Employer not liable for accident of verbally instructed carer
Whether the worker has received adequate instructions and practical demonstrations for the required care tasks and is capable of performing them
Key points
There are many Italian families that have to resort to caregivers for disabled family members. Even in these domestic work relationships, it is good to remember that the employer is responsible for adequately informing and training the worker on how to perform the tasks, particularly with regard to operations that may involve health and safety risks. However, verbal indications and practical demonstrations provided by the employer to the caregiver, combined with verbal confirmation that he/she is capable of performing these tasks due to previous experience, are sufficient to fulfil the occupational health and safety obligations. This is especially true if the tasks fall within the typical activities of the employee's role. This was clarified by the Labour Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation in Order 29823 of 2025.
The story
A woman worker, employed as a caregiver, had filed an action to obtain compensation for damages suffered as a result of an accident at work. The injury, which caused a back injury, occurred while the worker was lifting a disabled person out of bed to transfer her to a wheelchair. The worker claimed that she was hired to providecare for two elderly persons and that she did not receive adequate instructions or tools to perform the tasks safely, which according to her version caused the accident and injuries. In addition, she pointed out that entrusting a seriously ill person to a worker unaccustomed to such tasks was inappropriate.
The employer contested the claim, stating that it had provided verbal and practical instructions on how to provide the necessary assistance and presenting supporting evidence. The Court of Appeal therefore rejected the employee's appeal, finding that the employer had complied with the prevention rules, having informed and trained the employee, who in turn had stated that she was capable of performing the required and typical tasks of the specific job, due to previous experience, including the lifting manoeuvre.
The employee then appealed to the Court of Cassation, claiming a violation of Articles 2087, C.C. and 115 C.p.C., as well as a failure to state reasons by the Court of Appeal. However, the Labour Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, holding that there wereno flaws in the reasoning or violations of the rules and that the employer had acted diligently to prevent the damage.
The evidence
The Court based its decision on the evidence presented, finding that the employer had fulfilled its obligations of information and prevention, in particular:
