Personal Injury and Accident Liability: Commentary on Cass. pen. no. 41393 of 2024

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 41393 of 2024 offers an important reflection on criminal liability in cases of personal injury, particularly concerning accidents occurring in commercial settings. 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.

Context of the Judgment

The Court examined an appeal filed by B.B., the injured customer, against the judgment of the Court of Padua, which had acquitted A.A., the pharmacy owner. 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 doormats to dry shoes.

The pharmacy where the incident occurred must be considered a workplace, and therefore accident prevention regulations apply.

Analysis of Liability

According to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Padua made an error in interpreting the precautionary norm, arguing that the two doormats could substitute anti-slip strips. The law, specifically Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, requires non-slip and risk-free flooring, and the use of doormats cannot be considered sufficient to guarantee safety. This aspect is crucial, as the lack of adequate safety measures can lead to criminal liability for the establishment's owner.

The Customer's Reckless Behavior

The Court also examined the behavior of B.B., who allegedly quickened his pace to leave the pharmacy. Although recklessness may affect the assessment of damages, 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 such as to break the causal link between the violation of regulations and the injury sustained.

• The workplace must ensure safety for everyone, including customers.
• Safety measures must be adequate and specific.
• The victim's behavior can influence liability but does not automatically exclude it.

Conclusions

The judgment Cass. pen. no. 41393 of 2024 represents an important clarification on criminal liability in cases of workplace accidents, emphasizing the importance for owners of commercial establishments to comply with safety regulations. It is essential for businesses to adopt all necessary measures to ensure customer safety, as violation of these regulations can lead to significant legal consequences. Furthermore, the judgment highlights that, although customers' reckless behavior may be a factor to consider, it cannot be used as an excuse to avoid liability in case of accidents.