Criminal Court of Cassation, Section IV, 6 May 2024 (hearing 14 March 2024), n. 17679
President Di Salvo, Speaker Mari
We inform readers regarding the application of the legislation for the prevention of accidents at work – and, in particular, regarding the possible comparison between a contestant on a television show it’s a worker – the ruling of the Court of Cassation on theaccident occurred during the filming of the broadcast “Hi Darwin“.
In order to outline the notion of “workplace” – we read in the sentence – “it is necessary to refer to a functional and relational criterionon the basis of which an environment in which work is carried out must be classified as working and therefore a risk associated with carrying out business activities; criterion from which it follows that the employer, within the aforementioned environment, has the obligation to guarantee the safety of the place towards all the subjects who happen to be present there“.
The “preventive” provisions – continues the Court – “are to be considered issued in everyone’s interesteven of the outside the employment relationship, occasionally present in the same working environment, regardless, therefore, of a direct dependence relationship with the owner of the company; consequent that, in the case of injuries and manslaughter, for the hypothesis of the act committed in violation of the rules aimed at preventing accidents at work to be recognized, it is necessary and sufficient that there is a causal link between such violation and the harmful event“.
Having said this, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the Court – which had held that the accident in question had not occurred within a working environment – “he did one correct application of the aforementioned principles“.
The judge of first instance has, in fact, “excluding that the environment in which the accident occurred could be classified as a “workplace” on the basis of the factual element represented by recreational destination of the structureas it is aimed exclusively at tests to be carried out by competitors in a television programme and confidential exclusively for use by them and not by workers present within the structure“.
It follows – continues the ruling of the Court of Cassation – “that the trial judge has correctly concluded that the risk associated with the use of the aforementioned structure was not an expression of an occupational riskas not related to business activity and not being, in fact, the same placed in one space definable as intended for work activities; being, in turn, the aforementioned structure aimed not at carrying out the work activity itself but at a playful activity detached from itself and materializing a risk – namely that of falling – to be considered inherent and consequential with respect to its use“.
In conclusion, “the Court correctly assessed the remission of the complaint as suitable for determining the extinction of the crime – subject to the exclusion of the contested special aggravating circumstance“.
