Workplace Safety and 231: New Suspects in the Brandizzo Disaster

1. The facts

   On August 30, 2023, shortly before midnight in Brandizzo, an empty passenger train struck five Si.gi.fer workers performing track maintenance. According to the prosecution, the Ivrea Prosecutor's investigation allegedly reconstructed that work began without formal track closure, despite missing authorization from the operations center. With the closure of investigations in 2025 and the request for indictment in May 2026 for 21 individuals, the scope of liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001 has been extended to Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI), CLF, and Si.gi.fer, ahead of the preliminary hearing in late September 2026. The prosecution hypothesizes that the tragedy was not an isolated event, but the result of a consolidated corporate practice aimed at speeding up worksites by reducing train downtime. Investigators are assessing whether such operating methods were known and tolerated by top management to ensure an economic advantage for the company through operational efficiency.

2. 

   The legal framework

   The reference regulatory framework involves both individual and corporate liability:

   1. Art. 437 of the Criminal Code punishes the willful omission of safeguards against workplace accidents, providing severe penalties if a disaster ensues;
   2. Art. 589 of the Criminal Code governs multiple manslaughter, aggravated by the violation of health and safety regulations;
   3. Legislative Decree 231/2001, Art. 25-septies, extends administrative liability to the company for manslaughter crimes committed in the interest or advantage of the entity;
   4. Legislative Decree 81/2008 imposes supervision obligations on employers and principals that cannot be circumvented through purely formal delegations, especially when work organization leads to dangerous derogations.

3. What case law says

   Legitimacy case law has developed the concept of organizational fault, according to which the entity is liable if the crime is an expression of corporate policy or a systemic lack of controls. Established orientations clarify that time-saving and containment of production costs can constitute the advantage required to trigger liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001. It has also been specified that the delegation of functions does not exempt top management from liability if they failed to supervise the adequacy of the Organization and Management Model. A systematic violation of safety procedures, if known or foreseeable, transforms the individual's conduct into an offense attributable to the entire hierarchical structure of the company.

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. The drafting of the 231 Model must include specific protocols for interferences in railway or high-risk sites, with independent audits on their effective application;
   2. Lawyers must pay close attention to the distinction between economic savings and simple executive error in defending the entity;
   3. It is essential to constantly document information flows between supervisors and top management to demonstrate the absence of endorsement of illegal practices;
   4. Safety management requires a risk analysis that includes time pressure as a triggering factor for non-compliant conduct.

References: Articolo 437 Codice PenaleArticolo 589 Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 231/2001D.Lgs. 81/2008Richiesta rinvio a giudizio Procura Ivrea 16.05.2026

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 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