{"id":71903,"date":"2026-07-07T12:57:53","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T10:57:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lexia.it\/2026\/07\/07\/managing-partner-employer\/"},"modified":"2026-07-07T15:15:40","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T13:15:40","slug":"managing-partner-employer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lexia.it\/es\/2026\/07\/07\/managing-partner-employer\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cSeveral management and workplace safety: each managing partner is an employer in a simple partnership\u201d: Court of Cassation, Fourth Criminal Division, 25 February 2026, No. 7563"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This article reviews the reasoning through which the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation, Fourth Criminal Division, 25 February 2026, No. 7563) clarified that, in simple partnerships with several management, each managing partner holds a position of guarantee in matters of workplace safety and, therefore, must be classified as an \u201cemployer\u201d within the meaning of Legislative Decree No. 81\/2008. The Court of Cassation also ruled out the applicability to a simple partnership of the management delegation mechanism provided for by Article 2381 of the Civil Code, which applies exclusively to joint-stock companies.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In ruling on the liability of the managing partner of an agricultural company who was responsible for running over one of his employees while transporting hay with a tractor whose warning systems had not been properly activated, the Court of Cassation addressed several legal issues concerning both the criminal liability of managing partners and the liability of the simple partnership under Legislative Decree No. 231\/2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the Court found that the reasoning by which the lower courts, in consistent decisions, convicted all the partner-employers of joint manslaughter was free from logical or argumentative defects, identifying the relevant forms of negligence, recklessness, and lack of due skill as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. in the failure to adopt a traffic plan and vertical and horizontal signage capable of separating pedestrian areas from the transit zones of agricultural vehicles;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. in the inadequate maintenance of the work vehicle, which lacked both a \u201cbeeper\u201d (an acoustic warning device for reversing manoeuvres) and a flashing light, thus breaching Article 71, paragraph 4, letter a), no. 2 of Legislative Decree No. 81\/2008. In addition, the rear window was completely covered by a thick layer of dust;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. in the breach of Articles 20, paragraph 2, letter c), and 73, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 81\/2008, as well as Articles 140 and 141 of Legislative Decree No. 285\/1992, since the driver was not qualified to operate the vehicle and had engaged reverse gear without adequately checking the conditions of the area.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    In response to the defence argument that legal representation of the partnership had been conferred upon the material perpetrator of the homicide also for the purposes of \u201cthe obligations required under employment law<\/em>\u201d (as stated in the company register extract), and that this was sufficient to exclude the liability of the other managing partners, the Court of Cassation held that, in simple partnerships, the \u201cemployer \u2014 and therefore the holder of the position of guarantee connected with the protection of the safety and health of employees \u2014 is each of the partners vested with several management powers<\/em>.\u201d The management delegation mechanism provided for by Article 2381 of the Civil Code therefore cannot apply, since it is expressly designed \u201conly for joint-stock companies, that is, for complex corporate structures<\/em>\u201d and is in any event subject to a specific legal framework, given that the board of directors may transfer its powers to one of its members (or to a committee composed of its members), determining in advance \u201cthe content, limits and any methods for exercising the delegation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In simple partnerships, moreover, a complete segregation between risk and preventive health-and-safety responsibility cannot be envisaged as long as each managing partner retains autonomous powers over the management of the business and the organisation of work. At most, there may be a functional concentration of responsibility in one partner or delegate where the arrangement is genuine, formalised, and accompanied by real decision-making, organisational, and spending powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    On the basis of the lower-court decisions, the Court of Cassation also stressed that the powers conferred on the partner did not specifically relate to workplace safety, a matter for which all partners were required to answer in their capacity as employers, given that management of the partnership belongs to each partner severally unless otherwise agreed (Article 2257 of the Civil Code).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    On the basis of the lower-court decisions, the Court of Cassation also stressed that the powers conferred on the partner did not specifically relate to workplace safety, a matter for which all partners were required to answer in their capacity as employers, given that management of the partnership belongs to each partner severally unless otherwise agreed (Article 2257 of the Civil Code).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Secondly, the Court held the entity liable under Article 25-septies of Legislative Decree No. 231\/2001, identifying its organisational fault in the inadequacy of the organisational model, which should have: a) specifically addressed the relevant risk by adopting appropriate countermeasures, particularly an internal traffic plan; b) adopted measures aimed at preventing the risk of interference between workers on foot and vehicles in transit, through the installation of vertical and horizontal signage, small speed bumps, and restrictions on access for persons not involved in handling the hay; and c) ensured proper information for workers. In line with settled case law, the Court also identified the entity\u2019s advantage in the savings achieved on a range of costs, from those necessary for the physical installation of signage to those relating to employee training and the development of an effective traffic plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ultimately, in the judgment under review, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n