Scaffolding typically used for building works, being temporary structures for high-altitude work, must foresee a well-defined set of precautions in order to prevent falls not only of people but also of things.

The Legislative Decree 81/2008 contains the indications concerning scaffolding for the metal building industry in order to guarantee the safety of those who work there. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, these provisions are not implemented, but these are measures that if adopted would to avoid numerous white deaths. The practices in the decree relate to the assembly of scaffolding but also good standards of use. First, it is forbidden to store materials. The weight of these and of the people present on the scaffolding must always be less than that permitted by the structural resistance of scaffolding. In addition, the tools on the scaffolding during work must not obstruct the walkways and bridges in order to ensure an easy passage. The uprights must exceed 1.20 meters the last deck so that we can assemble devices that guarantee the safety even of those who work up there. All the elements (bridges, walkways, andatas) placed more than 2 meters high must be fitted on all sides of railings. In the event that cantilever bridges are used, their construction must respond to precise calculation procedures and ensure stability and solidity. Decks and service bridges must have all safety bridges at a distance not exceeding 2.50 meters. And gangways must have a width not less than 60 centimeters if they are intended for the passage of persons and 1.20 meters if they provide for the passage of goods.

The construction scaffolds used to carry out maintenance work can often be transformed into dangerous ways of access to housing. This phenomenon occurs mainly in condominiums. But in these cases whose fault is it? Of the company that is carrying out the work, as well as the owner of the scaffolds, or of the condominium, which should verify that whoever carries out the works is following all the good rules of the case?

“Each person is responsible for the damage caused by the things he has in custody, unless he proves the fortuitous case” recites article 2051 of the Civil Code. This means that the custodian of the good should always be considered responsible unless it proves that the event occurred is the result of the fortuitous event, which is an unforeseeable and unforeseen occurrence. The injured, to receive compensation, will have to demonstrate the causal link between what happened, the theft in his apartment, and the thing, that is, the scaffold. The problem, in particular, is to understand who to claim the damage: firm, condominium or both?

The Court of Milan, in a judgment of 2002, stipulates that they must be declared responsible for the theft by the scaffolding both the construction company executing the works and the condominium. The first, if it did not put in place solutions aimed at preventing access to the apartments through the scaffolding, the second, in the person of the administrator, if he had not endowed an adequate system of alarm. Ten years later, the Court of Bari is in line with the previous ruling: “Since it is known that scaffolding and scaffolding constitute, in itself, an easy facilitation for thieves, both the entrepreneur and the condominium are obliged to put In place appropriate forms of protection aimed at avoiding access to condominium apartments, such as, for example, the accommodation of an anti-theft apparatus.” Of course, responsibilities are of a different nature: that of the firm derives from the violation of the prohibition of non-existence, that is to say, not to harm the juridical sphere of others, that of the condo from the violation of the duty of custody.

Even the Court of Cassation over the last 30 years has issued a series of rulings and, according to the prevailing jurisprudence, we could say that in case of theft in the apartment accomplished using the scaffolds placed for the renovation work Of the condominium building, civil liability is set up for the improper damage to others and to the company, which has not endowed the scaffolding with adequate precautions to prevent its anomalous use, both in relation to the condominium for a Twofold title: As caretaker of the building, and therefore in duty to supervise it, and for failing to supervise the work of the contractor (or to have chosen an inadequate). It appears clear and evident that the omitted custody, in terms of lack of supervision of the scaffold, is the element that can determine the attribution of liability in the head of the manufacturer, the condominium or both. As for the tenant who suffers the theft this can never be declared responsible, not being able to consider itself part of the contract of contracts, stipulated with the condominium.

Pulling the ranks of the speech: the Court of Cassation considered that responsibility should be imputed to the contracting undertaking whenever this did not take the appropriate measures to prevent theft, thereby facilitating the Guilty. In turn, the condominium, represented by the figure of the administrator, can be attributed the responsibility of the theft when it does not supervise properly on the building and on the work of the contractor.