Death At Work During Work At Height: Liability, Compensation And Protection For Families

Work at height is currently considered one of the most dangerous types of work, despite advances in materials and equipment provided to workers. Why do the dangers still show no sign of decreasing?

Accidents during work at height are not all the same: falls from roofs, facades, scaffolding or aerial platforms, and collapses of cranes and temporary structures all have different dynamics, but they all fall within the same extremely high-risk category.

What is meant by work at height

Work at height means all work activities that expose the worker to the risk of falling from a height of more than 2 metres above a stable surface.

This definition, taken from the Consolidated Law on Health and Safety at Work (Legislative Decree 81/2008), also includes access to and exit from such workplaces.

Work at height concerns many different contexts, especially in construction, maintenance and industry:

• Roofs and coverings. Repair, maintenance, installation of solar panels or gutter cleaning.
• Facades and vertical walls. Painting, window cleaning, installation of thermal insulation systems or signs.
• Scaffolding and mobile scaffold towers. Assembly, dismantling or use of temporary structures for working at height.
• Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs/aerial platforms). Use of telescopic or articulated booms to reach significant heights.
• Cranes. Load lifting operations that require the worker to be positioned in elevated areas.

Workplace accidents during work at height, including the collapse of scaffolding, aerial platforms (MEWPs) and cranes, or falls from them, are among the leading causes of fatal injuries on construction sites.

More than 71% of fatal falls occur in small businesses, often due to structural failures, lack of safety procedures or absence of suitable PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

INAIL data on fatal accidents during work at height

In 2025, INAIL recorded 1,093 reports of fatal workplace accidents (+0.3% compared with 2024), with 792 occurring at the workplace; falls from height remain among the main causes in the construction sector.

In the first two months of 2026, there were 70 fatal reports involving accidents during work, down 27.8% compared with 2025, but the data are provisional.

According to the Infor.MO analysis of falls from height, more than 71% of the cases examined involved companies with up to 9 employees.

The 3 pillars of safety during work at height (Legislative Decree 81/2008)

Given the danger involved, to carry out work at height the employer must follow a hierarchy of preventive measures laid down by Legislative Decree 81/2008:

1. Avoid work at height, where possible.
2. Use Collective Protective Equipment (CPE): guardrails, safety nets, scaffolding (solutions that protect more than one worker).
3. Use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): harnesses, lanyards, energy absorbers, lifelines (to be used where collective protection cannot be installed).

Risks and preventive measures

The main risks associated with work at height are:

• Fall from height. Caused by overturning or failure to connect the safety harness. This is the prevailing risk and is often due to lack of guardrails, incorrect use of ladders or unstable surfaces.
• Overturning of the aerial platform basket. Often caused by positioning on unstable or uneven ground, failure to use stabilisers, overloading, sudden manoeuvres or adverse weather conditions.
• Breakage/failure of the crane boom. Usually resulting from structural defects, inadequate maintenance, improper use or exceeding load limits.
• Falling materials/objects. Tools or materials falling from above onto people below.
• Breaking through fragile surfaces. Failure of skylights, fibre cement panels or deteriorated roofs.
• Pendulum effect. The worker, attached to a lifeline, swings after the fall, striking obstacles or the wall.
• Suspension trauma (harness suspension syndrome). A dangerous condition in which the worker remains suspended in the harness after a fall, risking serious circulatory problems if not rescued quickly.
• Risks linked to PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). Use without proper preparation can make movement more difficult while protective equipment is being used. The same applies when anchoring errors are made or unsuitable PPE is used.
• Environmental factors. Adverse weather conditions (strong wind, rain, ice or extreme heat) can put grip and stability at risk during work.
• Electrical risks. Accidental contact with overhead power lines.
• Absence or defect of safety devices. Failure of moment/load limiters or tampering with them to speed up work, absence of mechanical stops, failure to use PPE (harnesses) or aerial platform doors not properly closed.

To prevent these risks, the following are mandatory:

• Specific training: adequate information, training and instruction are required in relation to the risks, the equipment used, fall arrest PPE and, where required, specific authorisations.
• Health surveillance: verification of the worker’s physical fitness.
• Safety procedures: use of compliant equipment, inspection of lifelines, correct assembly of scaffolding.
• Suspension of work: if conditions are adverse and until it has been verified that the requirements for working safely are in place.

Accidents during work at height and collapse of cranes, scaffolding and platforms – In summary

• Work at height (above 2 metres) is among the main causes of fatal accidents on construction sites.
• Collapses of cranes, scaffolding, MEWPs and falls from height are particularly frequent in small businesses.
• Many accidents result from absence of PPE, unstable surfaces, lack of maintenance and adverse weather conditions.
• Prevention requires specific training, health surveillance, compliant equipment and suspension of work in dangerous situations.

Who is liable in the event of a fatal accident during work at height

When a tragedy occurs during work at height in Italy today, criminal and civil liability primarily falls on the employer, who has the legal obligation to ensure the safety and physical integrity of employees.

The responsible parties may include:

• Employer. The main guarantor of safety.
• Managers and supervisors. Responsible on the basis of the principle of effectiveness.
• RSPP (Head of the Prevention and Protection Service). This person may be liable, including criminally, only where their technical contribution is causally relevant, for example due to failure to identify a risk or a seriously inadequate assessment.
• Client (the person commissioning the works). Has specific duties of selection and control to avoid “culpa in eligendo” (wrong choice) or “culpa in vigilando” (lack of supervision).
• Owner of the equipment involved (for example a crane or mobile bridge). Liability may arise for the party that supplied the equipment if a defect, lack of maintenance or non-compliance of the equipment played a causal role in the accident.

Employer’s liability

The employer must be the reference figure for safety during work at height; their liability does not concern only what they do, but above all what they fail to prevent.

They are liable for the accident both if they fail to adopt the necessary protective measures and if, despite adopting them, they do not supervise compliance with them.

When a tragedy occurs, the employer may be liable on three fronts:

1. Criminal liability (personal). The employer is personally liable for the offences of manslaughter (Article 589 of the Criminal Code) or serious negligent injury (Article 590 of the Criminal Code), aggravated by the breach of accident prevention rules.

Fault may arise from negligence, imprudence or lack of skill, but above all from failure to comply with laws and regulations (Legislative Decree 81/2008).

If the tragedy is caused by failure to carry out a risk assessment (DVR) or failure to appoint the Head of the Prevention and Protection Service (RSPP), liability falls entirely on the employer, because these tasks cannot be transferred or delegated to third parties.

• Civil liability (financial). The employer must fully compensate the damage suffered by the worker or the worker’s heirs.
• Differential damage: INAIL pays a standard indemnity, while the employer must personally cover (or cover through private insurance) the difference for moral, biological and professional damage not reimbursed by the public body.
• Recovery action: if INAIL establishes that the accident occurred due to the employer’s fault, it may ask the employer to repay all sums paid to the victim.
• Administrative liability of the company (Legislative Decree 231/01). In addition to the natural person, the company may also be held liable under Legislative Decree 231/2001. If the manslaughter occurred as a result of cost savings or faster production times (advantage for the company), the company may face:
• Financial penalties – substantial.
• Disqualifying sanctions – suspension of business activity or exclusion from public funding.

When the employer is NOT liable

Liability ceases only if the event is caused by an elective risk or by abnormal conduct on the part of the worker: an entirely unforeseeable, illogical action outside any procedure, which the employer could not have foreseen or prevented through ordinary supervision.

Liability of managers and supervisors

Managers and supervisors are responsible, within the limits of their powers and duties, on the basis of the principle of effectiveness: it is not only the title on paper that matters, but what they actually do every day in the company.

Their liability is operational and supervisory in nature.

It may be shown that they failed to supervise the correct application of safety procedures and failed to intervene when faced with risky conduct.

The supervisor, in particular, must intervene directly and cannot simply “see and remain silent”.

This is how liability is divided between these two figures:

The Manager → Organisational liability. The manager is the person who implements the employer’s organisational instructions. The manager is liable for the tragedy if it is caused by poor management of equipment or personnel.

The manager is liable if they did not provide protective equipment (PPE), allowed the use of machinery that was not compliant, or, when organising shifts, failed to ensure the necessary rest.

Their fault arises when the accident occurs because the general safety instructions written in the DVR (Risk Assessment Document) were not turned into practical and safe orders.

