Workplace Accidents: The Court of Cassation and the Principal's Liability (Judgment no. 18169 of 2025)

In an increasingly demanding regulatory landscape concerning health and safety, the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 18169, filed on May 14, 2025, stands as a crucial reference point. This decision, presided over by Dr. A. Montagni and drafted by Dr. G. Sessa, clarifies the complex boundaries of the principal's criminal liability in the event of a workplace accident. The case of the defendant C. W. S. M. provided the opportunity to more precisely define the duties of those who entrust work or services to third parties.

The Principal's Role Between Duties and Delegations

Legislative Decree of April 9, 2008, no. 81 (Consolidated Text on Safety), particularly Article 26, imposes non-delegable obligations on the principal. Choosing a qualified contractor does not exempt from all liability. The Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of assessing the actual impact of the principal's conduct on the etiology of the harmful event. The ruling confirms that the principal's liability goes beyond mere formality, requiring substantial and proactive oversight.

Criteria for Ascertaining Criminal Liability

The Supreme Court, with judgment no. 18169/2025, has outlined stringent parameters for determining the principal's fault. It is not objective liability, but a careful analysis of the concrete circumstances. The maxim of the judgment is illuminating:

In matters of workplace accident prevention, to assess the principal's liability in the event of an accident, it is necessary to verify, in concreto, the impact of their conduct on the etiology of the event, in light of the organizational capabilities of the company chosen for the execution of the works, taking into account the specificity of the works to be performed, the criteria followed by the principal for the selection of the contractor or service provider, their interference in the execution of the works subject to the contract, as well as the easy and immediate perceivability of dangerous situations by the principal.

This maxim highlights that it is not enough to rely on a company on paper. Its suitability for the type of work must be verified. The principal's interference, even minimal, can lead to shared responsibility, as can their ability to immediately perceive obvious dangers. Liability is dynamic, shaped by concrete actions and omissions.

Key factors include:

• Impact of the principal's conduct on the genesis of the accident.
• Contractor's organizational and technical capabilities.
• Nature and specificity of the works.
• Contractor selection criteria.
• Degree of interference or control over execution.
• Easy and immediate perceivability of obvious risks.

Jurisprudential Trend and Active Prevention

This ruling aligns with a consolidated jurisprudential trend (see judgments no. 44131/2015 and no. 27296/2017). The Court of Cassation has always reiterated that the principal, while not required to conduct "microscopic" oversight, has the duty to monitor the adequacy of safety measures and the suitability of the company. This implies high-level, general oversight, crucial in the presence of specific risks or manifest deficiencies. Prevention is an ethical and legal imperative that requires proactivity.

Conclusions: A Warning for Safety

Judgment no. 18169 of 2025 is a strong reminder for all principals. Liability for workplace accidents is not a burden to be delegated lightly, but a duty that requires careful assessment of companies, adequate oversight, and the ability to intervene on dangers. Relying on professionals expert in labor and safety law is essential to ensure compliance and protect the life and physical integrity of workers. Safety is not a cost, but an essential investment.