RSPP Liability: Limits of the Technical Guarantor Without Delegated Functions

1. The fact

   According to Il Sole 24 Ore and Punti Sicuri, the legal case concerns the death of a worker during truck maintenance. Investigators found that the vehicle safety system had been tampered with to speed up operations and that this dangerous condition had never been reported in the Risk Assessment Document (DVR). In the first instance, the Court acquitted the RSPP, holding that, in the absence of spending powers or a specific delegation of functions, liability should fall exclusively on the business owner. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, convicting the technical consultant of manslaughter. The Court of Cassation subsequently made the conviction final, confirming that the RSPP has a legal obligation to identify risks and propose suitable precautionary measures, regardless of the physical possibility of implementing them. The Supreme Court specified that the accident was caused precisely by the failure to report the dangerous practice, an omission that prevented the employer from taking appropriate countermeasures.

2. The laws at play

   1. Article 33 of Legislative Decree 81/2008: establishes the tasks of the RSPP, who must provide for the identification of risk factors and the drafting of safety procedures.
   2. Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code: governs the so-called equivalence clause, according to which failing to prevent an event that one has a legal obligation to avoid is equivalent to causing it.
   3. Article 589 of the Criminal Code: punishes manslaughter committed in violation of workplace accident prevention regulations.
   4. Article 17 of Legislative Decree 81/2008: establishes the employer's non-delegable obligation to assess risks, assuming that such assessment is supported by the technical opinion of the RSPP.

3. What case law says

   Case law has clarified that the RSPP holds a technical guarantee position that does not require a delegation of functions. While the employer retains decision-making and spending power, the consultant is tasked with providing the knowledge necessary to prevent harmful events. According to established case law, the RSPP is liable alongside the employer if the accident is attributable to an error in risk assessment or the failure to specify operating procedures. Regarding employee behavior, the courts specified that the worker's abnormal conduct interrupts the causal link only if it is entirely eccentric to the assigned duties and unpredictable. If, instead, the imprudence falls within a known or tolerated company practice, the technical guarantor's liability remains, as they have an obligation to report the risk in the safety planning document.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Formalization of findings: every risk identified during site inspections must be formally documented in writing in the DVR or in traceable communications, as silence equates to a criminally relevant omission.
   2. Independence of the consultant: the absence of a delegation of functions does not constitute a shield against criminal liability if professional diligence in reporting obvious dangers is lacking.
   3. Dynamic updating: the DVR is not a static document; it must adapt to the actual evolution of corporate practices, including potentially dangerous ones adopted for productivity reasons.

References: Articolo 33 D.Lgs. 81/2008Articolo 40 Codice PenaleArticolo 589 Codice Penale

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction