1. Contractual Liability (Responsabilità Contrattuale)

Under Italian law, a contract imposes obligations on the parties involved. In the context of a sports course (such as climbing), the sports association (the organizer) enters into a contract with the participants, where the association assumes certain responsibilities.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Article 1218 of the Civil Code (Codice Civile): A party that fails to fulfill its contractual obligations is liable for damages, unless it proves that the failure was due to circumstances beyond its control.
Article 1372 of the Civil Code: A contract produces obligations for the parties, including those related to ensuring safety during the activity.
Court’s Interpretation: The court may consider the contractual obligations of the association to ensure the safety of the participants, such as by properly training instructors and ensuring safe practices during the course.

2. Extracontractual Liability (Responsabilità Extracontrattuale)

In addition to contractual liability, individuals may also face extracontractual liability, meaning they can be held responsible for harm caused by their actions even without a contractual relationship with the injured party.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Article 2043 of the Civil Code: This article establishes general principles of extracontractual liability, stating that anyone who causes harm to another through negligence or intent must compensate for the damage.
Article 2050 of the Civil Code: In situations involving inherently dangerous activities, a person who conducts such activities is strictly liable for any damage caused by them, unless they can prove that they took all necessary precautions.
So, if a participant (e.g., the student who was assigned to ensure the other’s safety) negligently or recklessly handles the safety gear and causes an injury, they could be held liable under Article 2043 for failing to properly secure their coursemate.

3. Vicarious Liability

According to the acticle 2049 of the Civil Code: Employers and principals may be vicariously liable for the actions of their employees or agents when these cause harm while performing their duties or assigned tasks. Therefore, if an instructor or other supervisory staff delegates tasks to course participants (as in the case where an instructor assigns safety responsibilities to another participant), the organization can still be held liable for damages caused by the negligence of the delegate.

In this case, the sports association could be held liable for the actions of the participant who was delegated the responsibility of ensuring safety, even if they were not directly involved in causing the damage.

During an indoor climbing course organized by the amateur sports association Olympic Rock Trieste, a participant (G.M.) was seriously injured after falling approximately 7 meters from a climbing wall. The accident occurred while he was participating in a supervised training session as part of an intermediate-level course designed to deepen technical climbing skills.

As part of the course structure, students were routinely assigned to secure each other during exercises—one climbing, the other belaying. In this particular session, the responsibility for securing G.M.’s ascent and descent was assigned to a fellow student (F.L.), not to an instructor. While G.M. was descending, F.L. performed an incorrect belaying maneuver that failed to control the rope properly, causing G.M. to fall to the ground. The fall resulted in physical and psychological injuries, leading G.M. to file a legal claim.

Plaintiff's Arguments (G.M. – The Injured Party)

Breach of Duty by the Association: The plaintiff, G.M., argued that the sports association, Olympic Rock Trieste, had breached its contractual obligations to ensure his safety during the climbing session. He claimed that the instructor had improperly delegated the safety responsibilities to a fellow participant, who was not sufficiently qualified to ensure his secure ascent and descent. G.M. contended that the association, as the organizer of the course, was ultimately responsible for ensuring that all participants adhered to proper safety measures.

Fault of the Fellow Participant (F.L.): G.M. argued that the fellow participant (F.L.), who was assigned to ensure his safety during the climb, had acted negligently. F.L. failed to properly manage the climbing rope, which led to G.M.’s fall from a height of approximately 7 meters.
Request for Compensation: G.M. sought compensation for the physical injuries and psychological damage he sustained as a result of the fall. He also requested reimbursement for medical expenses, loss of income due to time off work, and compensation for permanent injuries.

Defendant's Arguments (Olympic Rock Trieste and F.L.)

Defensive Position of the Sports Association: The sports association, Olympic Rock Trieste, argued that it had fulfilled its obligations by providing an instructor who supervised the course and by ensuring that all safety protocols were in place. The association argued that it had provided proper training to both the instructor and the participants. It emphasized that both the injured party and the other participant had passed an exam to qualify for the intermediate course. Additionally, the association stated that it was not directly responsible for the actions of individual participants and that the responsibility for ensuring safety during the climbing session had been transferred to the participant, F.L., as part of the course structure.