The Supervisor → Supervisory liability. The supervisor (site manager, department head) is the person responsible for operational supervision. Their liability is linked to the immediate control of workers.

They are liable for the accident if they turn a blind eye even though the breaches are obvious. For example, if a worker dies because they were not wearing a harness and the supervisor was present and did not intervene to stop the work, the fault lies with the supervisor.

If the supervisor identifies a serious danger, they have the duty and the power to stop the activities (duty to interrupt). If they fail to do so, they are criminally liable.

Types of liability (criminal and civil)

• Criminal: both may be liable for manslaughter or negligent injury if the tragedy is the direct consequence of their omission (failure to supervise or failure to apply procedures).
• Civil: as a rule, compensation for damages to surviving family members is borne by the employer or the company, but the company may seek recourse against the manager or supervisor if the accident occurred as a result of their very serious and specific breach.

While the employer is responsible for the strategy (risk assessment), the manager is responsible for the organisation (providing the means) and the supervisor is responsible for the execution (checking that the means are used).

Liability of the RSPP (Head of the Prevention and Protection Service)

The RSPP (Head of the Prevention and Protection Service) is a technical consultant: unlike the employer, manager or supervisor, they have no decision-making or spending powers.

This does not exempt the RSPP from all responsibility in the event of an accident:

1. Criminal liability for “professional negligence” → the RSPP is criminally liable (for manslaughter or negligent injury) if the tragedy was caused by their technical error or failure in risk assessment:
   • Error in the DVR: if the accident occurs because the RSPP suggested incorrect safety measures or, worse, failed to identify a risk in the Risk Assessment Document (DVR).
   • Failure to report: if the RSPP was aware of a danger (for example machinery without guards) and failed to report it in writing to the employer.
2. Liability in “negligent cooperation” → in the event of criminal proceedings, the RSPP may stand trial together with the employer. Case law establishes that if the accident is the result of a superficial risk assessment, both are liable:
   • The employer for failing to ensure safety (management fault).
   • The RSPP for providing inadequate technical support (professional fault).
3. Civil liability → the RSPP is not directly liable for financial damage towards the worker (which falls on the company). However, the company may seek recourse if it is ordered to pay damages, by suing the RSPP (especially if they are an external consultant) to recover the sums paid, proving that the error was caused by their professional negligence.

When the RSPP is excluded from liability

The RSPP is not liable if:

1. They correctly identified the risk in the DVR.
2. They suggested appropriate protective measures.
3. They promptly informed the employer of the need to intervene.

In this case, if the employer decides not to spend the necessary money or to ignore the advice, liability falls exclusively on the employer.

Client’s liability

Even if the client commissioning the works where the accident occurred is a private individual renovating their own apartment, a specific position of guarantee remains with them and they may be held criminally and civilly liable in the event of a workplace tragedy.

The law does not require the owner of the property on which the works are carried out to be a safety expert, but it imposes specific obligations of selection and control to avoid so-called “culpa in eligendo” (wrong choice) or “culpa in vigilando” (lack of supervision).

The liability of the private client mainly arises in three cases:

• Choosing an unsuitable company: the owner must verify the technical and professional suitability of those entering the property. If the owner entrusts the work to a “ghost” company, an undeclared worker or a tradesperson who is clearly without safety equipment, they are liable for any injury.
• Failure to appoint coordinators: if two or more companies operate on the site (even not at the same time, for example an electrician and a bricklayer), the owner is required to appoint the Safety Coordinator (CSP and CSE). If they fail to do so and an accident occurs, a serious risk of joint liability may arise, to be assessed case by case.
• Interference in the works: if the owner gives direct orders on how to carry out dangerous phases of the work, bypassing safety procedures, they assume the role of “de facto employer” and share full criminal liability.

Article 90 of Legislative Decree 81/2008 distinguishes the different situations and, for sites under 200 man-days without particular risks, provides simplified verification methods through registration with the Chamber of Commerce, DURC and self-certification of the other requirements.

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 3715/2025, confirmed criminal liability for private individuals who fail to verify the suitability of the contractor (Article 90 of Legislative Decree 81/2008).

How can a private individual protect themselves?

