behaviour” (see Cass. pen. 4 July 1984, in Riv. pen., 1984, 740). The ruling is reasonable, as the worker not only used a bottle placed outside the normal storing place, but also failed to read the label. This situation can arise in businesses of this kind; the risk is unusual, but not implausible. Moreover, “personal protective equipment, which the employer must provide for his employees, present in the kitchen of a restaurant, include shoes with non - slip soles, in relation to specific risks inherent in the work” (see Cass. pen. 4 July 1984, in Riv. pen., 1984, 740). Generally speaking, “the restaurateur has the obligation to safeguard the physical safety of diners who entrust their person to him, as the agreement not only covers the serving of food and beverages, but also hospitality. Hence, he is not liable for a hot pizza falling on a diner’s leg due to the waitress being knocked by one of the diner’s boisterous friends if it is proven that the accident could not have been foreseen or avoided with the ordinary diligence of the average professional” (see Cass. 28 May 2020, n. 9997, ord., in Onelegale, 2020). In the case in question, due to the action, albeit playful, of a third party, the employee’s conduct was deemed insufficient to entail the enterprise’s liability, because it was fortuitous and caused by an isolated incident. On the contrary, on the subject of the disciplinary liability of employees (see Cass. 27 November 1999, n. 13299, in Giur. it. rep., 1999), the most debated case is theft involving items of limited value, usually viewed with a fairly sympathetic attitude amongst judges, if the goods are for immediate food needs and are taken without permission, as is widespread in many businesses, with circumstances that differ considerably from those in retail businesses, particularly large - scale retailers. If anything, “the regulation authorising the manager of a restaurant to refuse the service of an employee whose face is unshaven is lawful; in fact, the provision, which is justified on hygiene and sanitary grounds, is not an unlawful infringement of personality” (see Trib. Roma 14 May 1999, in Nuovo dir., 1999, 929). We might say that… theft (of a limited entity) is less serious than the damage to the company’s image in an organisation constantly engaging in relations with customers who are often seeking to relax. 208 ENRICO GRAGNOLI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==