the event of a serious violation of regional laws, regulations and directives". As for example in the case of the plans for the control of the proliferation of wild boar, which they foresee the installation of guard rails or safety nets in the points most at risk: if the Provinces do not move, it is up to the Region to activate the replacement powers. And since this did not happen, the Court ruled that the responsibility lies not with the Bat Province but with the Region. Moral: the driver must return 3mila euros at Bat, the Region is warned: from now on it will also have to contend with wild boars (The Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno).