Workplace Accidents: The Court of Cassation and the Responsibility of Guarantors (Judgment no. 10460/2025)

Safety in the workplace is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, but attributing responsibility in the event of an accident can be complex. The Criminal Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 10460 of January 21, 2025 (filed on March 17, 2025), has provided an essential clarification, reiterating the non-derogable obligation of protection for every holder of a guarantor position. This ruling, which saw A. R. Andrulli as the defendant, with President F. M. Ciampi and Rapporteur V. Pezzella, is a significant warning for all parties involved in accident prevention.

The Guarantor Position: An Independent Obligation

In criminal labor law, the "guarantor position" identifies who has the legal duty to prevent a harmful event, such as an accident. Often, this position is held by multiple individuals (employer, managers, supervisors such as foremen or shift leaders), each with specific responsibilities and powers. The judgment addresses precisely the issue of responsibility when non-compliance arises from the execution of others' directives.

The Maxim of the Court of Cassation: The Duty Not to Conform

The core of the ruling is clearly expressed in its maxim, which emphasizes the non-derogable nature of individual responsibility in safety matters.

In terms of accident prevention in the workplace, each holder of a guarantor position, where there are more than one, is fully subject to the obligation of protection imposed "by law," so that the omission of an accident prevention measure is attributable to each individual guarantor. (Case in which the designation of the plant manager, aimed at adopting practices that circumvent preventive regulations, was deemed insufficient to exempt subordinates from responsibility, as foremen, shift leaders, and deputy shift leaders had the burden of not conforming and reporting the existence of risky practices for the safety of workers).

This statement is of crucial importance. The Court has established that responsibility for safety cannot be fragmented or delegated to exempt a guarantor. Even if a superior (such as the plant manager) issues directives that circumvent accident prevention regulations, the individuals subordinate to him – foremen, shift leaders, and deputy shift leaders – are not automatically absolved of blame. They have a specific "burden not to conform" to such directives and to "report the existence of risky practices." This principle reinforces the idea that the guarantor position implies an active and independent duty of supervision and intervention, which cannot be nullified by a hierarchical order that contravenes safety regulations. The judgment refers to Articles 40 and 41 of the Penal Code, highlighting how the omission of each guarantor can causally contribute to the harmful event (the so-called additive causality).

Implications and Duties for Prevention

The practical implications of this ruling are significant for companies and workers:

• Individual Responsibility: Each guarantor must act with diligence and autonomy, verifying the compliance of procedures with safety regulations.
• Duty of Dissent: In case of risky directives, supervisors have the duty to oppose them and report critical issues to the competent authorities.
• Continuous Training: Awareness of obligations is fundamental for all holders of guarantor positions, from managers to supervisors.

The judgment aligns with established case law (also referenced by previous maxims no. 24372/2019, no. 6507/2018, and no. 928/2023), strengthening the protection of health and safety, in line with Legislative Decree 81/2008 and Articles 583 and 590 of the Civil Code regarding personal injury.

Conclusions: A Warning for Active Safety

Judgment no. 10460/2025 of the Criminal Court of Cassation is a clear warning for a safety culture that allows no shortcuts. It reiterates that accident prevention is a primary and inalienable obligation that rests on every individual who, by virtue of their position, has the power and duty to intervene. For companies, this means investing not only in equipment and procedures but also in the training and awareness of their managers and supervisors, so that they become true "sentinels" of safety, ready to intervene and report any practice that could endanger the safety of workers. Only in this way can a truly safe and protected work environment be built.