Workplace Safety: The Criminal Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 25439/2025) and Employer Training Obligations

Workplace safety is a cornerstone of our legal and social system. Every day, thousands of workers perform their duties, relying on the diligence and compliance with regulations by employers. But what happens when an accident occurs and the worker's training is called into question? The Court of Cassation, with its recent judgment no. 25439, filed on July 10, 2025, intervenes once again to clarify a crucial aspect: the indispensability of the employer's training obligations, even in the presence of the worker's prior experience.

The Regulatory Framework and the Key Issue

Legislative Decree of April 9, 2008, no. 81, commonly known as the Consolidated Text on Workplace Safety, serves as the beacon of legislation in this matter. It imposes a series of non-delegable obligations on employers, among which training, information, and instruction stand out. These requirements are aimed at ensuring that every worker is fully aware of the risks associated with their role and the preventive measures to be adopted.

The issue examined by the Fourth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, in the case involving the defendant P. P., concerned precisely the scope of these obligations in relation to a worker who had already carried out work activities within the framework of training and orientation internships during their school career. The question arose whether such prior experience could in any way exempt the employer from their duties. The Court of Appeal of Milan, with a judgment of October 17, 2024, had rejected this hypothesis, and the Court of Cassation has confirmed this interpretative line.

Analysis of Judgment no. 25439/2025 and the Principle

The ruling of the Supreme Court, with rapporteur D. C. and president D. F., reiterated a fundamental principle, already expressed in previous decisions (such as judgments no. 7093/2022 and no. 27242/2020), crystallizing it in the following principle:

In matters of workplace safety, the employer is not exempted from the obligations of training, information, and instruction of the worker, even in cases where, during the previous school training phase, the worker has carried out work activities within the framework of training and orientation internships provided for by art. 18 of Law June 24, 1997, no. 196.

This principle is of crucial importance. It clarifies unequivocally that experience gained in training and orientation internships, while valuable for the student, cannot be equated with the specific training that the employer is obliged to provide. The reasons for this exclusion are manifold:

• **Context Specificity:** Each work environment presents unique risks and operational procedures. School training, however thorough, is general in nature and cannot cover the peculiarities of each individual company or role.
• **Direct Responsibility:** Legislative Decree 81/2008 places the responsibility for safety directly on the employer, who is the entity responsible for assessing specific risks and providing adequate countermeasures.
• **Continuous Updating:** Regulations and technologies evolve. The training provided by the employer must be updated and specific to the equipment and processes used in that particular production context.
• **Difference Between Internship and Employment Relationship:** Internships, pursuant to art. 18 of Law 196/1997 (now superseded but cited in the principle for context), have primarily educational and orientation purposes. A subordinate employment relationship, on the other hand, implies full assumption of responsibility by the employer for the protection of the employee's health and safety.

The judgment emphasizes that the burden of proof for correct training, information, and instruction always rests with the employer. Hiring a worker with prior experience, even if qualified, does not relieve them of this task.

Practical Implications and Criminal Liability

The consequences of inadequate or insufficient training can be very serious, both for the worker and for the employer. In the event of an accident, the violation of safety obligations can lead to criminal liability, such as negligent homicide (art. 589 of the Italian Criminal Code) or negligent personal injury (art. 590 of the Italian Criminal Code), as also recalled by the normative references in the judgment. Jurisprudence is in agreement that the worker's knowledge of the risk does not exempt the employer from fulfilling their protective duties.

For employers, this means it is essential to invest in personalized and continuously updated training, information, and instruction programs, regardless of the new hire's curriculum. It is essential to document every phase of these processes, so as to be able to demonstrate, if necessary, full compliance with legal obligations.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 25439 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a clear and strong warning to all employers: safety is not an option nor a delegable burden. The obligations of training, information, and instruction are indispensable pillars for the protection of workers' lives and health. Prior experience, even if gained in training contexts, can never replace the specific preparation that every employer is required to provide for their environment and their roles. Only through rigorous application of these principles can a truly safe and legally compliant work environment be built.