To avoid being involved in criminal proceedings (such as manslaughter) or substantial compensation claims, the owner should:

• Appoint a person responsible for the works: a technician (architect, surveyor or engineer) to whom all safety obligations are delegated in writing → recommended.
• Verify the documents of the company entrusted with the works: request the certificate of registration with the Chamber of Commerce, the DURC (social security compliance certificate) and the company’s DVR (Risk Assessment Document) → mandatory.
• Check the “Digital Credit Licence”: it is essential to make sure that the company has the necessary credits to operate on construction sites → highly recommended.

Warning: The Court of Cassation (Criminal Section IV, judgment no. 3715/2025) reiterated that even a private client may be criminally liable if they fail to verify the technical and professional suitability of the contractor.

Liability of the owner, rental company or party granting use of the equipment involved

In the event of a fatal accident caused by a crane, an elevating platform, a mobile scaffold or other work equipment, liability may also arise for the party that supplied the equipment used on the construction site.

However, liability must not be automatically attributed to the mere formal owner of the equipment. It is necessary to distinguish, case by case, between:

• the owner of the equipment;
• the rental company;
• the party granting use of the equipment;
• the employer of the operator assigned to operate it;
• the company that actually uses the equipment on the construction site.

Legislative Decree 81/2008 prohibits the sale, rental and granting for use of equipment that does not comply with health and safety at work rules. In addition, anyone who rents or grants work equipment for use without an operator must certify, at the time of delivery, the good state of preservation, maintenance and efficiency of the equipment for safety purposes.

As a result, the rental company or the party granting use may be held liable if the accident results from a defect in the equipment, poor maintenance, omitted inspections or non-compliance already existing at the time of delivery.

The situation is different where the equipment is supplied with an operator, the so-called “wet hire”. In this case, in addition to the technical compliance of the equipment, the conduct of the operator may also be relevant, with possible liability of the operator’s employer if the event is connected to manoeuvring errors, training deficiencies, lack of authorisation or breach of safety procedures.

By contrast, the owner, rental company or party granting use may be excluded from liability if they prove that the equipment was compliant, properly maintained and safe at the time of delivery, and that the accident was caused by improper use, subsequent tampering or breaches attributable exclusively to the user.

Key points of liability today

• Providing equipment is not enough: the employer remains liable even if they provide safety equipment but do not check that workers use it.
• Worker’s fault: the imprudent conduct of the worker almost never exempts the employer from liability, unless the conduct is defined as “abnormal, unforeseeable and exorbitant” in relation to the assigned duties.
• Company liability: in addition to natural persons, the company itself (limited liability company, joint stock company) may be ordered to pay substantial financial penalties (Legislative Decree 231/01).
• Contracts and subcontracting: in the case of contracts, liability may also extend to the client if safety coordination is lacking or if the client has not verified the suitability of the company.
• Criminal consequences: Article 589 of the Criminal Code, in its current wording for breach of accident prevention rules, provides for imprisonment from 2 to 7 years; in the event of the death of several people, or death and multiple injuries, the sentence may increase up to a maximum of 15 years.
• Civil consequences: INAIL covers only certain indemnity benefits. If liability emerges for breach of safety rules, family members may take action to obtain compensation for further damage, including damage for loss of the family relationship, financial damage, differential damage and, where the conditions are met, terminal biological damage or catastrophic damage.

Deaths during work at height and foreign workers

In 2026, the issue of deaths during work at height particularly concerns foreign workers, who are often employed on construction sites and in the heaviest and riskiest external maintenance jobs.

The combination of language barriers, precarious contracts, poor effective training and difficulty in asserting their rights makes this category of workers more exposed to falls from height, scaffold collapses and accidents involving cranes or aerial platforms.

In many cases, mandatory training exists only on paper, with courses delivered in technical Italian that is not understandable or materials that are not translated, meaning that fundamental instructions on PPE, lifelines, anchor points and emergency procedures are not truly internalised.

Pressure “not to complain” in order not to lose their job also leads some foreign workers to accept going onto incomplete scaffolding, fragile roofs or overloaded MEWPs, even in clearly unsafe conditions.

