In the event of an accident at work within the scope of a service contract, where the work is carried out on the principal’s premises, the latter must demonstrate not only that they have fulfilled their obligations under safety regulations but also that they have not interfered in any way with the performance of the contract to exclude their liability. In its ruling no. 25113 of September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that the principal, to be relieved of any liability for an accident involving an employee of the contractor that occurred while carrying out work at its premises, must demonstrate not only that they have fulfilled their obligations under workplace safety regulations but also that there was no interference between their own activities and those of the contractor. The case originated from a claim brought by an employee of a company performing maintenance work on machinery belonging to the principal within the latter’s premises. Following a serious workplace accident, the employee initiated legal proceedings against both companies, seeking compensation for damages suffered as a result of the accident. The Venice Court of Appeal rejected the claim against the principal, finding that the so-called interference risk was absent in this case. The Supreme Court, which heard the case, clarified, in line with the most recent case law, that the principal “who entrusts work, services, or supplies to a contractor within its own company,” at its premises, is obliged to comply with the obligations imposed by Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2008 and that, in the event of non-compliance, it is liable for accidents involving the employees of the contractor. The principal’s liability is therefore no longer exclusively confined to cases of the principal’s actual interference in the organisation of the work of the contractor, but automatically derives from the failure to comply with specific obligations of cooperation, coordination, and information imposed by Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2008 and aimed at managing interference risks arising when employees from multiple companies are present at the same workplace. The ruling under consideration today consolidates a guarantee-based interpretation of the principal’s liability, which, overcoming the restrictive approach based on actual interference, enhances the principal’s position of guarantee, who must, in any case, ensure the safety of workers operating within their premises. In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the decision taken by the judges of merit and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal with a different composition.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
