Liability for things in custody and workplace accidents: an analysis of Court of Cassation Order no. 31209/2025

The management of safety within buildings and construction sites has always been one of the most critical and complex issues in civil and labor law. When an accident occurs, determining liability requires a careful analysis of the causal link between the state of the premises and the conduct of the injured party. The Court of Cassation recently addressed this delicate balance in Order no. 31209 of November 30, 2025, providing a fundamental clarification on the strict liability of the custodian under Art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code.

The case: a warehouse under construction and a serious accident

The matter stems from a serious accident involving a worker inside a warehouse under construction. The property, owned by a co-owner identified by the initial I., lacked the most basic safety equipment, such as stairs, elevators, and guardrails. The worker had fallen from a platform lifted by a forklift, which was being used to store goods on the upper floor. In the lower courts, the Court of Appeal of L'Aquila had excluded the co-owner's liability, emphasizing the worker's imprudent behavior and the improper use of the equipment. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, quashing the judgment and remanding the case.

The Supreme Court's ruling on custodian liability

The decision of the judges of legitimacy is based on a cornerstone principle regarding custody, which does not allow the custodian to easily escape liability when the item entrusted to them is inherently dangerous. Here is the principle expressed by the Court:

In matters of liability under Art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code, where the item is intrinsically and objectively dangerous - and therefore unsuitable for its intended use -, its causal contribution to the harmful event cannot be excluded solely because the victim's concurrent negligent behavior allowed for its use in such a manner.

This principle highlights how the intrinsic danger of the asset (in this specific case, an unfinished warehouse lacking safety protections) maintains an active causal role in determining the damage. The negligent conduct of the injured party does not cancel out the custodian's omission in allowing access to an unsafe place.

Prerequisites for exemption from liability under Art. 2051 of the Italian Civil Code

To fully understand the scope of the ruling, it is necessary to recall the criteria governing liability for things in custody. To be exempt from liability, the custodian must prove a fortuitous event, i.e., an exceptional, unforeseeable, and inevitable occurrence. The key elements to consider are:

• The nature of the item: if the asset is intrinsically dangerous or unsuitable for use, the custodian has an even more stringent duty of supervision and safety.
• The causal link: the conduct of the injured party can only break the causal link if it constitutes an exceptional and unforeseeable factor, such as to entirely absorb the cause of the damage.
• Negligent cooperation: if the victim's conduct is merely imprudent but made possible by the dangerous situation created by the custodian, a contributory negligence scenario arises, but not a total exemption for the custodian.

Conclusions: strengthened protection for worker safety

With Order no. 31209/2025, the Court of Cassation strongly reaffirms that the protection of health and safety cannot be evaded by shifting the entire blame onto the worker's imprudence, especially when workplaces are objectively unsafe and lack the necessary authorizations. For property owners and custodians, this ruling serves as a stern warning: custody entails an active obligation to prevent risks by prohibiting the use of structures that do not comply with safety regulations.