The criminal liability of an architect or an engineer does not arise simply from the fact that a work presents a problem, that a construction site suffers a delay, or that an accident occurs. It is necessary to demonstrate relevant negligent conduct and its connection to the event. This is precisely where the most important doubts arise: does a design assignment also entail supervisory obligations? Does the site manager bear liability if they are not present at the construction site? Can the safety coordinator be held liable for a choice made by the contractor?
In this guide, I want to clarify how fault, negligence, and inexperience operate in the context of technical professions. I will help you distinguish criminal risk from civil or disciplinary liability, understand the weight of the assignment actually undertaken, and recognize the facts that can either confirm or exclude a personal charge.
When a professional error becomes a criminally relevant fact
A technical error is not automatically a crime. An inaccurate service may produce economic damage, a dispute with the client, or proceedings before the professional order, but criminal liability requires additional elements. There must be a specific criminal offense provided for by law, as can happen in the presence of injuries, death, collapse, or other harmful events, and the prosecution must link the professional's conduct specifically to that event.
The central point is the causal link: it is necessary to understand whether the contested action or omission contributed in a legally relevant way to the result. Article 40 of the Criminal Code also attributes relevance to failing to prevent an event, but only to those who had a legal obligation to prevent it. Article 43 instead defines fault through negligence, imprudence, inexperience, or non-compliance with precautionary rules. The general framework can be consulted in the Italian Criminal Code, Articles 40 and 43.
The assignment defines the perimeter of duty. It is not enough to be informally referred to as a "technician" or to have participated in a meeting. What counts are the appointment, the contract, delegations, signed drawings, communications with the client, and the concrete power to intervene. Someone who designed a part of the work does not assume, by that fact alone, the function of safety coordinator; likewise, someone with a coordination assignment does not automatically become responsible for every operational choice of the contractor.
Fault, negligence, imprudence, and inexperience: the differences that matter
Negligence concerns an omitted check or precaution. In a technical field, it may be alleged, for example, when a professional neglects an activity that clearly fell within their assignment and was necessary to intercept a recognizable risk. It is not sufficient to say that a verification could have been useful: it is necessary to identify which duty imposed that check, with what instruments, and at what stage of the work.
Imprudence concerns a risky choice. Imprudence is discussed when one proceeds despite a concrete and foreseeable danger, without adopting adequate precautions. The judgment does not depend on whether the event actually occurred: the question is whether, prior to the event, a person with that role and those skills had reasons to recognize the risk and act differently.
Inexperience concerns the technical dimension of the activity. A calculation, a design solution, a structural assessment, or a safety prescription may be called into question with respect to the technical rules applicable to the specific case. However, a disagreement between consultants does not prove inexperience by itself. A distinction must be made between an error recognizable with ordinary professional preparation and a reasoned technical choice in a complex problem, upon which different specialized assessments exist.
These categories may also overlap, but the prosecution must specify which concrete conduct is being blamed. A correct allegation cannot stop at the formula "failure to supervise" or "design error": it must indicate the violated duty, the moment when intervention was due, and the way in which that omission or action determined the event.
The assumed function is worth more than the professional qualification
Architect and engineer are not categories of criminal liability. The profession qualifies one to perform certain activities, but any guarantee position arises from the function actually exercised. In a construction work, a designer, site manager, design coordinator, execution coordinator, client, works supervisor, contractor, and executing companies can coexist. Each has their own tasks, which may intertwine without becoming indistinct.
The design, for example, raises different questions from site management. For the designer, deposited drawings, calculations, technical specifications, variants, and the relationship between the proposed solution and the characteristics of the work become essential. For the site manager, control activities regarding correct execution with respect to the project and technical rules falling within their assignment also count.
Physical presence is not the sole criterion. The Court of Cassation has stated that the site manager can be held liable for fault in the event of a collapse even if absent from the construction site, when the assignment required adequate supervision over the regular execution of the works and the professional neither adopted the necessary technical precautions nor interrupted their role. The principle must be read in light of the concrete fact, not as automatic liability for every absence: the reference is found in the criminal review of the Court of Cassation, April 2024.
Safety coordination: specific obligations and limits of the role
The execution coordinator has control and coordination tasks during the works. Article 92 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008 assigns them, among other things, the verification of the application of relevant prescriptions from the safety and coordination plan, the suitability and consistency of operational safety plans, as well as the reporting of non-compliances. If they encounter a grave and imminent danger, they must suspend the individual operations concerned until the necessary adjustments are made: the text is available in Article 92 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008.
