Civil Cassation n. 2/2020: Witness Evidence and Employer Liability
The ruling no. 2 of 2020 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reflection on the issue of the burden of proof in the workplace, particularly in relation to the incident involving a truck driver. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan, rejecting the compensation claim made by the mother of the deceased worker, highlighting that the rejection was based on solid arguments regarding the employer's liability.
The Case Submitted to the Court
The dispute originated from a fatal accident involving F. A., a driver employed by the company Ritras s.r.l., who lost his life while at work. The mother, C. L., sought compensation for non-contractual damages for the loss of the parental relationship, arguing that the responsibility lay with the company for failing to ensure safe working conditions.
- The trip had started more than thirteen hours before the accident.
- The driver exhibited reckless behavior, exceeding speed limits.
- The Court deemed the witness evidence presented to be insufficient.
The denial of the admission of witness evidence was a crucial element in the Court's decision.
The Role of Witness Evidence
A central aspect of the ruling concerns the issue of witness evidence. The Court found that the chapters of evidence presented by the appellant were too generic and not sufficiently specific to justify admission. This point is fundamental, as it emphasizes the importance of a clear and detailed presentation of evidence in court.
In particular, the Court highlighted how hearsay testimony was inadequate to demonstrate employer liability, as it was not sufficiently corroborated by objective elements. Case law has clarified that witness evidence must always be accompanied by a precise and detailed frame of reference.
Employer Liability
The Court also analyzed employer liability based on Article 2087 of the Civil Code, which requires the employer to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of their employees. However, it was reiterated that there is a need to demonstrate a direct causal link between the employer's omissions and the harmful event, which was not proven in this specific case.
The ruling clarifies that, although there is a general duty of protection, the employer is exempt from liability only in the presence of abnormal and unpredictable behavior by the worker. This principle is fundamental to understanding the limits of employer liability in complex situations.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the ruling of the Court of Cassation n. 2/2020 provides important insights into the dynamics between employer liability and the burden of proof in the workplace. The necessity of presenting clear and detailed evidence is crucial for the successful outcome of a case, and the ruling reiterates the importance of proper work organization to ensure employee safety. This decision serves as a warning for companies to constantly monitor working conditions and ensure the safety of their employees to avoid tragic events like the one that occurred to F. A.
