Personal Injury and Liability for Accidents: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 41393 of 2024
The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 41393 of 2024 provides an important reflection on criminal liability in cases of personal injury, particularly regarding accidents that occur in commercial contexts. In this case, the owner of a pharmacy was acquitted of negligence charges for failing to install anti-slip strips after a customer slipped on the marble threshold during a rainy day.
The Context of the Judgment
The Court examined an appeal filed by B.B., the injured customer, against the ruling of the Court of Padua, which had acquitted A.A., the owner of the pharmacy. The customer argued that the lack of anti-slip strips constituted a violation of workplace safety regulations, while the Court had deemed that the entrepreneur had adopted adequate measures, such as the use of mats to dry shoes.
The pharmacy where the incident occurred must be considered a workplace, thus the accident prevention regulations apply.
Analysis of Liability
According to the Court of Cassation, the Court erred in interpreting the precautionary norm, asserting that the two mats could replace the anti-slip strips. The law, specifically Legislative Decree No. 81/2008, requires non-slip and risk-free floors, and the use of mats cannot be deemed sufficient to ensure safety. This aspect is crucial, as the lack of adequate safety measures can result in criminal liability for the business owner.
The Customer's Reckless Behavior
The Court also examined the behavior of B.B., who allegedly quickened his pace to exit the pharmacy. Although recklessness may influence the assessment of damage, it cannot exclude the owner's liability for violating safety regulations. The Court of Cassation clarified that the customer's reckless behavior, in this case, was not sufficient to break the causal link between the violation of the rules and the injury sustained.
- The workplace must ensure safety for everyone, including customers.
- Safety measures must be adequate and specific.
- The behavior of the victim may influence liability, but it does not automatically exclude it.
Conclusions
The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 41393 of 2024 represents an important clarification on criminal liability in cases of workplace accidents, emphasizing the importance for business owners to comply with safety regulations. It is essential that businesses adopt all necessary measures to ensure the safety of customers, as violations of such regulations can have significant legal consequences. Furthermore, the ruling highlights that, although the reckless behavior of customers may be a factor to consider, it cannot be used as an excuse to evade liability in case of accidents.
