An accusation of negligent injury can arise after an accident, a sports activity, an episode of daily life, a workplace accident, or a technical service. If you have received a formal complaint, an invitation to appoint a defense counsel, or an act from the Prosecutor's Office, the doubt does not concern only the penalty: it is essential to understand what conduct is attributed to you, whether there is truly criminally relevant fault, and whether the medical documentation proves the severity indicated in the charge.
On this page, I explain what Article 590 of the Italian Criminal Code requires and why a prognosis exceeding forty days does not resolve every issue on its own. We will also see when the proceedings depend on a formal complaint, which facts shift jurisdiction from the justice of the peace to the court, and how to distinguish civil compensation from the resolution of criminal proceedings.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
The injury alone is not enough to prove the offense. Art. 590 c.p. concerns anyone who causes personal injury to another person through negligence, meaning without wanting to provoke it but violating a precaution reasonably required in the specific situation. Fault may consist of negligence, recklessness, lack of skill, or failure to comply with rules provided by laws, regulations, instructions, or technical practices. The text of the article and its aggravated hypotheses are recalled in Law no. 41 of 2016 on Normattiva.
The precaution must be concrete. It is not sufficient to observe, after the event, that it would have been possible to act differently. It is necessary to identify what prudent behavior was required before the fact, why that rule applied precisely in that context, and whether the investigated person could respect it. A safety rule referring to a piece of machinery, for example, does not automatically demonstrate responsibility for an event that occurred outside its scope of application.
A causal link is also required. The contested conduct must have caused the injury or contributed significantly to producing it. If the injury derives from an autonomous behavior of the injured person, an external factor, or a subsequent cause that assumes a decisive weight, the reconstruction changes. Furthermore, in cases of omission, it is necessary to clarify what duty of intervention existed and what action could have prevented the event.
The position held does not decide the matter alone. Being an organizer, activity manager, employer, or team member does not automatically equate to being liable for every accident that occurred. What matters is what powers were held, what information was available, what rules burdened that person, and whether the event was foreseeable and avoidable through the required precaution.
Prognosis Over Forty Days and Serious Injury
The forty-day threshold is relevant, but it must be read correctly. Art. 583 c.p. qualifies as serious, among other hypotheses, an injury from which a disease derives or an incapacity to attend to ordinary occupations for more than forty days. The norm also considers serious a disease that endangers life and the permanent weakening of a sense or an organ; for very serious injuries, it requires further consequences, such as the loss of a sense or a certainly or probably incurable disease. The criteria are reported in the text of Art. 583 c.p. published in the Official Gazette.
The initial prognosis is a datum to be verified. A medical certificate indicating forty-five, sixty, or more days deserves attention, but it does not transform the fact into a serious injury on its own. The legal question concerns the actual duration of the disease or the incapacity relevant to the norm. To answer this, clinical evolution, subsequent checks, therapies, documented limitations, and the connection between the trauma and the declared consequences count.
Contesting the duration does not mean denying the harm. The defense may concern the correct legal qualification of the injury without questioning the suffering of the injured party. Faster healing than initially expected, a prior pathology, a different cause of the limitations, or the distinction between a prudential prognosis and a disease actually prolonged beyond the foreseen threshold can all assume relevance.
Severity of the injury and fault are distinct questions. Medical documentation may demonstrate a serious injury, but it remains necessary to prove that negligent conduct by the suspect caused it. Conversely, a breach of prudence can be contested even if the injury does not exceed forty days. Separating these two levels avoids treating the medical certificate as a complete answer to criminal liability.
When Art. 590 c.p. Does Not Apply
Serious road or nautical injuries follow a distinct norm. If a serious or very serious injury is caused with a violation of road traffic rules or maritime or internal navigation rules, Art. 590-bis c.p. must be considered. The distinction does not depend on the fact that the driver did not intend to injure anyone: here too liability is negligent, but the offense type, penalties, and certain procedural rules change. The discipline was updated by Law no. 177 of 2024 on Normattiva.
Workplace accidents require specific examination. For serious or very serious injuries committed in violation of workplace accident prevention rules, Art. 590 provides for a different and more severe treatment. However, it is not enough for the accident to have occurred in a workplace: a violated safety rule, the subject upon whom the relative duty weighed, and the link between that omission or action and the concrete accident must emerge.
Professional negligence does not coincide with a negative outcome. In a healthcare, technical, or specialized activity, the accusation cannot be based solely on the unfavorable result. It is necessary to identify which professional rule was applicable at that moment, what information was knowable, and what alternative conduct would have avoided the injury. The actual role of each participant also matters: those who intervene in a complex activity do not automatically answer for every choice made by others.
Complaint, Procedural Status, and Competent Judge
As a rule, Art. 590 is prosecutable upon a formal complaint. This means that the proceedings require the expression of punitive will by the injured party, barring exceptions provided by law. The ordinary term to propose a complaint is three months from the news of the fact constituting the crime; however, the starting point must be identified with care because it depends on the concrete knowledge of the episode and its essential elements.
