Liability of the Site Supervisor in Building Collapses: Commentary on Judgment No. 17106 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 17106 of March 14, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has once again highlighted the crucial role of the site supervisor in ensuring the safety of construction sites. This specific case offers important insights into criminal liability in cases of negligent collapse, emphasizing how even absence from the site does not exempt the supervisor from their duty of oversight.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerned an accident that occurred during the demolition of a building, in which the Court found the site supervisor, P. G., guilty for allowing operations to be carried out without an adequate plan and in a manner divergent from the rules of good practice. The Court emphasized that the supervisor must not only be present but is required to exercise constant and diligent oversight, adopting all necessary precautions.

Site Supervisor - Workplace Injury - Negligent Building Collapse - Liability - Conditions - Factual Circumstances. The site supervisor is liable for negligence in the collapse of constructions even in the case of absence from the site, as they must exercise diligent oversight over the regular execution of building works and adopt, where necessary, the appropriate technical precautions, or immediately sever their position of guarantor from that of the contractor, by renouncing the assigned task. (Factual circumstances concerning negligent disaster, in which the Court found no fault with the decision that had affirmed the criminal liability of the site supervisor for allowing the demolition of a building to be carried out in the absence of a plan and with methods divergent from the "leges artis" and the rules of good practice in the "subiecta materia").

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for both industry professionals and construction companies. In particular, site supervisors must be aware of their responsibility and the fact that they must actively intervene to ensure site safety. Some key points emerging from the judgment are:

• Duty of oversight: the site supervisor must constantly monitor the progress of the works.
• Technical precautions: it is essential to adopt all necessary measures to prevent accidents.
• Liability even in absence: physical absence from the site does not exempt from liability.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 17106 of 2024 represents a clear warning to all professionals involved in the management of construction sites. The liability of the site supervisor is unavoidable and requires constant commitment to oversight and activity planning. Workplace safety must be a priority, and every professional must be prepared to make timely and appropriate decisions to avoid accidents and legal consequences.