The fact of the third
In the event of a fire in the rented property, as mentioned, the tenant is liable for the loss or deterioration of the property, unless he proves that the event occurred due to a cause not attributable to him, placing a presumption of guilt on him under art. 1588 of the Civil Code, which can only be overcome by demonstrating that have diligently fulfilled their custodial obligations and with positive proof that the fact from which the damage or loss of the thing arose is attributable to a external cause to the driver who is not attributable to him, to be identified in concrete terms, or to the made of a thirdof which it is instead it is irrelevant to ascertain the identityexcluding the identification of this subject from the activity which is the object of the exculpatory proof (Cass. civ., sez. III, 27/07/2015, n. 15721; App. Bari 10 October 2023, n. 1350).
The electrical system is not up to standard
L‘non-compliant electrical system significantly reduces the possibility of being able to fully and freely use the property to live in it: in other words, it constitutes a hidden defect of the leased propertywith the consequence that the tenant can therefore request the termination of the rental contractat the owner’s expense and damages, or ask a reduction in rent.
It is not superfluous to note that the tenant can take initiatives against the owner only if the latter has failed to inform him that the electrical system is not up to standard. A reaction by the tenant is not possible if the existence of a non-compliant system is clearly evident from the rental contract or from any report of delivery of the property.
Fire and damage to third parties
On the assumption that the tenant also has access to the electrical system, it can be stated that the tenant is liable as custodian pursuant to art. 2051 of the Civil Code also for damages that the fire that broke out in the leased property has caused to third parties and that the tenant can be released from such liability only by providing proof of the fortuitous event, in particular by demonstrating that he has correctly carried out, with due diligence appropriate to the nature and function of the thing, all surveillance, control and maintenance activities imposed by provisions, including criminal ones, dictated to prevent dangerous events.
However, if the cause of the fire is not identified, the legal principle can be applied according to which in the event of damages caused to third parties by the fire that broke out in a rented property, the liability for damages caused by things in custody provided for by art. 2051 of the Civil Code is configured at the expense of both the owner and the tenantwhen neither of the two has been able to demonstrate that the autonomous cause of the damage suffered by the third party is to be found in the violation, by the other, of the specific duty of supervision aimed at avoiding the development of the damaging agent in the property; it follows that, where there is still The cause of the fire is unknowncivil liability for consequent damages does not fall on the third party, but on the owner and the tenant, the presumption of liability of the custodian can only be overcome by proof of fortuitous event (Trib. Santa Maria Capua Vetere 20 May 2024, n. 2079).
Lease, fire and non-compliant system
It is important to establish whether the tenant must be liable for damages resulting from the fire of the rented property in the event that theverification that the damaging event originated from the non-compliant electrical system of the rented propertyAccording to jurisprudence, the tenant is not responsible if the property has been delivered completely without the legal certifications and, based on the preliminary investigation findings, the cause of the fire was found to be attributable to the non-compliance of the electrical system (Cass. civ., sez. VI, 06/02/2023, n. 3489).
Likewise, the driver is not at fault if the only possible causes of the fire are “an unclear short circuit or incorrect tightening of the cablesboth of which could have been avoided if the system had been built according to the rules of the art and if regular maintenance had been carried out” (App. Rome 28 February 2024, n. 1420).
