Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php on line 25

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php:25) in /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php on line 61
Supreme Court no. 28429/2024: Injury on the way to work and the concept of work activity. | Bianucci Law Firm

Cassation No. 28429/2024: Commuting Accidents and the Concept of Work Activity

The recent intervention by the Supreme Court of Cassation, with order No. 28429 of November 5, 2024, provides important clarifications on the qualification of workplace accidents, particularly regarding the notion of commuting accidents. The ruling is part of a legal context where the distinction between work activity and travel to work is crucial for protecting workers' rights.

The Case of A.A. and INAIL

The appellant, A.A., had his claim for recognition of the compensable nature of the accident suffered during a commute, which he argued fell within the scope of work activities, rejected. However, the Court of Appeal of Trieste did not recognize this compensability, leading A.A. to appeal to the Court of Cassation.

The time taken to reach the workplace falls within actual work activity when the commute is functional to the performance of duties.

Legal Principles and Reflections

The Court of Cassation upheld A.A.'s appeal, emphasizing that the appellate judge had failed to consider the functionality of the commute. According to jurisprudence, the commute to the workplace is compensable if it is connected to work activity in a strict sense. It is therefore essential to analyze the context in which the accident occurs:

  • If the worker was at the employer's disposal at the time of the accident
  • If the commute was necessary for the performance of work duties
  • If there was abnormal conduct by the worker that could exclude the causal link

In A.A.'s case, the Court of Cassation held that the commute to the construction site was an integral part of working hours and, therefore, should be classified as a workplace accident, contrary to what was argued by the Court of Appeal.

Conclusions

The Cassation's decision represents an important victory for workers' rights and offers a significant legal precedent. The distinction between commuting accidents and work activity is not merely formal but has significant repercussions in terms of compensation. It is essential for workers and employers to be aware of these principles to adequately protect themselves in the event of workplace accidents.

Bianucci Law Firm