In relation to accidents at work, the appointment of a supervisor is not sufficient to avoid the employer’s conviction. This was established by the Italian Court of Cassation, Criminal Section, judgment of 10 June 2024, no. 23049.
The Italian Court of Cassation clarified that the employer must exercise reasonable vigilance to prevent the establishment of practices contrary to the law that may endanger workers. Therefore, in the event of an accident or injury, the employer’s ignorance does not exclude his or her fault for failure to monitor the supervisor’s conduct.
The facts
In the case before the Court, a worker suffered serious and permanent injuries as a result of the use of chemical reagents while cleaning machinery. In carrying out this activity it appeared that the worker was not equipped with adequate protective equipment and had not received the necessary training.
The first instance Court convicted the employer, finding a causal link between the negligent conduct and the criminal event and stressing that the injurious event could have been avoided by appointing a person with more experience as the supervisor.
The Italian Court of Appeal, overturning the first instance judgment, on the one hand acquitted the employer observing that the supervisor had proven experience, and was therefore appropriate for the tasks and role assigned to him and, on the other, characterised the worker’s conduct as eccentric and unpredictable.
The Italian Court of Cassation’s decision
The Italian Court of Cassation, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Italian Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal had not taken into account the fact that the worker involved had not received adequate training, and noted that, given the nature of his duties, he should not have been involved in activities involving the use of chemicals.
The Italian Court of Cassation also stated that for safety purposes the employer is required to ensure proper training of workers regardless of the operational experience they may have acquired over time and held the employer liable for failure to supervise the supervisor’s work.
Other related insights: