According to established Spanish jurisprudence (e.g., Supreme Court Judgments dated December 17, 1986; July 17, 1987; October 28, 1988; February 19, 1987; May 28, 1991; February 13, 1993; December 30, 1995; May 20, 1996, among others), extracontractual liability arises from a failure to exercise due care in human actions. This includes adherence not only to regulatory precautions but also to those dictated by prudence and customary practice to prevent harm. Fault-based liability is especially relevant in activities where risk is willingly assumed, as it shifts the burden of proof to evaluate the level of diligence exercised by the defendant. Such diligence must consider both subjective factors, like the actions of the parties involved, and objective factors, including the physical environment and materials used, which must be managed carefully to prevent harm.

Fault-Based Liability in Risky Activities
The Supreme Court Judgment of November 7, 1996 (No. 903/1996) moved toward recognizing objective liability under Article 1902 of the Civil Code but refrained from fully endorsing absolute liability. Instead, it retained a fault-based approach with subjective elements, whether through the application of the principle of risk or a reversal of the burden of proof.

In inherently risky activities, such as sports, courts generally apply fault-based liability. This approach recognizes that participants voluntarily accept certain dangers inherent in these activities, initially exempting third parties from liability unless negligence is proven. For example, in sports, fairground attractions, or bullfighting, liability arises only when risks exceed those inherent to the activity or when negligence by another party can be established. Compensation is not awarded for damages resulting from dangers voluntarily undertaken for enjoyment or professional purposes unless there is evidence of a failure to meet safety standards.

Absolute Liability and Its Limits
Absolute liability, on the other hand, applies to inherently dangerous activities that provide societal benefits and economic returns, such as industrial operations, hazardous materials handling, or the operation of dangerous equipment. These activities justify imposing strict liability because of their inherent risks and the social benefits they generate. However, this principle does not extend to recreational or individual pursuits, where the inherent risk is distinct and voluntary participation is a critical factor.

The Supreme Court Judgment of October 22, 1992 (Rec. 1561/1990, Judge Casares Córdoba, Rafael) explicitly addressed this distinction, stating:

"FOURTH.- As correctly noted in the challenged judgment, there is no jurisprudential doctrine in civil law on this issue, nor a specific regulatory framework, apart from the Sports Law 10/1990 of October 15, which does not address such matters. Consequently, these cases must be adjudicated under Article 1902 of the Civil Code. Although this Court has significantly objectified the article, especially in socially relevant activities, leading to a ‘socialization of responsibilities,’ this principle does not extend to sports competitions. The inherent risk in such activities is distinct from the concept of risk that justifies a special category of liability. This form of liability applies to activities, industries, instruments, or materials that, while inherently dangerous, provide societal benefits and economic returns to those who manage them. None of these criteria are met in cases like the present, where the activity in question is an individual recreational pursuit, typical in modern society, serving as a ‘safety valve’ for individuals coping with the demands of contemporary work environments."

Examples of Fault-Based Application
The courts have consistently emphasized the need to demonstrate risks exceeding those inherent to an activity or specific negligence. For example:

Sports and Competitions: In cases involving sports competitions, liability depends on demonstrating additional risks created by negligence, such as poor equipment or insufficient safety measures (e.g., mats not properly placed in a climbing competition).
Swimming Pools: Liability for accidents in swimming pools arises only when risks exceed normal use, such as the absence of lifeguards or inadequate maintenance (Supreme Court Judgments of February 23, 1995, and September 2, 1997).
Bullfighting Events: Participants voluntarily assume the risks inherent in bullfighting, and organizers are liable only when negligence, such as failing to provide adequate safety measures, is proven (Supreme Court Judgment of November 8, 2000).

Conclusion
In summary, Spanish jurisprudence draws a clear line between fault-based and absolute liability:

Fault-Based Liability applies to inherently risky activities like sports or recreational pursuits, where participants voluntarily accept certain dangers. Liability arises only when negligence creates risks beyond those inherent to the activity.
Absolute Liability is reserved for inherently dangerous operations or activities that benefit society and generate economic rewards, such as industrial processes. These activities justify strict liability due to their potential for widespread harm.
This distinction ensures a balanced approach to liability, reflecting the nature of the activity, the responsibilities of the parties involved, and the societal context in which the harm occurs.

The claimant seeks compensation under Articles 1101 and 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code, along with related provisions, for injuries sustained during the second event of the Andalusian Climbing Cup in the Bouldering category, held on November 13, 2016. The event was organized by CLUB DE MONTAÑA CHICLANA and the ANDALUSIAN MOUNTAINEERING FEDERATION. During a climb, the claimant fell and placed his foot in a gap between two mats, resulting in an ankle sprain. This incident was witnessed. The recovery period lasted 162 days, comprising 88 days of moderate personal harm and 74 days of basic personal harm. Additionally, the claimant incurred expenses for medical treatment, travel, and rehabilitation. Compensation is also sought for moral damages due to an alleged loss of quality of life.

