Deadly Fall of the Electrician, Acquitted the Employer

One of the employees of a Lazio company in Italy, with the qualification of electrician maintainer, is sent by his employer to install spotlights on a shed’s surface at a height of about 6 meters.

Before starting the task, the electrician carries out an inspection to see the characteristics of the work and, having climbed onto the elevator basket, allows himself to be carried by the mechanical arm up to the roof of the shed, whose frame is covered by thin sheets of asbestos cement.

He wants to figure out where to proceed with the installation, i.e. whether to use only the basket or whether it is necessary to position himself on the roof. Each assignment has elements of risk, moreover it is an electrician specialized in industrial plants, but in this case it will be essential to operate under rather uncomfortable conditions, because the control unit and the cables that he will use the next day are placed in almost inaccessible places.

The next day, the electrician takes the equipment he deems necessary and goes to the shed. He climbs with the elevator on the roof to place the wires but, for completely fortuitous circumstances, after a few minutes the slabs of eternit that cover the roof break through and he falls ruinously to the ground.

From sentencing to acquittal - manslaughter

Before the first instance Court, the electrician's employers had been charged with workplace health and safety crimes for non-compliance with the rules on safety at work. The Court of Appeal of Rome, brought before the civil party, reformed the judgment of the Court of Rieti, seconded section of Poggio Mirteto, condemning the defendants to compensation for damages.

The Defendants are at least unconditionally acquitted by the Court of Cassazione.

The role of the worker is debated

The Defendants, respectively sole administrator of the company under which the electrician works and head of the company's workplace prevention and protection service, are prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor's Office for the crime referred to in Art. 113 and 590 paragraphs 1 and 3 c.p. and the crime referred to in 113 c.p., 70 and 77 lit.b) D.P.R. 164/56.

They are charged with failing to prepare the necessary safety precautions before having the roofing plan of the shed used as a work top by the electrician, causing the worker’s fall and the consequent injuries.

The defendants complain that the cause of the accident is solely due to the negligent, reckless, and abnormal behaviour of the victim.

In particular, they carried out the inspection before entrusting the task to the worker and gave the necessary provisions and laid down the necessary safety measures.

The worker must behave prudently

For the Court of Cassation that reviews the case, the Court of Appeal would have misrepresented the facts inferred in the investigation, by mistakenly considering that the worker should have been climbing on the roof in order to the spotlights being correctly positioned.

The focal point is whether or not there was a need to get on the roof and whether or not the victim had discussed this with the head of the workplace prevention and protection service.

However, witnesses were consistent in stating that the spotlights had to be installed in the front of the shed and that both the power outlet and the cables to whom they should have been connected were present on the front of the shed, easily accessible by the elevator with no need to climb onto the roof to complete the task.

The technician then noted that the forklift basket complied with safety standards in relation to the work to be carried out and that an expert operator was made available by the employer for the basket to be maneuvered.

In addition, it has been proved that the electrician had phoned the owner after carrying out the inspection, exposing him with the work to be done and requesting the necessary equipment. The owner told him to operate only in the less impervious parts of the shed and to postpone the other works.

Therefore, no responsibility can be blamed on the two defendants if the experienced electrician who was entrusted with a job to be carried out safely through a elevator, decides by his own to climb onto the roof and walk on thin slabs of eternit that can not withstand the weight of a man for more than a few seconds.

According to the Court of Cassation, the employer’s supply of suitable safety devices and his supervision on their correct use, must be paired with workers’ cooperation entailing no unpredictable and reckless behavior.

No guilt for defendants

Therefore, considering the absence of guilt of the defendants, the Cassation annulled without delay the judgment of the Court of Appeal and has them acquitted as the fact does not constitute a crime, also annulling all the consequent statutes regarding the compensation of the damage against the civil party.

The change of course in the assessment of the worker's behaviour

The tendency of jurisprudence to consider the employer as the only responsible for the accidents suffered by workers has changed.

At first, the employer's obligation to monitor the conduct of workers in order to eliminate all the risks associated not only with the functionality of safety instruments but also with their correct use was very rigorously assessed.

At present, a major role is acknowledged to the responsibility of the worker, who must shape his conduct in a spirit of cooperation with the employer in the prevention of accidents.

In practice, the worker cannot rely solely on the existence of tools to prevent accidents, but must also be predictable, prudent and diligent.

The Legal Framework Governing Employer Liability for Workplace Accidents in Italy

Italian workplace safety law rests on two interlocking pillars. The first is Article 2087 of the Civil Code, which imposes on every employer a general and permanent duty to adopt, in the exercise of the business, all measures that are necessary — according to the specific nature of the work, technical knowledge, and experience — to safeguard the physical integrity and moral personality of employees.

The second is Legislative Decree No. 81 of 9 April 2008 (the Testo Unico sulla Sicurezza sul Lavoro, hereinafter "D.Lgs. 81/2008"), which translates that general clause into a detailed set of operational obligations.

Under Article 71 of the Decree, the employer is required to provide workers with work equipment that is fit for purpose and compliant with safety standards, to reduce to a minimum the risks connected with the use of such equipment, and to ensure that any machinery requiring specific knowledge or responsibility is entrusted only to workers who have received adequate information, training, and instruction.

Article 77 further requires the employer to select, provide, and maintain Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that is matched to the specific risks identified through the risk assessment, and to verify that PPE is used only for its intended purpose.

Failure to comply with these obligations — whether by omitting to adopt precautionary measures or by failing to supervise their actual observance — exposes the employer to both criminal liability under Articles 589 and 590 of the Penal Code (manslaughter and negligent personal injury with aggravated circumstances), and to civil liability under Article 2087 of the Civil Code, including an INAIL subrogation action for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the injured worker.

