Employer's Liability in Safety: Analysis of Judgment 10465/2025

Workplace safety is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, protected by a complex network of norms and jurisprudential principles. At the heart of this protection is the figure of the employer, who has non-delegable duties aimed at preventing accidents and occupational diseases. But what happens when an accident occurs despite the presence of a safety supervisor? The recent judgment no. 10465 of January 29, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, filed on March 17, 2025 (Rv. 287777-01), offers crucial clarification on this delicate balance of responsibility, reiterating the centrality of the employer's management choices.

Judgment 10465/2025: A Beacon on Employer Liability

The Supreme Court's decision falls within the context of accident prevention at work, with particular reference to the issue of the employer's exemption from liability following the designation of a supervisor. The case concerned a defendant, A. L., the employer, found guilty of manslaughter for the death of a supervisor, who fell from a height while working at height. The Court of Appeal of Naples had already confirmed the criminal liability, and the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, validating the orientation that the appointment of a supervisor is not in itself sufficient to absolve the employer from all blame.

The Role of the Supervisor and the Limits of Liability Exemption

The supervisor is a key figure in the company safety system, responsible for overseeing and monitoring workers' compliance with their legal obligations and company provisions regarding health and safety at work. However, as highlighted by judgment 10465/2025, their role, while essential, cannot translate into an automatic exemption from liability for the employer. The fundamental distinction lies in the nature of the violations that caused the accident. The Court of Cassation has indeed stated that:

In matters of accident prevention at work, the designation of a supervisor does not exempt the employer from liability, where the occurrence of the accident results from inadequate management choices attributable to the latter and not from the concrete execution of the work.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that the employer retains full responsibility when the accident stems from strategic and organizational decisions or omissions, which fall within their exclusive sphere of competence. The supervisor's liability, on the other hand, is limited to violations concerning the supervision of the execution of tasks by workers. If the cause of the accident is to be found in structural or organizational deficiencies, or in the failure to provide adequate safety equipment, the fault lies with the employer.

Regulations for the Protection of Workplace Safety: A Complex Framework

The judgment under review is based on Legislative Decree of April 9, 2008, no. 81, the so-called Consolidated Text on Workplace Safety, and the Criminal Code. Legislative Decree 81/2008 assigns the employer a series of non-delegable obligations, including:

• Risk assessment (Art. 17);
• Preparation of the Risk Assessment Document (DVR);
• Designation of the Prevention and Protection Service Manager (RSPP);
• Provision of suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) and collective protective equipment (DPC) to workers;
• Training and information of workers on specific risks (Art. 18).

In the specific case dealt with by the judgment, the manslaughter was attributed to the violation of the employer's obligation to prepare and provide specific equipment suitable for safely carrying out work at height, as provided, for example, by Art. 71 and Art. 146 of Legislative Decree 81/2008. Art. 41 of the Criminal Code, which governs the causal link, completes the regulatory framework, connecting the employer's omission or commission to the harmful event.

The Concrete Case: The Importance of Management Choices

The factual situation that led to the Court of Cassation's ruling is emblematic. The death of the supervisor, who fell from a height, was not attributed to their inattention or an error in carrying out the work, but rather to the employer's failure to provide adequate safety systems for work at height. This deficiency, upstream of the work activity, clearly falls within the "inadequate management choices" that the Supreme Court attributes to the employer. The omission to equip workers, and in this case also the supervisor, with the necessary equipment to operate safely at height, constitutes a serious violation of employer obligations, with significant criminal consequences.

Conclusions: Workplace Safety, an Unavoidable Obligation

Judgment 10465/2025 further strengthens the principle that the employer's responsibility in safety matters is broad and profound. It is not exhausted by the mere appointment of supervisory figures but persists for all those decisions and omissions that pertain to the organizational and structural sphere of the company. The employer must ensure a safe working environment, not only through supervision but above all through the implementation of effective prevention measures and the provision of adequate equipment. Workplace safety is not an option, but an unavoidable obligation, the violation of which can lead to serious criminal consequences, such as manslaughter, even in the presence of intermediate figures like supervisors. It is essential for companies and all legal professionals to maintain high attention to these principles, in order to ensure maximum protection of workers' lives and physical integrity.