The defense presented by CLUB DE MONTAÑA CHICLANA denies any negligence during the event. Similarly, the ANDALUSIAN MOUNTAINEERING FEDERATION argues that the co-defendant organized the event and asserts that it complied with all legal requirements for authorization. Both defendants contest the amount of compensation sought by the claimant.

The claimant’s primary argument is that the accident, and the circumstances under which it occurred, could have been prevented if measures had been in place to stop their client from placing his foot between two mats. Alternatively, the mats could have been covered with a material, such as a tarp, as depicted in the photographs included in Document 6, which show how the protective mats were arranged during the competition the following year. The claimant has also provided medical evidence to support the injuries sustained.

Article 4.4 of the UNE-EN-12572-2 standard specifies the following regarding the positioning of mats:

"4.4 Connection of modular elements of foam safety mats
If impact absorption materials consist of modular elements, the sections must be firmly connected to each other, or the gaps must be covered to prevent a climber from entering the spaces between the modular elements. If impact absorption materials are beneath a continuous surface cover, the cover must be sufficiently tensioned to keep the foam safety mats securely connected."

Photographs from the day of the event clearly show that this standard was not followed. The images reveal mats of varying sizes and thicknesses, and in many areas, the connections between the mats were inadequately protected. While some gaps were covered with thinner "gap fillers" designed for this purpose, these were not consistently used, as evidenced in the photographs.

The defendants counter that the standard is not mandatory. They also argue that competition judges and qualified personnel were present during the competition to ensure the facilities and equipment met appropriate standards. 

1. Fault liability
   Following the judgments of the Spanish Supreme court,the judge highlights that in cases involving adventurous or risky sports, a common element is the voluntary acceptance of risk to one's physical integrity. The applicable legal standard in such cases is fault-based liability. There is no room for the principle of absolute liability based solely on the inherent risk of the activity or on damages willingly undertaken by the individual, whether for recreational or professional purposes. However, liability may arise if a third party’s actions contribute to causing the damage.

   In this case, while the climber knowingly accepted the risks associated with the activity, the conditions provided by the event organizers were inadequate, ultimately failing to meet the required safety standards.

2. UNE-EN-12572-2 Standard
   The judge notes that, even if this regulation is not mandatory, such standards are specifically published to guide responsible and regulatory entities overseeing various sports activities. These standards establish sufficient criteria to ensure events are conducted with the necessary safety measures. Evidence supporting this conclusion is found in the subsequent year’s competition, where all mats were covered with a tarp. Had such a tarp been present on the day of the incident, it would have prevented the claimant’s injury.
3. Liability of the the Andalusian Mountaineering Federation - the court established the liability not only of the event's organizing entity but also of the Andalusian Mountaineering Federation. The judge asserts it was their duty to ensure that the event facilities complied with essential safety requirements. While it was argued that judges and qualified personnel were responsible for verifying the adequacy of the facilities and equipment, the judge concludes that this responsibility was not adequately fulfilled. This conclusion is supported by photographic evidence showing inconsistent use of gap fillers—present in some areas but absent in others.
4. Final Decision - The judge partially upheld the claim, ordering CLUB DE MONTAÑA CHICLANA and the ANDALUSIAN MOUNTAINEERING FEDERATION to jointly compensate the claimant in the amount of €9,981.76. The judge rejected the claim for compensation for moral damages due to loss of quality of life. Social media videos of the claimant showed him continuing climbing activities without significant limitations, suggesting no impairment of his ability to work as an instructor or perform professional activities.

This judgment is significant for three key reasons:

Preventive Compliance with Standards: The court concluded that although standards like UNE-EN-12572-2 are not legally mandatory, competition organizers should adhere to them as a preventive measure to minimize the risk of harm. These norms provide essential safety benchmarks that responsible organizers are expected to follow.

Foreseeability and Preventability of Accidents: The existence of such standards renders accidents like the one in this case both foreseeable and preventable. By failing to comply with these established guidelines, organizers neglect their duty of care and expose participants to avoidable risks.

Clarification on Liability in Climbing Competitions: The court held that climbing competitions of this nature are not subject to the absolute liability of the organizer. Unlike activities that fall under a special category of liability—arising from inherently dangerous operations that benefit society economically, such as industrial activities—climbing as a recreational activity does not meet these criteria. Instead, it is an individual pursuit, common in modern society, that serves as a “safety valve” for individuals coping with the pressures of contemporary work environments. This distinguishes it from mass or cultural sports or hazardous industries where absolute liability might apply.

Another case in the database underlining how nonbinding norms can effectively guide the interpretation of duty of care and foreseeability in liability cases is a Czech judgement about the use of climbing methodology. 

Another Spanish case in the database of accident with a very different outcome is SAP C 1609/2022 - ECLI:ES:APC:2022:1609.