The lack of a defibrillator can assume legal significance after a cardiac arrest or other severe emergency, but the grief for what happened does not replace the evidence required to claim compensation. You may wonder whether the place where the event occurred should have had an AED, whether the device was present but unusable, and whether a faster intervention could have prevented death or limited injuries.
Not every absence generates liability. I want to help you separate the mere finding that a device was missing from the violation of a specific safety duty. We will see which places are specifically regulated, who may have an effective obligation to organize rescue, and why the link between omission and damage is often the decisive point.
When the absence of the AED can become a wrongful act
The first point is to identify a concrete duty. To obtain compensation, it is not enough to prove that an automated or semi-automated external defibrillator, known as an AED, was not available at the emergency site. It must be clarified whether a rule, an organized activity, a contract or a protection obligation required someone to provide the device, keep it efficient and make it usable.
Civil liability for a wrongful act generally requires intentional or negligent conduct, unjust damage, and a causal connection between conduct and damage. If the affected person was participating in an organized activity, attending a facility or using a service, the obligations assumed by those who managed that activity may also be relevant. The legal classification changes, but the proof of the omission remains essential.
The owner of the building does not necessarily coincide with the liable party. In a sports facility, for example, the owner, the manager, the user club and the competition organizer may have different roles. What matters is who had real powers to place, custody, control or make available the AED during the activity in which the emergency occurred.
Even an unusable AED can be relevant. A device locked in an inaccessible room, without working batteries, with expired pads or without adequate signage does not fulfill the first-aid function. The question is not only whether the device was purchased or registered, but whether it could be reached and used in time.
The regulation of AEDs does not impose the same obligation in every place
Law no. 116 of 2021 favors a progressive rollout of AEDs. Article 1 considers, among others, public administration offices with at least fifteen employees and services open to the public, airports, railway stations, ports, certain means of transport, and public service providers. The text provides for a multi-year program: it therefore does not allow to state that every establishment open to the public has, for this reason alone, an identical obligation of provision. Law of August 4, 2021, no. 116, art. 1.
The Decree of the Ministry of Health of March 16, 2023 sets out criteria for installation. It considers the number and flows of people, the surface area and obstacles to access, such as turnstiles or closed doors. It also provides for the appointment of a person responsible for correct operation and periodic checks on the device, battery, and pads. Accessibility and maintenance are therefore legally significant facts when the facility falls within the scope of the applicable regulation. Decree of the Ministry of Health of March 16, 2023.
Facilities, training sessions and sports competitions
In the sports sector, the rules are more specific. For amateur sports associations and clubs, the decree of June 26, 2017 links the fulfillment of the obligation to provide and use an AED to the use of a permanent facility equipped with the device or more advanced technology. The presence of a person trained in its use is also required in competitions and activities indicated by the decree.
Article 4 of Law no. 116 of 2021 expressly refers to the provision and use of AEDs in competitions and training sessions. The 2017 decree must therefore be read together with the subsequent provisions, without concluding that training sessions are always excluded from safety obligations. However, this discipline does not authorize treating any sports match in the same way. A distinction must be made between a competition included in sports calendars, a competitive or professional activity, and a situation unrelated to the contemplated hypotheses. The type of activity establishes what precautions were due. Agreements between clubs and facility managers are also relevant because they show who was required to ensure the actual availability of the device. Decree of June 26, 2017 on AEDs in amateur sports.
Public sports facilities and shared AEDs
In public places used by multiple clubs, sharing must also be considered. The decree of April 7, 2023 requires sports clubs using public facilities to share the AED with other users. It also provides for registration with the territorially competent emergency medical system dispatch center, with indications on location, perishable parts, and public accessibility hours.
Registration alone does not prove that rescue was adequately organized, but it can be important to reconstruct where the AED was supposed to be and when it was supposed to be reachable. An access schedule incompatible with the event may take on a different weight than an unpredictable malfunction that occurred despite documented checks. Decree of April 7, 2023 on public sports facilities.
The causal link: why the delay must be reconstructed
The decisive question concerns what would have happened without the omission. It is not sufficient to state that a defibrillator can be decisive in the event of cardiac arrest. To civilly attribute death or injuries to the omission, it must be proven, according to the criterion of more likely than not, that timely intervention would have avoided or reduced that damage. Any loss of a concrete chance of survival is a distinct claim with its own prerequisites: a mere abstract possibility does not automatically prove damage.
