Workplace accidents: an Employee's carelessness does not always rule out the Employer’s liability

The Italian Supreme Court has reiterated that a worker’s careless conduct is not, by itself, enough to rule out the Employer’s liability where the accident is linked to organisational, training or maintenance shortcomings in the company’s safety system.

The case arose from an accident suffered by a worker while operating machinery. Although it emerged that the employee had followed an incorrect cleaning procedure, the courts placed greater weight on the overall company context, which was marked by several critical issues: a Risk Assessment Document that did not adequately address the use of the machinery, deficiencies in machinery maintenance, a lack of specific training and instruction, and the removal of safety devices from the machinery.

According to the Supreme Court, the Employer remains liable where the worker’s conduct, even if careless, was foreseeable and falls within the area of risk that the Employer is required to manage. Accident-prevention rules are also intended to protect workers from the consequences of incorrect conduct that may occur in the course of everyday work.

The decision therefore confirms that the duty of prevention is not discharged merely by formally drawing up company documents, but requires an effective system that is actively monitored and capable of shaping work organisation, operating procedures, the maintenance of equipment and machinery, training and supervision.

For companies, this means the need to adopt a substantive approach to safety: having formally correct procedures in place is not enough; it is also necessary to verify that those procedures are kept up to date, are known to staff, are actually applied, and remain consistent with the risks actually present.

From this perspective, the Organizational Model must also be designed in a way that is consistent with the company’s actual operational reality.

As a result, the task of the Supervisory Body cannot be limited to purely formal checks on the content of the Organizational Model, but must extend to the overall functioning of the system: the procedures adopted, checks on equipment and machinery, schedules for personal protective equipment, the management of contracts, and interaction with the relevant company functions.

In other words, the shift required is to move beyond checks limited to the Organizational Model alone and instead carry out checks on the 231 system as a whole.