Cookies

We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse the International Law Office website, we will assume you are happy to receive all of our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print

Stricter Supreme Court Rulings on Liability for Injury in the Workplace

Newsletters

14 January 2009

Employment & Benefits Italy


Following the approval of the Consolidated Workplace Safety Act, two Supreme Court decisions shed light on an employer’s liability for injury in the workplace. Both cases involved an employee whose hand became caught in a machine while it was in operation. In the first case, although the employee admitted being absent-minded, the Supreme Court held the employer liable for the accident, confirming the verdict of negligent personal injury.(1) In the second case the court reversed a decision in favour of the employer - the lower court had held that the injury, which was suffered by an apprentice who had been informed about the use of security devices, could not be considered the result of a criminal offence.(2)

The decisions confirm the provisions of Article 2087, which requires employers to adopt all necessary safety measures imposed by law and by the principles of care, caution and expertise. The court has underlined that an employer must provide the best technical solutions available to protect its employees.(3)

Particular attention must be paid to training courses for apprentices, who must be thoroughly informed about the risks connected with their activity. However, the Supreme Court has stated that:

“imparting accurate training and information to employees does not exempt the employer from its duties of protection and vigilance in safeguarding its employees from injury, especially in the case of less-experienced apprentices.”(4)

The recent rulings demonstrate a stricter implementation of safety rules and diverge from previous court decisions that punished employers only if they had violated safety standards imposed by law.(5) Moreover, they establish that safety rules must protect employees even when damage or injury is self-inflicted. This line of decisions appears not to take into account the employee’s liability for a violation of safety measures on his or her own initiative, as provided in the act.(6)

For further information on this topic please contact Andrea Stanchi or Michela Martini at Stanchi Studio Legale by telephone (+39 02 546 9522) or by fax (+39 02 551 91641) or by email (a.stanchi@stanchilaw.it or studio@stanchilaw.it).

Endnotes

(1) Decision 38819, October 14 2008.

(2) Decision 3988, October 23 2008.

(3) Cass IV April 29 1994, Kuster, RV200158; Cass IV April 26 2000, Mantero.

(4) Decision 3988.

(5) Constitutional Court, July 26 1996, 312.

(6) Articles 20 and 59 TU 81, April 9 2008.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Authors

Andrea Nicolò Stanchi

Andrea Nicolò Stanchi

Michela Martini

Michela Martini

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

Today's articles

  • Moral harassment in the workplace: what is Luxembourg's stance? - Luxembourg
  • Election manifestos – what are the main parties pledging on employment issues? - United Kingdom
  • Superior Labour Court rules out simultaneous use of hazard allowance and risk premium - Brazil
  • Constitutionality of 5% interest rate payment rule under Press Labour Law - Turkey
  • Salary insurance for employee illness - Switzerland

More articles

More from this firm

  • How is technology changing employer-employee relationships?
  • National Labour Inspectorate specifies scope of penalties for irregular posting of employees
  • Jobs Act: dismissal for cause
  • Supreme Court defines limits of immunity of foreign states from Italian jurisdiction in employment lawsuits
  • Appeal court deems Foodora riders self-employed with certain workers' rights

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2019 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *