A court in Padua has ruled that an accident that occurred in an employee's home while performing work duties remotely qualifies as a workplace accident. This decision contradicts a previous ruling by the Italian INAIL, which refused to pay compensation. The employee suffered an injury by twisting an ankle after tripping over a headphone cable during a video conference. The judge stated that performing professional duties at home transfers occupational risk to the workplace, even if it is not controlled by the employer. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for thousands of remote workers in Italy.
Precedent-setting court decision
The Court of Appeal in Padua recognized an injury during remote work as a workplace accident, opening the path to compensation and setting an important legal precedent. The decision contradicts the previous position of the INAIL institute.
Causes and circumstances of the accident
The employee, a woman, had an accident in her home while attending a work-related video conference. She tripped over a headphone cable, suffering a sprained ankle, which prevented her from working.
New interpretation of occupational risk
The judge ruled that occupational risk transfers to the place where remote work is performed, regardless of the employer's control over that location. The key factor is whether the event was related to the duties performed.
Potential impact on the labor market
The ruling could change the rules of employer liability and insurance principles for millions of remote workers. It also raises questions about the necessity of risk assessment in the home work environment.
The Italian judiciary has made a significant point in the debate on remote workers' rights. The Court of Appeal in Padua ruled that an injury sustained by a female employee in her own home while performing work duties should be treated as a workplace accident. Consequently, it granted her the right to compensation from the state-run INAIL, which had previously refused to pay the benefit. The details of the case are symptomatic of the hybrid work era. The employee was participating in a work-related video conference when she tripped over a headphone cable, fell, and suffered a sprained ankle. The injury was serious enough to prevent her from continuing to work. In the justification of the ruling, the judge emphasized that the key element is not the physical location or the employer's control over the place of work, but its connection to professional duties. "Occupational risk transfers to the place where work is actually performed," the court stated. This position radically changes the previous interpretation, under which workplace accidents were mainly recognized as events occurring at the company's premises or during business travel. This decision aligns with a trend observed in other European countries, where the concept of the "workplace" is being expanded in the context of telework. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the mass transition to remote work, posing new challenges for legislators and courts regarding safety and liability. Previous regulations, including Italian ones, often failed to keep up with this change, treating remote work as a form of flexibility without full consequences in terms of accident protection.Italian labor law experts indicate that the Padua ruling could have far-reaching consequences. Currently, hundreds of thousands of people in Italy work permanently in remote or hybrid mode. The judicial classification of domestic accidents as occupational ones could lead to an increase in claims against INAIL and impose new obligations on employers, for example related to risk assessment in the employee's home work environment. Opponents of such interpretation argue that it may discourage companies from offering flexible forms of employment and shift responsibility for events completely beyond their control. The next stage will be a possible appeal by INAIL, but the current ruling already sets a strong precedent for similar cases. prawda: The court in Padua indeed recognized an accident during a video conference as a workplace accident, challenging INAIL's decision. This information is confirmed by all sources. (Orzeczenie Sądu Apelacyjnego w Padwie)
Perspektywy mediów: Liberal media and legal journals emphasize the progressive nature of the ruling, seeing it as a necessary adaptation of the law to the realities of the modern labor market and a strengthening of worker protection. Critics from conservative and business circles may express concerns about excessive burdens and costs imposed on companies, which could limit employment flexibility.