Serious or very serious workplace injuries can proceed ex officio. When the aggravated hypotheses of Art. 590 occur with violations of accident prevention rules or workplace hygiene, or when the fact has determined an occupational disease, the complaint is not necessarily the condition that starts or continues the proceedings. In these cases, an agreement with the injured person can be important on the civil plane, but it does not determine the closure of the criminal trial on its own.
The justice of the peace does not have jurisdiction in every situation. Art. 4 of Legislative Decree no. 274 of 2000 attributes negligent injuries prosecutable upon complaint to the justice of the peace, but excludes cases connected to professional negligence and those related to accidents, workplace hygiene, or occupational disease when the illness exceeds twenty days. Jurisdiction affects the procedure and the judicial authority, and neither proves nor excludes liability. The criterion is indicated in Art. 4 of Legislative Decree no. 274 of 2000 on Normattiva. The threshold of more than twenty days applies to both categories: professional negligence and cases involving workplace safety or hygiene or occupational disease.
How to Read Acts and Relevant Evidence
The act received indicates the point to address. A formal complaint, a warrant of information, a notice of conclusion of investigations, or a citation do not have the same procedural meaning. Nevertheless, each act helps to understand what fact is attributed, which norm is recalled, and in what phase the proceedings are. Receiving it does not equate to a conviction, but the deadlines contained in the act must not be neglected.
Medical documents serve to answer precise questions. Medical reports, certificates, clinical charts, and subsequent checks can clarify the nature of the injury, the duration of the disease, and the relationship with the event. Photographs, messages, videos, minutes, operational instructions, and statements from those present can instead be decisive for the dynamics. A document has no abstract value: it weighs for what it proves and for its coherence with other elements.
A hasty statement can confuse different facts. Admitting to being present at the place of the episode does not mean recognizing fault; likewise, recognizing the existence of an injury does not equate to accepting the qualification as serious or the causal link proposed by the prosecution. Before making statements, it is important to distinguish what is known directly from what is presumed to have happened.
Compensation, Remission, and Defense Choices
Compensation does not automatically close the proceedings. A payment may respond to insurance or civil needs and does not constitute, by itself, a confession of criminal liability. In crimes prosecutable upon complaint, it must be distinguished from the potential remission of the complaint, which is the act by which the injured party renounces the punitive claim within the limits established by law. In ex officio proceedings, instead, compensation does not automatically eliminate the criminal action.
The defense starts from the truly controversial point. In some proceedings, the crux is the dynamics: proof of a violated precaution is missing or the behavior of the injured party affects the causation of the event. In others, the historical fact is clear, but the actual duration of the illness, the relationship between injury and trauma, or the applicable norm must be discussed. Choosing a path without distinguishing these problems can lead to unnecessarily giving up an important defense theme.
Alternatives can coexist, but they are not equivalent. Contesting fault and causal link, defining civil damages, and evaluating the possibilities offered by the procedure are distinct planes. The useful solution depends on procedural status, the procedural phase, available documentation, and the concrete interest of the person involved. If you must face proceedings for negligent injury in Milan, I can help you place these elements in your specific situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a forty-five-day prognosis automatically make the injury serious?
No, not automatically. Exceeding forty days is one of the criteria provided by Art. 583 c.p., but it must be established whether the illness or incapacity relevant to the norm actually lasted beyond that threshold. The initial certificate must be read together with subsequent checks and the overall clinical picture.
Are negligent injuries always prosecutable upon a formal complaint?
No. The complaint is the rule for Art. 590 c.p., but serious or very serious injuries deriving from violations of accident prevention rules, workplace hygiene, or occupational disease follow a different regime and can proceed ex officio. Before relying on the complaint, the fact must therefore be precisely qualified.
How much time do I have to file a complaint?
The ordinary term is three months. Art. 124 c.p. links it to the day on which the person has news of the fact constituting the crime. The calculation can depend on when the episode and its essential elements became knowable; waiting to clarify the term can therefore create an avoidable forfeiture.
Does compensation for damages terminate the criminal proceedings?
No, payment alone is not enough. It can settle civil damages and, in crimes requiring a complaint, it can be accompanied by a valid remission of the complaint. In ex officio proceedings, instead, the economic agreement does not automatically determine the closure of the proceedings, even though it may have relevance in its context.
Does the justice of the peace handle all negligent injuries?
No. The justice of the peace handles cases prosecutable upon complaint, with exclusions provided by Legislative Decree no. 274 of 2000. In particular, jurisdiction changes for cases connected to professional negligence and those related to accidents, workplace hygiene, or occupational disease when the illness exceeds twenty days. The threshold of more than twenty days applies to both categories: professional negligence and cases involving workplace safety or hygiene or occupational disease.
When to Seek Assistance for an Accusation in Milan
It is useful to act immediately when the act indicates a deadline. A summons, a notice of conclusion of investigations, or a citation requires understanding the contested fact before taking a position. Even outside these cases, a complaint, a compensation request, or a prognosis exceeding forty days deserves an orderly reading of dynamics, medical documentation, and procedural status.
If you are involved in proceedings for negligent injury in Milan, you can contact me to evaluate the charge and possible defense choices without confusing the different planes of the problem.