When Does the Worker's Own Conduct Exclude Employer Liability? The Doctrine of Comportamento Abnorme

The case discussed in this article raises one of the most debated questions in Italian occupational safety law: can the unilateral and unreasonable conduct of the worker sever the causal link between the employer's alleged omission and the accident, thereby excluding criminal and civil liability altogether?

The answer provided by the Court of Cassation is nuanced.

As a general rule, the employer remains liable even for accidents caused in part by the worker's own imprudence or negligence. The employer's duty to protect the worker's safety encompasses the obligation to anticipate and neutralise the consequences of the worker's careless conduct: accordingly, the mere imprudence of the worker does not suffice to break the causal chain.

Liability is excluded only when the worker's conduct qualifies as abnorme — a technical legal concept that Italian case law has progressively refined. According to the now-consolidated approach of the Supreme Court (Cassazione penale, Section IV), the conduct of a worker is abnormal — and therefore capable of interrupting the causal nexus — when it generates a risk that is eccentric or exorbitant (rischio eccentrico) with respect to the sphere of risk governed by the employer or by the person holding the position of guarantee (posizione di garanzia). The test, as clarified by the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court (Sez. U, n. 38343 of 24 April 2014), is not mere unforeseeability of the worker's behaviour, but whether that behaviour has activated a new and entirely eccentric risk falling outside the risk domain that the employer was called upon to manage.

More precisely, in order for the worker's negligent conduct to qualify as abnormal and so exclude the causal link with the employer's omission, the conduct must be radically and ontologically distant from the foreseeable, even imprudent, choices of a worker in the execution of the assigned task (Cass. pen., Sez. IV, n. 7188 of 10 January 2018; Sez. IV, n. 11599 of 24 March 2025). The conduct must have been entirely autonomous, unconnected to the assigned duties, and outside any predictability on the part of the employer. Where the imprudent act, although reckless, falls within the range of foreseeable deviations inherent in the assigned work, no interruption of the causal chain occurs and the employer remains responsible.

The Rischio Elettivo: When the Worker Becomes the Sole Author of the Harm

Italian law also recognises the related concept of the "rischio elettivo" (elective risk), which triggers the exclusive responsibility of the worker and extinguishes that of the employer entirely. This occurs when the worker acts on the basis of an arbitrary personal choice, unrelated to the employment relationship, deliberately creating a risk situation that is entirely alien to the normal modalities of the work to be performed — in essence, placing himself, through a voluntary and irrational decision, as the sole cause of the injurious event.

The rischio elettivo requires more than mere imprudence: it demands a behaviour that is inopinabile ed esorbitante (unthinkable and excessive) with respect to the work procedure and the instructions received, driven by personal or arbitrary impulses rather than by any legitimate work necessity.

The case of the electrician discussed in this article is a clear illustration of the doctrine in action. The employer had supplied a compliant and safe elevated work platform, had made an expert operator available to manoeuvre it, had conducted a prior inspection of the worksite, had given precise instructions to use the basket only and to avoid the roof, and had expressly told the worker to postpone work in the more inaccessible areas.

All witnesses confirmed that the task could be completed safely from the basket, without any need to climb onto the fragile asbestos-cement roof. By independently deciding — against explicit instructions and all reasonable precautions — to climb onto the roof and walk on eternit panels incapable of bearing a man's weight, the worker activated a wholly new and eccentric risk that the employer could not reasonably have been expected to govern.

This is precisely the scenario in which Italian jurisprudence recognises that employer liability is displaced.

Practical Implications: How Employers Can Protect Themselves

The outcome of the case carries important practical lessons for any employer or safety officer operating in Italy. To successfully invoke the defence of comportamento abnorme or rischio elettivo and secure an acquittal — or avoid civil liability — the employer must be in a position to demonstrate, with concrete and documented evidence, each of the following:

• Adequate risk assessment (valutazione dei rischi) carried out in advance and specific to the task, pursuant to Article 28 of D.Lgs. 81/2008.
• Provision of suitable, compliant work equipment, including certified elevated platforms and PPE, as required by Articles 71 and 77 of D.Lgs. 81/2008.
• Specific, documented instructions given to the worker before the task, clearly delimiting the scope of the permitted work and prohibiting operations outside the assigned brief.
• Supervision of the worker's activity and of compliance with safety measures, since the employer is liable not only when precautionary measures are absent but also when they are in place but not effectively enforced.
• Evidence that the worker's departure from the instructions was radically unforeseeable — not merely imprudent — and generated a risk entirely outside the employer's sphere of governance.

It must also be noted that, following the formal delegation of safety functions (delega antinfortunistica) under Article 16 of D.Lgs. 81/2008, the employer may be relieved of criminal liability for manslaughter — but only if the delegatee genuinely possesses the necessary professional expertise and experience, as the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed (Cass. pen., Sez. IV, n. 8396 of 13 January 2026).

Seek Specialist Legal Advice

Workplace accident cases are among the most complex matters in Italian criminal and employment law. The boundary between employer criminal liability and the exculpatory effect of the worker's abnormal conduct is drawn by the courts on a strictly fact-specific basis.

A marginal difference in the evidence — the presence or absence of a documented instruction, the wording of a risk assessment, the credibility of witness testimony — can be decisive.

Whether you are an employer facing criminal prosecution, a company defending an INAIL subrogation action, or a worker seeking compensation for injuries sustained at work, early and specialist legal assistance is essential.

Our firm advises clients on all aspects of Italian occupational safety law, criminal defence in workplace accident proceedings, and civil liability claims arising from injuries sustained in the course of employment.