The milestone judgment setting rules for non-contractual civil liability in Spain is the Supreme Court ruling STS 385/2011, dated May 31, 2011. This case centered on a woman's fall from the stairs of a residential building and her claim for liability under Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code, which states:

"Anyone who, by action or omission, causes harm to another through fault or negligence is obligated to repair the damage caused."

The judgment provided key clarifications:

1. Basis of Civil Liability: Liability requires proof of harm attributable to a responsible party through legal imputation criteria. Non-contractual fault under Article 1902 is established based on fault, harm, and a causal relationship.
2. Proof of Damages: Claimants must provide evidence of damages. Determining the "quantum" can occur during the execution phase of the judgment.
3. Victim’s Fault: To exempt a defendant, the victim's fault must be the sole or predominant cause of the harm. Courts assess this based on established facts.
4. Burden of Proof: Generally, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. Exceptions, such as extraordinary risks or disproportionate harm, may justify reversing the burden. These exceptions are rare and typically involve professional or specialized obligations.
5. General Risks of Life: The court emphasized that liability does not arise from general or foreseeable risks inherent in daily activities, such as minor obstacles or distractions. In this case, falling on stairs was not considered an extraordinary risk, and no liability was assigned to the property owner. In inherently risky activities, participants voluntarily accept the risks involved. Service providers or organizers are only liable if their actions increase or aggravate these risks. Negligence or causation must be proven under traditional fault criteria.

The court has consistently ruled that liability in sports or risky activities is limited to cases where the risk was exacerbated by the provider’s actions. This principle applies to various activities, including ball games, skiing, and water sports, where liability is excluded unless negligence is demonstrated. Participants in risky sports assume inherent risks by their voluntary participation, precluding liability for the risk itself unless specific negligence is established.

This judgment underscores that liability under Article 1902 is rooted in fault and causation, not in the inherent risk of an activity, aligning with broader principles of fairness and legal responsibility.

The climber entered a climbing gym and signed an access and responsibility document before engaging in any activities. Around 6:30 PM, she was climbing one of the walls or routes at the climbing center. Upon reaching nearly the maximum height and beginning her descent, something went wrong, and she fell onto the safety mat at the base of the wall. She bounced off the mat and was propelled outward, ultimately landing on her back on the pavement with significant impact.

The claimant argued that the fall was caused by a malfunction in the installation or improper conditions of the climbing setup. She provided medical documents to support her claims of injury and proposed an expert witness, but only to testify about the personal damages she suffered. She also referred to potential security camera footage, but the defendants denied the existence of such recordings.

Defendants' Argument
The defendants maintained that the climbing activity was conducted properly and that there was no negligence on their part. They argued that the claimant improperly hooked herself when descending by attaching the self-belay device to the leg loop of her harness, leading to the fall. To support their case, the defendants presented the following evidence:

Access and Responsibility Document:

The claimant signed a document acknowledging the risks of climbing, which included the following statements: "I am aware that climbing is a high-risk sport and that any negligence can lead to accidents, which in some cases can be serious."
"I take responsibility for my falls and jumps throughout the center. At Indoorwall Santiago, it is recommended that jumps or falls do not exceed 1.5 meters onto the mat for adults or 1 meter for minors."

Safety Warnings:

Signs were placed on the climbing routes with warnings such as, "Check that you have placed the auto-belay correctly," along with illustrative diagrams showing the proper placement of the auto-belay device on the harness.

Witness Statements:

Employees and witnesses confirmed that the claimant had been climbing at the center before the incident and that she attached the auto-belay device to the leg loop of her harness, which was found broken after the fall. The rest of the harness was intact except for the broken area.

Expert Testimony:

An expert examined the harness and testified that it was broken in the specified area but was otherwise in good maintenance condition.

Mat Limitations:

The safety mats in place were not designed to prevent the impact of a fall like the one that occurred. This was consistent with the recommendations in the signed document, which advised limiting falls or jumps to 1.5 meters.

Burden of Proof:

The defendants argued that, since sport climbing is a high-risk activity and the claimant had accepted and acknowledged these risks, the burden of proving negligence lay with the claimant.

Claimant's Argument
The claimant alleged that the fall was caused by a malfunctioning or improperly maintained climbing installation. She relied on the following arguments:

Malfunction Allegation:

The claimant argued that the climbing setup was either broken or not in appropriate condition.

Medical Evidence:

The claimant submitted medical documents to demonstrate the injuries sustained from the fall.

Expert Witness:

The claimant proposed an expert witness, but only to testify regarding the extent of her personal injuries, not the condition of the climbing equipment.

Lack of Video Evidence:

The claimant suggested that security camera footage could support her case, but the defendants denied the existence of such recordings.

Limited Testimony:

The claimant’s only direct account of the incident was that "something went wrong while descending by rappelling." However, she failed to provide further substantial evidence.

In this case, the court attributed the inherent risks of indoor climbing to the claimant, recognizing it as a risky sport. The claimant had signed an access and responsibility document that explicitly acknowledged the risks involved in climbing and outlined potential scenarios of liability. The document also provided safety instructions, including a warning that the safety mat was not designed to cushion falls from heights exceeding 1.5 meters.

When adjudicating the case, the judge fully applied the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Spain regarding risky activities, as outlined in the Legal Framework section. The court held that:

1. Voluntary Participation: The claimant willingly engaged in a high-risk activity, with full awareness of the associated dangers.
2. Proper Warnings and Instructions: The climbing center had sufficiently warned participants about the risks and provided clear safety instructions.
3. Claimant's Lack of Evidence: The claimant failed to offer a detailed or substantiated account of the fall or provide evidence to support her claims of negligence by the climbing center.
4. Defendant’s Evidence: In contrast, the defendants presented a compelling case, supported by witness statements, photographs, and an expert report.

Based on this evidence and the applicable jurisprudence, the court concluded that the claimant had not proven any negligence or liability on the part of the climbing center. The court found the only legally sound resolution was to dismiss the claim.

The judgment of the trial court was subsequently upheld on appeal, as the appellate court confirmed the lower court’s reasoning and conclusions, affirming that there was no liability on the part of the climbing center.

The judgment provides a clear summary of liability rules for risky activities and their application to climbing. It also explains the Spanish rules on shifting the burden of proof in cases involving extraordinary risks. In this instance, the court did not classify climbing in a climbing center as an extraordinarily risky activity. As a result, the burden of proof remained with the claimant climber, who ultimately failed to meet it and lost the case. This judgment is practical as it highlights the type of evidence that can be used to defend a case from the perspective of a climbing gym.

LAC also draws attention to another case in the database, which involved a fall during an indoor climbing competition and reached a different outcome under the same jurisdiction. Additionally, it references an accident during bouldering under a different jurisdiction an accident during bouldering under a different jurisdiction.