Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 Jan 2017

As part of a contract, the burden of proof regarding safety in the workplace must be borne by the customer

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 798 dated 13 January 2017, stated that the customer, whenever the work environment remains available to the latter, shall take all appropriate measures to protect the well-being and health of workers, including the contractor’s employees. In particular, according to the Court, these measures consist in (i) providing workers with adequate information about hazards; (Ii) preparing the necessary actions to ensure the safety of plants and (iii) cooperating with the contractor in introducing protection devices and preventing the hazards associated with the workplace and the contracted activity, especially if characterized by the use of hazardous machinery. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, in the case of accidents in the workplace, the responsibility must be borne by the injured worker if the accident occurred due to an irregular behaviour, considered undisputable and excessive with respect to the work procedure and the instructions received, so as to be considered as the sole cause of the event. In the absence of such behaviour by the worker, the extent to which his/her possible negligent behaviour contributed to the event is irrelevant both under the causal point of view and as regards the compensation amount. Essentially, any imprudence, negligence or inexperience of the workers is unsuitable to exclude the causal link with the negligent conduct of the customer if it failed to take all the preventive measures necessary to carry out the work required by the actual working conditions.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…