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

8 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the limits according to the Italian Data Protection Authority

The Italian Data Protection Authority (i.e. “Garante per la protezione dei dati personali”) has once again provided guidance on how employers should manage corporate email accounts after the…

8 Apr 2026

Oral dismissal: the burden of proof on the employee

With order no. 4077 of 23 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of oral dismissal, holding that an employee challenging the termination of the employment…

8 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… incompatibility between colleagues may justify the transfer of an employee? 

The Italian Supreme Court, with order no. 4198 of 25 February 2026, held that an employee’s transfer may be lawfully implemented also in the presence of a situation…

7 Apr 2026

The boundary between rest and inactivity in the management of working hours (AIDP – HR Online, 7 April 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Alesia Hima)

In the organizational language of companies, terms such as “breaks,” “waiting times,” or “downtime” are often used. In operational practice, these expressions tend to be treated almost as…

17 Mar 2026

Equal pay: green light for the decree on pay equality and wage transparency (People are People, 16 March 2026 – Claudia Cerbone, Martina De Angeli)

Claudia Cerbone and Martina De Angeli, professionals at the De Luca & Partners firm, author this article dedicated to the draft legislative decree approved last February 5 by…

10 Mar 2026

The transfer of the employee is lawful when there is incompatibility with the company environment (Camera di Commercio Italo-Francese, 10 March 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 4198 of 25 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) – Labour Section – reaffirmed that a situation of environmental incompatibility may justify…