1) As I know the ‘art. 2051 cc (damage caused by what in custody) specifies that “each one is responsible of the damage caused by things in his keeping, unless you feel the accident.”

In liability (strict) for damage caused by the things that you have in custody (being the presumed fault “rebuttable”) the injured as well as damage must only prove the causal link between it and kept ruined and the damage that it is the guardian which has the burden of proving that fact is due to unforeseeable circumstances and therefore not attributable to him. The presumption of guilt borne by the guardian ‘art. 2051 cc can be overcome only by the fact evidence against the unforeseeable circumstances (so that the unknown fact remains dependent on that).

A more specific to this responsibility, governed by art. 2053 cc, is the responsibility of the owner of a building or other building for any damage caused by its ruin, total or partial.

To “ruin” the law means a case of the much broader definition that is literally extending the posting or the fall of even a single element of the building (such as a tile from a roof or a glass of the window).

Not only that the disintegration of elements or building work but then also the separation of artifacts and any disintegration, however limited, of the building.

The only chance for the owner (if there are more co-owners, these are liable for) will be exempt from this responsibility is evidence against him of accident and / or non-amenability of ruin to a maintenance defect or defect in construction .

This demonstration is not evidence (nor an evaluation) of his diligence because of the lack of maintenance could have occurred even when the subject called to answer was not entitled to intervene, for example, who inherits his father’s house in a state of neglect is responsible for damage caused by the same art. Cc 2053 after his father’s death.

On the other hand this responsibility exists even where the lack of maintenance is not due to the fault of the owner.


In its judgment in the public site, the Court of Genoa decided a complex due to the damages caused to some residents of a building from the collapse of the front, in the center of the city of Genoa, which forced them first to be displaced and then for many months to live with shutters of their homes boarded up by scaffolding that you were leaning against: first for the operations of clearing the rubble and then to the safety of the ruined palace.

In question have been requested by the inhabitants displaced financial losses incurred as a result of forced, sudden and traumatic expulsion from their homes, he made ​​uninhabitable for months following the collapse of the building in front of their place: they were in fact had to move hastily in housing provided by friends or family.

And it has set up a lesion of the right to enjoyment of their homes, as stated in the judgment.

The Court of Genoa has recognized the inhabitants of such quantifying damages in proportion to the value of renting an apartment with similar characteristics to that of the injured, in proportion to the two months of non-use housing.

They were also recognized in equity, compensation for financial loss for the limitation of the right to enjoyment of housing due to the decrease of light and air resulting from the forced closure of the shutters for the remaining months.

Finally, the court sentenced the owners of the building collapsed to compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well, always on an equitable basis, to compensation recognized by the violation suffered by fundamental human right, guaranteed by the Constitution, which is to live their private lives and family to ‘interior of your home, home inviolable art. 2:14 Constitution.