This reconstruction requires putting times in order: the moment of the illness, the call for help, the maneuvers performed, the possible search for the AED, the arrival of the ambulance, and the recorded clinical conditions. Medical reports, intervention logs, and device data can help define the sequence. Every delay must be linked to medical and organizational data, not just an intuitive evaluation.
If the AED was missing but, for clinical or temporal reasons independent of the location's organization, could not have been usefully operated, the causal connection may be lacking. If instead it emerges that the device was supposed to be there, was actually absent or unusable, and timely use could have affected the damage, the compensation claim assumes a firmer basis. Initial uncertainty does not solve the problem: it indicates what investigations are necessary.
Civil and criminal liability are not the same thing
Compensation and criminal proceedings follow different rules. In civil proceedings, reparation is sought for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage that is a consequence of the wrongful conduct. In the event of death, both damages suffered by the person before death, if demonstrable, and prejudices suffered by entitled family members may come into play.
Criminal liability for negligent injury or negligent manslaughter requires further ascertainment: it is necessary to identify a person who had a legal obligation to prevent the event, verify the violation of a precautionary rule, and prove the causal link with respect to that person. Not everyone who was present assumes a guarantor position. Presence on the spot does not equate, by itself, to the power and duty to organize rescue.
A complaint can therefore accompany a civil claim, but it does not guarantee compensation and does not replace useful evidence in civil proceedings. Similarly, the absence of an ascertained crime does not allow automatically excluding any compensation liability. The two paths may concern the same facts, but they answer different questions.
What facts and documents can clarify liability
The reconstruction must start from roles and times. Documents showing who managed the location, who organized the activity, and who cared for the AED are useful. A facility management contract, a use regulation, an event calendar, or an internal communication can be more important than mere ownership of the property.
For the device, the actual position, signage, access hours, maintenance logs, and the replacement date of the battery and pads matter. Video surveillance images, staff shifts, messages related to the opening of premises, and information gathered by rescuers may also become relevant. The useful piece of data is the one that completes the chain of facts: obligation, omission or inefficiency, delay, health consequence, and damage.
During a suspected cardiac arrest, the law also allows the use of the AED by those without specific training when trained subjects are not present. This rule prevents the device from remaining unused solely due to the lack of a qualification, but it does not eliminate the organizational obligations of facilities that must provide personnel and tools. In an emergency, rescue comes first. Law of April 3, 2001, no. 120, art. 1.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the lack of an AED enough to claim compensation?
No, it is not enough on its own. It must be linked to an obligation resting on the manager, organizer, or another party, and the causal link with the claimed damage must be proven. To impute death or injuries, the civil criterion of more likely than not is required; a claim for loss of chance requires proving a concrete lost opportunity. The location, the activity performed, the organization of rescue, and the timing of the emergency are the main data.
Who can be held liable if the defibrillator was not there?
The person who had the effective duty to provide or manage it is liable. It can be the facility manager, the sports club, the event organizer, or a different party in charge of safety. Building ownership and service management may belong to different people: contracts and concrete organization help identify them.
Does a discharged or unreachable AED equal its absence?
It can produce similar consequences. A device without a working battery, with unusable pads, or placed in a spot that cannot be reached during an emergency does not fulfill the rapid intervention function. However, it remains necessary to prove who was supposed to take care of its accessibility and maintenance, and what effect the defect had in the specific case.
In an amateur competition, is it enough for the AED to be in the facility?
Not always. The decree of June 26, 2017 links the fulfillment of the obligation, in its hypotheses, to the use of a permanent facility equipped with an AED and the presence of a trained person during the indicated competitions and activities. Therefore, the mere presence of the device must be distinguished from the concrete organization of rescue.
Can I use an AED if I have not received training?
Yes, in the hypothesis provided by law. In case of suspected cardiac arrest and in the absence of trained medical or non-medical personnel, the law also allows the use of the AED by those who do not possess specific training. This does not replace the preparation required for those organizing activities subject to particular rules.
How to orient yourself after the event
A grounded claim stems from precise facts. After a bereavement or severe injury, the phrase "the defibrillator was missing" is neither sufficient to exclude nor to affirm liability. It is necessary to clarify which rule applied, who was supposed to make it effective, and what difference a timely intervention could have made. To examine these elements and possible civil or criminal initiatives in Milan, you can contact me.