From a legal point of view, however, the employer remains fully responsible: it is not enough to have a training form signed. The employer must prove that the information was actually understood, including through courses in the worker’s language, the use of images and practical supervision, and that in practice the same protection provided for Italian workers was guaranteed.

In the event of the death during work at height of a foreign worker, the family members, often resident abroad, have the same rights to INAIL benefits and differential compensation, but the cross-border complexity of the procedures makes the assistance of an international law firm even more important.

Compensation for family members in the event of death during work at height

When a worker dies as a result of an accident during work at height, family members may be entitled both to the benefits recognised by INAIL and, in cases where liability for breach of safety rules emerges, to additional civil compensation.

INAIL benefits represent public insurance protection, but they do not necessarily exhaust all the family’s rights. If the accident was caused, even only in part, by deficiencies in prevention, training, supervision, maintenance of equipment or organisation of the construction site, family members may take action against the responsible parties to obtain compensation for damage not fully covered by the INAIL indemnity.

INAIL benefits for surviving family members

In the event of death at work, eligible family members may access the benefits provided by INAIL, including, depending on the specific case:

• survivor’s pension;
• funeral allowance;
• any further benefits provided by the applicable legislation.

These sums are indemnity-based and follow the criteria of compulsory insurance against workplace accidents. For this reason, they do not always correspond to the full damage suffered by the family.

Additional compensation and differential damage

When the fatal accident is linked to the liability of the employer or other parties involved, family members may claim so-called differential damage.

Differential damage is the part of the compensation that remains due when the civilly compensable damage exceeds what has already been recognised by INAIL for the same heads of damage. In practice, it is intended to prevent the family from receiving only the public insurance indemnity when, under the rules of civil liability, they would be entitled to broader compensation.

Depending on the circumstances, the assessment may include:

• non-pecuniary damage for loss of the family relationship;
• financial damage for loss of the victim’s economic contribution;
• financial damage linked to funeral expenses, care costs or further documented economic consequences;
• terminal biological damage, if the worker survived for an appreciable period of time before death;
• catastrophic damage, if it can be proven that the victim consciously perceived the imminence of death.

Damage for loss of the family relationship

Damage for loss of the family relationship is one of the most significant heads of damage in cases of death at work. It concerns the suffering and disruption of family life caused by the loss of a spouse, parent, child, sibling or another family member effectively and significantly connected to the victim.

However, it should not be automatically added to a separate “moral damage” item listed separately, because damage for loss of the family relationship is already a form of non-pecuniary damage that also takes account of the inner suffering resulting from the loss.

The assessment is carried out case by case, taking into consideration elements such as:

• degree of kinship;
• cohabitation with the victim;
• age of the victim and of the surviving family members;
• intensity of the family bond;
• composition of the family unit;
• any financial or care-related dependency;
• concrete consequences on the daily life of the family members.

For this reason, it is preferable to avoid fixed amounts or promises of predetermined compensation. The tables used by the courts provide guiding criteria, but the actual amount always depends on proof of the family relationship and the circumstances of the specific case.

Financial damage suffered by family members

In addition to non-pecuniary damage, family members may also suffer economic damage.

This occurs, for example, when the victim contributed to the maintenance of a spouse, children or other family members. In these cases, compensation may be claimed for the loss of the income contribution that the worker would presumably have provided over time.

The assessment takes account of income, age, career prospects, number of dependent family members, foreseeable duration of the economic contribution and sums already recognised by INAIL.

What family members must do immediately

After a death during work at height, it is important to act promptly, because the first few hours may be decisive in reconstructing the dynamics of the accident.

Family members should:

1. check that the INAIL report has been opened;
2. appoint a lawyer before non-repeatable investigations, where possible;
3. consider appointing their own technical consultants;
4. collect documents, photographs, witness statements and information about the construction site;
5. request the DVR, POS, PSC, DURC, documentation on the credit licence, training certificates and equipment maintenance records;
6. avoid signing receipts, settlements or insurance offers without legal assessment.

Timely legal assistance makes it possible to follow the criminal proceedings, assess whether to join the proceedings as a civil party and correctly quantify all compensable heads of damage.

Expected payment times for family members:

• out-of-court settlement: 12-18 months;
• civil proceedings: 4-7 years.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.