Nearly four years after the Genoa tragedy, Italy faces the Morandi Viaduct case as it enters a trial this Thursday. At 11:36 a.m. on August 14, 2018, scores of vehicles plunged into the void when one of Italy’s most iconic bridges collapsed. The disaster left 43 people dead, including four children, turning the event into a national symbol of Italy’s fragilities and triggering a political crisis that threatened the government’s stability.
The trial opens in a major Ligurian city with 59 defendants facing charges ranging from multiple homicide and road murder to disaster and the deliberate neglect of safety precautions. Central figures include managers and technicians from Autostrade per l’Italia and its subsidiary Spea, responsible for maintenance, who are preparing to answer for alleged failures that contributed to the collapse.
Several public officials are also mentioned in the lists of defendants, including members of the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure. The prosecution argues that some knew the bridge was at risk and failed to act to prevent the catastrophe, as described by Walter Cotugno, one of the case’s prosecutors. They note that the Morandi Bridge, completed in 1967 as part of the A1 motorway network, had long carried heavy traffic and, in hindsight, was a potential ticking time bomb. There is a suggestion that insiders were aware of collapse risks but did not intervene in time.
Shaky foundations
Evidence presented during the trial includes multiple engineering analyses published years before the collapse, which warned about the bridge’s danger and even recommended its demolition. Other studies in the months leading up to the disaster warned about the structural fragility of its foundations.
The prosecution contends that profit considerations by shareholders led to insufficient funding for the necessary maintenance. They note there was never a moment between the bridge’s opening in 1967 and its eventual demolition when proper reinforcement was implemented. The claim highlights that actions to strengthen column nine were not taken, according to the indictment.
The defense refuses
Defense lawyers contest the charges. Giovanni Accinni, representing Giovanni Castellucci, a former Autostrade CEO, argues there is no criminal liability, claiming the collapse stemmed from a hidden construction error. Castellucci resigned in 2019 with a substantial pension, and Autostrade, previously linked to the Benetton family and later nationalized, agreed to a compensation package of around 30 million euros with the prosecution.
Victims seek justice
Among the victims’ families, one has decided to forgo immediate compensation to remain eligible for civil action at the trial. They express strong hopes that the proceedings will uncover the causes, assign responsibility, and bring closure to the families of those who died. A representative from the victims’ relatives’ committee emphasized that the Morandi tragedy exposed broader issues within the country’s infrastructure and governance.
The comments from the victims’ advocates underscore the view that the Morandi case is a landmark in Italy’s history due to the number of defendants and the scale of the tragedy. The trial is seen as a critical moment in holding parties accountable and addressing long-standing concerns about state asset management and regulatory oversight.
Additionally, the case arrives amid ongoing political tensions in Italy, a reminder that infrastructure failures remain a potent issue in public life. The country continues to navigate fiscal constraints, maintenance responsibilities, and political divisions as it seeks to rebuild confidence in its public works and the institutions charged with protecting public safety.