Negligent Epidemic and Omissive Conduct: Cassation Ruling 27515/2025 Redefines Liability Boundaries
Criminal law is constantly called upon to define liability boundaries, especially when a harmful event arises from an omission rather than a direct action. Ruling no. 27515 of 10/04/2025 (filed on 28/07/2025) by the Court of Cassation addresses a matter of extreme social relevance: the possibility of establishing the crime of negligent epidemic even in the presence of omissive conduct. This decision, which saw V. D. A. as the defendant and annulled with referral the judgment of the Court of Sassari of 28/03/2024, marks an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence, with profound implications for the protection of public safety.
The Regulatory Framework of Negligent Epidemic
The crime of negligent epidemic is provided for by articles 438 (intentional epidemic) and 452 (negligent crimes against public health) of the Penal Code. Traditionally, "spreading" has often evoked active conduct. However, recent experiences have shown how inaction, the failure to adopt preventive measures, or the violation of specific duties can have equally serious consequences. Ruling 27515/2025 clarifies that the concept of "causing" an epidemic is not limited to positive action but also includes relevant omissions.
Omission as a Cause of Epidemic: The Legal Principle
The core of the Cassation's ruling lies in the assertion that the crime of negligent epidemic can also be constituted by omissive conduct. This principle, which finds significant precedent in the Civil Joint Divisions no. 576 of 2008, has been forcefully reaffirmed in a specific criminal context. The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. C. M. and with Dr. A. G. as rapporteur, annulled the decision of the Court of Sassari with referral, indicating the need to assess whether, in the specific case, an omission played a causal role in the spread of the epidemic.
The crime of negligent epidemic can also be constituted by omissive conduct.
This principle means that criminal liability for epidemic not only concerns those who actively spread a pathogen but also those who, despite having a specific legal duty to prevent the event (the "duty of guarantee"), fail to do so and, through their inaction, contribute to causing or worsening an epidemic. Consider, for example, a workplace safety manager who fails to adopt the necessary hygiene and health measures required by law (such as Legislative Decree 09/04/2008 no. 81, articles 16, paragraph 3, and 77, paragraph 4), despite being aware of the risks. Their omission, if causally linked to the large-scale spread of an infectious disease, could constitute the crime. The emphasis is placed on the violation of the duty of control and the consequent harmful event.
Practical Implications of the Ruling
- Liability of Guarantors: Directors of healthcare facilities or corporate safety managers see their position as "guarantors" strengthened, and consequently, their potential criminal liability in case of omission.
- Importance of Protocols: The ruling underscores the crucial importance of adopting and rigorously adhering to safety and hygiene protocols, especially in contexts with a high risk of pathogen spread.
- Causal Link: It will be essential to demonstrate the causal link between the omission and the epidemic event, meaning that the omitted required action, if performed, would have prevented or significantly reduced the scope of the epidemic.
Conclusions: A Warning for Prevention
Ruling no. 27515/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a significant warning for all those who hold guarantor positions or are called upon to manage situations potentially dangerous to public health. The clarity with which the possibility of establishing the crime of negligent epidemic through omissive conduct is affirmed reiterates a fundamental principle of criminal law: inaction, when there is a duty to act, can be as serious as action. This decision calls for greater awareness and scrupulous application of regulations concerning prevention and safety.
