Fatal accident involving a tree: adjoining landowner charged

Maria is the owner of a detached house and an adjoining plot of land containing a large number of centuries-old trees.

She lives in the house with her husband and their two daughters and never imagined that her quiet life could be disrupted by a road accident that did not involve any member of her family.

On a quiet spring day, Maria is startled by the sound of a violent crash, apparently coming from the boundary between her land and the road. Hearing the voices and cries of several passers-by who had arrived at the scene, she rushes outside her home and immediately sees a car with a young woman inside, Silvia, who tragically dies on the spot.

The vehicle had violently crashed into one of the centuries-old trees owned by Maria, located at a distance of less than six meters from the edge of the road.

Law enforcement officers arrive at the scene, record the incident, and shortly thereafter Maria is served with a formal notice of investigation for manslaughter. She is accused of having failed to adequately protect motorists from the risk of colliding with the centuries-old tree located on her property.

According to the prosecution, Maria should have removed the tree or protected it with a guardrail in order to prevent harm to third parties.

Following the notice of investigation, Maria is committed to stand trial, and criminal proceedings for manslaughter are instituted against her.

At first instance, Maria is acquitted; however, the Public Prosecutor files an appeal before the Court of Appeal, which entirely overturns the first-instance judgment.

Maria is therefore convicted of manslaughter, as the owner of the tree located too close to the road and against which Silvia had crashed, resulting in her death.

Convicted of manslaughter at second instance, Maria is in shock. She struggles to accept being held responsible for another woman’s death and seeks comfort from her family and friends, who encourage her to continue her difficult legal battle.

Maria’s entire personal and social life is profoundly affected by the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Her husband also advises her to undertake psychological therapy, which she willingly accepts.

A close friend of the couple, a criminal defense lawyer, reassures her about the possibility of obtaining a new acquittal before the Court of Cassation.

Maria therefore decides to file an appeal and attempts to overturn her procedural position before the Supreme Court.

Maria spends a great deal of time researching online, reviewing statutory provisions and court decisions in search of arguments to support her request for acquittal.

However, not being legally trained, she turns to a criminal defense lawyer specialized in fatal accidents, who offers to represent her in the final and decisive stage of the proceedings.

Trusting the relationship of confidence established, the defendant willingly accepts.

Before the Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, the case is cast in a new light, and the defense is able to put forward arguments aimed at securing Maria’s full acquittal.

The defense begins by analyzing Article 26, paragraph 6, of the Implementing Regulation of the Italian Highway Code, which provides that, outside urban areas, the distance from the road boundary required for planting trees alongside the road must not be less than the maximum height attainable by each species at full maturity and, in any event, not less than six meters.

According to the criminal defense lawyer, the tree, being centuries old, does not fall within the scope of this regulatory provision, as the rule applies not to existing plantings but exclusively to new ones.

On the basis of this interpretation of Article 26, paragraph 6, of the Implementing Regulation of the Highway Code, no obligation to remove the tree or to protect road users rested on the defendant.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the defense’s position by invoking, in addition to Article 26, paragraph 6, of the Implementing Regulation, Article 16, paragraph 1, letter (c), of the Highway Code, which provides that owners or holders of rights over land adjoining roads outside urban areas are prohibited from planting trees, live hedges, plantations, or fences alongside the road.

From the combined interpretation of these provisions, the Public Prosecutor inferred Maria’s criminal liability for manslaughter, asserting that she held a position of guarantee toward third parties arising precisely from the cited regulations.

According to the prosecution, Maria should therefore have removed the tree that caused Silvia’s death or protected it with a guardrail in order to prevent it from becoming a source of danger for road users.

Having failed to take either course of action, the prosecution argued that Maria must necessarily be held criminally liable for manslaughter.

The Court of Cassation overturned the conviction issued by the Court of Appeal and upheld Maria’s appeal.

In support of the acquittal, the Supreme Court provided a different logical and legal reconstruction of the case.

According to the Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation, no criminal liability could be attributed to Maria, based on a correct interpretation of Articles 16, paragraph 1, letter (c), of the Highway Code and Article 26, paragraph 6, of its Implementing Regulation.

As argued by the defense, these provisions apply exclusively to new plantings and not to existing trees such as the centuries-old tree involved in the accident.

Accordingly, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeal, no legally relevant position of guarantee arose on Maria’s part from the combined application of these provisions, nor did any obligation exist to remove the tree or to protect it with a guardrail. The cited rules do not impose on owners of existing trees located at a distance of less than six meters from the road any duty to remove or secure them, as they apply solely to plantings yet to be carried out.

The obligations to remove or secure trees, according to the Court of Cassation, instead fall upon the road-owning authority, in this case the Province, which is responsible for ensuring road safety and exercising oversight in order to neutralize potential sources of danger, rather than on the owner of the land adjoining the roadway.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court of Cassation, Criminal Section IV, excluded the criminal liability of the owner of the centuries-old tree for the offense of manslaughter, as stated in judgment no. 10850 of March 2019.

Criminal liability and civil liability are distinct legal frameworks.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation excludes the criminal liability of the owner of the land adjoining the road, finding that no legally relevant position of guarantee existed, as no legal obligation to intervene with respect to the pre-existing centuries-old tree could be identified.

This conclusion, however, does not automatically exclude every possible form of liability.

It is a well-established principle that criminal liability and civil liability are governed by different prerequisites, both with regard to the required subjective element and the criteria for attributing the conduct.

In criminal law, liability for manslaughter presupposes the existence of a position of guarantee based on a statutory provision or on the specific assumption of duties—an element that the Supreme Court found to be lacking in the present case.

In civil proceedings, by contrast, the assessment of liability follows autonomous criteria and may involve different considerations, such as custody of the property or the concurrent liability of multiple parties, in accordance with the rules governing civil law.

The judgment therefore plays a central role in clarifying the limits of criminal liability for private landowners whose property borders a public road, reaffirming that the obligations of safety and risk prevention for road traffic rest primarily with the public authority owning and managing the road, which bears the duty of supervision, maintenance, and neutralization of hazardous conditions.