These obligations do not make the coordinator a continuous supervisor of every action performed by workers. Their role nevertheless remains substantial, not merely formal. It is not enough for the operational safety plan to exist formally: when an operation presents a concrete risk, the adequacy of the plan, the provided methods, the actually available tools, and the set-up protections assume relevance.
The Court of Cassation, in a 2025 decision, recalled this very point with reference to work at height: the check on the suitability of the operational plan is not exhausted by its formal regularity, but concerns the compatibility between what is foreseen and concrete safety conditions. The principle is reported in the criminal review of the Court of Cassation, July-August 2025.
Safety requires separating attributions. The contractor retains their obligations regarding the organization and safe execution of work; the client and works supervisor have distinct obligations; the coordinator intervenes according to the competencies attributed by law and the assignment. To understand a charge, therefore, two opposite errors must be avoided: believing that the appointment of the coordinator transfers all liability onto them or thinking that the appointment reduces them to a role devoid of effective duties.
From design to event: which facts can change the evaluation
Defense is not built with abstract formulas, but with a verifiable sequence of facts. In proceedings for professional fault, the date and content of the assignment, the attributed competencies, the evolution of the project, the variants, the transmitted prescriptions, the reports made, and the concrete possibility of intervening before the event become decisive.
A project that was originally correct may not explain what happens after an uncommunicated executive modification. Conversely, a variant signed or endorsed by the professional can extend the issue of liability to the new technical choice. Similarly, a written report of a danger can be very relevant, but it does not close the matter by itself if the role also imposed further action, such as proposing suspension or suspending work in foreseen cases.
Counterfactual judgment is essential. It means asking what would have happened if the due conduct had been performed: would the risk have been avoided, reduced, or managed differently? If the event would have occurred in the same way due to an autonomous cause, the causal link may be missing. If instead the omission allowed a danger to operate that the professional had the duty and the possibility to counter, the picture may change.
How to handle an investigation or a technical allegation
A notice of investigation or a request for clarifications does not equal a conviction. They indicate that the authority is conducting investigations into a fact and the possible position of certain individuals. At this stage, it is important not to confuse the technical reconstruction of the event with the acceptance of a charge: a report, a record, or a statement can affect how role, conduct, and causality are reconstructed.
The priority is to correctly preserve what documents the assignment and the performance of the activity: appointment letters, contracts, drawings, project versions and variants, records, safety plans, communications, reports, and photographic documentation already formed. It is not useful to retroactively reconstruct documents or agree on simplified narratives. Instead, it is necessary to precisely distinguish what appears from the records from what still needs to be ascertained.
When technical issues are involved, a consultation can serve to clarify applicable rules, the causes of the event, and practically viable alternatives. We can set up the defense together with the necessary consultants, keeping the technical evaluation distinct from the analysis of criminal requirements: duty, fault, causality, and evidentiary element.
Frequently asked questions
Does signing the design alone establish criminal liability?
No, the signature alone does not prove criminal liability. It can identify your role and the drawings you participated in, but it is also necessary to prove what error or omission is alleged, whether it fell within your assignment, and whether it caused the event. A subsequent variant or non-compliant execution can profoundly alter the evaluation.
Must the site manager always be present at the construction site?
There is no general rule of continuous presence. However, the site manager must perform the supervision required by their assignment and the nature of the works. If dangerous operations, relevant non-compliances, or technical choices incompatible with the project emerge, absence can carry weight only if it prevents a concretely due check.
Does the safety coordinator bear liability for every accident?
No, an accident does not create automatic liability. The coordinator bears liability within the scope of coordination, verification, and intervention tasks foreseen by law and the assignment. It must be established whether the risk fell within those tasks, whether it was recognizable, and whether a due action, such as a report or suspension, could have avoided the event.
Can a technical report from the contractor exclude my liability?
It can be a useful element, but it does not decide the case alone. A report can document who undertook a choice, when it was adopted, and what information was available. However, it must be compared with assignments, records, plans, drawings, and actual site conditions. Its value depends on consistency with other items of evidence.
What should I do if I receive a notice of investigation for an accident?
It is important to immediately understand the fact and the role alleged. Preserve the original documentation relating to the assignment and the activity performed, avoid impromptu statements regarding the technical content of the event, and have the records examined carefully. If you receive an act from the authority or fear criminal involvement, you can contact me to evaluate the situation.