Employer liability and armed groups: Supreme Court criteria

Judgment SL1917-2025 reinforces the idea that maintaining public order is a duty of the State. However, this does not diminish but rather strengthens employers’ prevention duties when they are aware of serious risks arising from the presence of armed groups. In such scenarios, employer liability under Article 216 of the Labor Code (CST) arises when the employer’s conduct is deemed gross negligence, pursuant to Article 63 of the Civil Code (CC).

1) What are the employer’s duties?

The Court systematizes three layers of duties within the Occupational Health and Safety Management System (SG-SST):

(i) Generic duties: informing, identifying, assessing, and controlling risks;

(ii) Specific duties: established by technical standards and regulations; and

(iii) Exceptional duties: arising when the job exposes workers to extraordinary dangers (e.g., areas with armed actors), requiring special protective measures.

2) When can employer liability arise?

When the employer has certain and prior knowledge of an extraordinary risk, their duty of prevention intensifies. They must listen to and document community alerts and warnings of harassment, coordinate real security measures with authorities, activate displacement protocols, update the risk matrix, and implement specific controls for identified threats — even suspending operations if guarantees are lacking.

If, despite such knowledge, warnings are ignored, adequate measures are omitted, or only formal controls are applied, the foreseeability of harm and the insufficiency of preventive management form the basis for liability. The act of a third party does not exempt liability when the risk was known and reasonably avoidable through reinforced and verifiable actions — under the gross negligence standard set forth in Article 63 of the Civil Code.

3) What is the applicable rule of evidence?

As a general rule, the worker must prove the employer’s fault. Exceptionally, when failure to comply with safety and protection duties is alleged, the burden shifts — and the employer must prove that they acted diligently.

4) Does the State’s public order duty transfer to employers?

While preventing and addressing public order disturbances is primarily a State function (Constitution, Articles 189, 216 et seq.), this does not suspend employers’ prevention duties. On the contrary, when an employer knows that operations take place in areas with armed actors or in activities that may become military targets, their obligation is strengthened (Article 2.2.4.6.8 of Decree 1072/2015).

5) What elements must be analyzed?

a. Proven knowledge: Were there alerts, warnings, or risk matrices identifying the danger?

b. Extraordinary risk: Did the hazard exceed the normal exposure of the activity?

c. Adequate response: Were specific, proportional, and verifiable measures implemented?

If the answer is wholly or partly affirmative, employer liability may arise due to failure to meet reinforced duties.

An employer aware of extraordinary risks must adopt exceptional measures to prevent them. Failure to meet that standard and exposing personnel as a result entitles the worker to full compensation under Article 216 of the CST. Intervention by a third party does not exempt liability when the employer’s negligence contributes to the harm.

Written by: Wilmer Gómez