Damage from vehicle downtime is that damage resulting from the unavailability of a vehicle during repairs in a workshop; its compensation is not in re ipsa but follows precise rules that should be followed when instituting proceedings before the judicial authority.
In the event of a traffic accident or, simply, a vehicle breakdown, the owner or user has to face costs and economic losses due to the vehicle being unavailable while it is being repaired; such damages, usually referred to as vehicle downtime, are often the subject of an action for compensation by the injured party who, it must be said, must still comply with specific rules regarding the burden of proof when taking legal action.
Vehicle downtime can be traced back to extra-contractual liability if caused by an accident or a product defect (e.g., engine failure due to a defect); in such contexts, the burden to prove the wrongful conduct, the injury suffered, and the causal link between these two elements is on the person who suffered the damage (Art. 2043 Italian Civil Code).
In fact, case law suggesting that vehicle downtime would be in re ipsa with the simple burden on the injured party to prove the mere unavailability of the vehicle for the duration of the repair, is now outdated; in fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled that “… Damage resulting from vehicle downtime as a result of a crashed vehicle must be attached and proven, and the relevant proof cannot be related to the mere unavailability of the vehicle, but must be substantiated by the evidence of either the expense incurred in procuring a replacement vehicle, or the loss incurred due to the forced renunciation of the income obtainable from the use of the car …” (Italian Supreme Court, Section III, 14/03/2023, no. 7358 published Diritto & Giustizia 2023, 15 marzo; complies with Italian Supreme Court, Section VI, 28/02/2020, no. 5447 published in Giust. Civ. Mass. 2020).
The above principle must be applied even when the vehicle downtime is attributable to a breach of contract (e.g., delayed repair due to the workshop’s inexperience or the difficulties encountered in finding the spare part), and it could not be any different because otherwise workshops would run the risk of paying damages for each and every repair.
But what are the damages that the user usually claims in compensation?
First of all, the cost of renting a replacement vehicle; or, the loss incurred due to the forced relinquishment of income derived from the use of the vehicle (loss of profit) or the fee for the lease spent unnecessarily if the inactivity lasts for one or more months; sometimes, if the repair continues for a long time, a share of the insurance premium and car tax is claimed.
Finally, it is also useful to remember that a crashed vehicle, stationary in the workshop, does not always legitimize a claim for damages due to its unavailability: if the vehicle is beyond repair because, for example, it has been completely destroyed, vehicle downtime cannot be invoked; for the Italian Supreme Court “… The so-called <vehicle downtime> of the vehicle damaged by a traffic accident does not exist when the vehicle, as a result of the accident, has become unserviceable, resulting in that case in a permanent loss in the assets of the injured party with the right to compensation for both the damage from the loss of the motor vehicle and the damage relating to the expenses of operating the car during the period in which it was not used ”..” (Italian Supreme Court, Section III, 30/01/2014, n. 2070 published in Giustizia Civile Massimario 2014 – complies with Italian Supreme Court, Section III, 15/11/2016, no. 23191).
DISCLAIMER: This newsletter merely provides general information and does not constitute legal advice of any kind from Macchi di Cellere Gangemi. The newsletter does not replace individual legal consultation. Macchi di Cellere Gangemi assumes no liability whatsoever for the content and correctness of the newsletter.