Commentary on Judgment No. 39526 of 2023: Negligent Injury in Hairdressing Activities

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 39526 of June 20, 2023, offers important clarifications regarding the criminal liability of those engaged in hairdressing activities, particularly concerning negligent injuries that may occur during service. This decision is part of a complex legal framework, where regulations concerning workplace accidents and professional negligence are examined and reinterpreted.

The Case at Hand

The event that led to the Court's ruling concerns an incident where a client suffered injuries due to a hairdressing treatment. The central issue was to determine whether such injuries could constitute the crime of negligent personal injury, and whether the jurisdiction lay with the Justice of the Peace or a higher court. The Court ruled that jurisdiction belongs to the Justice of the Peace, excluding the application of workplace accident regulations.

The Court's Reflections

Negligent injury, even if serious, caused during the practice of hairdressing – Violation of regulations concerning workplace accidents or occupational hygiene – Exclusion – Professional negligence – Exclusion – Offense outside the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace pursuant to art. 4, paragraph 1, letter a), Legislative Decree No. 274 of 2000 – Existence – Jurisdiction by subject matter – Indication. The causation of negligent injury, even if serious, to a client, occurring during the practice of hairdressing, cannot be attributed, pursuant to art. 4, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree of August 28, 2000, No. 274, either to the area of workplace accidents, in the absence of an employment relationship with the injured party, or to the notion of 'professional negligence,' which refers only to those engaged in one of the intellectual professions provided for and regulated by art. 2229 of the Civil Code. Therefore, in such cases, jurisdiction lies with the Justice of the Peace.

This passage is crucial: the Court clarified that, since there is no employment relationship between the hairdresser and the client, regulations concerning workplace accidents cannot apply. Furthermore, the notion of professional negligence is limited to specific intellectual professions, thus also excluding the professional liability of the hairdresser.

Practical Implications

This judgment has multiple implications for professionals in the sector. In particular, it highlights the importance of:

• Knowing one's rights and duties as a hairdresser.
• Being aware of legal responsibilities in case of accidents with clients.
• Assessing the importance of clear contracts that define roles and responsibilities.

The decision of the Court of Cassation therefore underscores the need for greater attention in daily professional practices to avoid legal disputes and ensure safe service.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 39526 of 2023 offers an important opportunity for reflection for all operators in the beauty sector and for jurists dealing with criminal law. The clear distinction between employment and professional liability is fundamental to understanding the legal dynamics at play and to protect both professionals and clients.