Denial of Negligence: F.L., the fellow participant tasked with securing G.M.’s safety, denied any wrongdoing. He argued that he had followed the instructions provided to him and believed he was adequately managing the safety measures. F.L. contended that the fall was a result of unforeseen circumstances and was not due to his negligence. He also argued that the course’s safety procedures were clear and that he had acted in good faith.

Limited Responsibility of the Association: The sports association further argued that the injuries sustained by G.M. were a result of the inherent risks involved in climbing, which is considered an activity with a certain level of danger. They pointed out that G.M. had accepted these risks when he enrolled in the course. The association claimed that the accident was an unfortunate event but did not necessarily imply negligence on their part.

The Court begins by assessing the legal nature of the relationship between the injured party and the sports association, Olympic Rock Trieste. Despite the association’s claim that the relationship was of an associative nature, the Court finds that it was in fact a commercial service relationship. The plaintiff paid a fee in exchange for training and participation in a climbing course, with the expectation of receiving instruction and guarantees of safety. Therefore, this was not a typical membership in a non-profit sports club, but a contract for services, giving rise to contractual liability under Article 1218 of the Civil Code.

This distinction is crucial because it excludes the application of Article 2050 c.c., which concerns liability for dangerous activities outside of contractual settings. Article 2050 is meant to provide relief when there is no contract regulating safety duties; but in this case, the duties of care and protection were part of the contractual obligations assumed by the association. Even assuming that the course was offered without a profit motive and within an amateur, non-commercial setting, this would not significantly affect the legal outcome. In such a scenario, Article 2050 of the Civil Code—concerning liability for dangerous activities—would still apply, given the inherently risky nature of climbing, as recognized in prior case law (Cass. no. 12900/2012 which recognized climbing as an activity with an own inherently risky). Nevertheless, in the present case, the existence of a contract between the parties makes it unnecessary to assess the activity’s dangerousness under Article 2050. What really matters is the failure of the association to meet its contractual duty to ensure a safe environment, especially in delegating safety roles to course participants without providing adequate supervision.

The Court then turns to the conduct of F.L., the coursemate who was assigned to ensure the climber’s safety. Although there was no contract between him and the injured party, F.L. accepted a role that involved safeguarding another participant and failed to perform it correctly. His conduct falls under the scope of Article 2043 c.c., which imposes liability for damages caused by negligent or wrongful acts. His failure to properly manage the climbing rope, as admitted during the proceedings, constituted a breach of the general duty not to cause harm (neminem laedere), especially given that he had assumed an active safety role during the exercise.

The Court further analyzes the organizational setup of the course. It highlights that the association had adopted a structure in which students took turns securing each other during climbing sessions. While this may have had some training value, it was also a way to optimize costs by reducing the number of instructors needed. This decision, while perhaps beneficial for the association, transferred significant safety responsibilities to students without formal agreements or specific benefits in return. Importantly, although the students were assessed as capable of taking part in the course, there was no evidence that they had explicitly assumed responsibility for others’ safety in a legal sense.

Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that both the association and F.L. bore responsibility: the former on contractual grounds (Article 1218), and the latter under tort (Article 2043). As for the allocation of liability, the Court found that it was objectively impossible to determine the exact contribution of each party to the accident. There was no clear evidence that would allow for an accurate or approximate apportionment of fault. In such cases, the Court applies the default rule under Article 2055, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code, which states that where doubt exists, liability is presumed to be equal. As a result, each party was ordered to pay half of the total amount awarded. The non-material damages recognized in favor of the injured party amounted to €13,556.40.

The case is interesting in many respects. First, the court’s reasoning confirms that, regardless of whether the relationship between the course organizer and the participant is commercial or non-commercial, it is possible to establish the organizer’s liability for an accident, with different legal bases being applied to establish such liability. Related to this is another Italian case in the database - Cass., sez. III, judgement 24 july 2012, n. 12900.

Moreover, the case is noteworthy because the court allowed the organizer’s liability to stand alongside the participant’s liability, even though the court considered that, for economic reasons, the organizer had delegated some of their duties to the course participants. The court’s conclusions are in line with the codified rules on compensation for damage in the Italian Civil Code. Similar rules can be found in other codified legal systems.

However, various codified legal systems may take different positions on whether it is possible to base liability simultaneously on contract and on tort, and to have different rules for shared liability. In a common-law legal system, the court’s conclusions could differ greatly from those of the Italian court.