Is Criminal Liability Still Personal?
A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation questions one of the fundamental principles of criminal law: to what extent can a person be held liable for the consequences of their conduct?
Is Personal Criminal Liability Truly an Absolute Principle?
Article 27 of the Italian Constitution establishes a cornerstone principle of the rule of law:
Criminal liability is personal
This means that each individual can be held accountable exclusively for consequences directly attributable to their own conduct.
But is this principle still so clear-cut?
According to a recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, the answer may be less straightforward than traditionally taught in law faculties.
The Classic Case Taught in Criminal Law Textbooks
To understand the issue, one must start with one of the most famous examples in Italian criminal law doctrine, reported in the textbook by Giovanni Fiandaca and Enzo Musco.
The case is simple:
John injures Richard.
Richard is admitted to the hospital.
During his hospital stay, a fire breaks out and Richard dies.
According to the traditional theory of the causal link, John is liable for the injuries, but not for murder/manslaughter.
Why?
Because the death was not directly caused by his conduct, but rather by a subsequent autonomous cause.
Article 41 of the Italian Penal Code establishes that intervening causes sufficient in themselves to produce the event sever the causal relationship.
Consequently, John will be held liable for personal injuries, but not for the death.
The Principle of Causal Relationship
Article 41 of the Penal Code establishes that:
Intervening causes, sufficient in themselves to determine the event, sever the causal link.
In other words, if a new and exceptional event becomes the true cause of the final result, the author of the initial conduct cannot be held liable for that result.
For decades, this principle represented one of the pillars of criminal liability.
The Ruling of the Court of Cassation Changes Perspective
With ruling No. 3594 of January 28, 2026, the Fourth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation addresses a very different case:
A pedestrian is struck by a vehicle.
After hospitalization, he is discharged.
In the following months, he undergoes several rehabilitation programs.
During one of his hospital stays, he contracts a hospital-acquired infection that leads to his death.
The time elapsed between the accident and his death is approximately eight months.
Despite the long time interval and the nosocomial infection, the Court of Cassation confirms the driver’s liability for vehicular homicide (omicidio stradale).
The Principle Affirmed by the Supreme Court
According to the Court, hospital infections represent an unfortunately frequent complication.
They do not, therefore, constitute an event that is:
Precisely because they are statistically known and possible in the normal clinical course, they do not automatically sever the causal link between the initial conduct and the final event.
This is a principle destined to spark debate in doctrine and jurisprudence.
Criminological Implications
From a criminological point of view, this decision raises questions that go beyond the individual case:
What is the limit of individual liability?
When can a subsequent event truly be considered autonomous?
How should medical complications be evaluated in criminal proceedings?
The reflection concerns not only substantive criminal law, but also the relationship between forensic medicine, scientific causality, and the determination of liability.
The Point of View of Professor and Attorney Marco Baroncini
According to Professor and Attorney Marco Baroncini, the constitutional principle of personal criminal liability represents one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
The recent ruling by the Cassation Court thus poses a question destined to fuel debate among jurists, magistrates, and scholars:
Can criminal liability, even if arising in a hospital context, still be considered personal?
This is a question that deserves thorough scientific reflection, especially in light of the evolution of Italian jurisprudence.
Conclusion
Criminal law is an ever-evolving field.
Every new decision of the Court of Cassation contributes to redefining the interpretation of constitutional principles, requiring scholars to constantly update their knowledge.
Ruling No. 3594/2026 represents one of the most interesting examples of recent years on the topic of causal link and criminal liability, destined to impact doctrinal and jurisprudential debate.
