Therefore, it must be ascertained, whether, concretely, the restaurateur, could have foreseen what happened with normal diligence and, if so, whether he could have concretely had different behaviors, to avoid the damage, than what actually took place14. Another example of customer protection by the caterer can occur when the customer suffers an injury by slipping inside the premises, for example, as a result of the wet floor made slippery by cleaning products used in cleaning done by the restaurateur15. According to case law, the secondary obligations arising from the catering relationship include the custody of the facility where the meal is administered, and oblige the caterer to maintain it in such a way that it does not create difficulties and pitfalls, so that the caterer does not have to deal with dangerous situations16. The caterer is bound by special obligations of protection towards the customer, but he can release himself from liability by proving, on the one hand, that he had previously reported the insidiousness and, on the other hand, by proving the reckless behavior of the customer, when this was held against the most elementary rules of prudence. In fact, the more the possibility of damage can be noticed, foreseen and overcome through the adoption by the injured party himself of the foreseeable precautions in relation to the circumstances, the more relevant must be considered the cause-and-effect relationship between the customer’s behavior and the damage, which exonerates the restaurateur of liability. The Appeals Court of L’Aquila, for example, was called upon to adjudicate the liability of a restaurateur for the damage suffered by a customer who fell near the restaurant’s entrance, but outside it, on a winter’s day on a snowy and icy surface. In that case, the harsh and extreme climatic and environmental conditions should have invited the customer to be more cautious and careful. For these reasons, the restaurateur was not held liable17. 14 The Court of Cassation makes the restaurateur’s obligation to protect the physical safety of the customer stronger than in the past. In fact, in a case dealt with years earlier, the Court of Cassation had not held the restaurateur liable for the physical injuries suffered by a customer who had been injured by a throwing of plates made by other customers to celebrate New Year’s Eve, on the grounds that the restaurateur is not obliged to put a stop to any dangerous activity that takes place inside his premises (Corte di Cassazione, Civil Section III, Ruling n. 2312/2003). 15 The need for proof of a fortuitous event does not relieve the judge from assessing the actual existence of insidiousness in the circumstances that would have caused the damage. Even a slippery floor is not automatically considered to have caused damage, because the very nature of the floor (static) cannot always cause the damage. (Noc�- era Inferiore Court, Ruling n. 1396/2021). However, according to another Italian court, in the case of a customer’s fall in a restaurant-pizzeria due to a wet floor covered with talcum powder by the restaurant owner, the restaurant’s liability is non-contractual, arises from the improper custody of the thing - the restaurant - and is independent of the characteristics of the thing being guarded. (Latina Court, Ruling n. 168/2025). 16 Corte di Cassazione, Civil Section VI, Ruling n. 13562/2020, linked supra. 17 Appeals Court of L’Aquila, Ruling n. 175/2020. 160 FILIPPO MORESCHI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==