Launched early in 2024, the UIAA mountaineering and climbing accidents case law database now includes reports from 12 different cases. These are drawn from accidents which took place in ten different countries and on five continents.
Recent submissions include two case studies regarding incidents which occurred in an indoor climbing context in Spain.
Case Study: Climbing Competition in Spain
This concerns an accident that occurred during a climbing competition in Spain in 2016. A climber suffered an ankle sprain after stepping into a gap between two mats. He subsequently sued the organizers, alleging that the mats had not been positioned in compliance with the UNE-EN-12572-2 standards. The organizers argued that these standards were not legally binding and maintained that they had not acted negligently.
The case is noteworthy because the court ruled that climbing competition organizers, unlike those overseeing inherently dangerous operations, are not subject to so-called absolute liability. However, the court emphasized that organizers must adhere to standards like UNE-EN-12572-2, which, while not legally mandatory, serve as an important preventive measure to minimize the risk of harm. These standards provide essential safety benchmarks that responsible organizers are expected to follow.
The court ultimately held the competition organizers liable, finding that the mats should have been properly placed to prevent the injury. The organizers were ordered to pay compensation to the claimant.
Case Study: Climbing Gym in Spain
The case involves an accident that occurred in a climbing gym in Spain in 2022. A climber fell and subsequently sued the company that owns the Indoor Climbing Center (climbing center), alleging negligence due to a failure in the installation of the climbing wall. The climbing center countered by asserting that the facility was in proper condition and that no negligence occurred on their part. The claimant was unable to provide substantial evidence to support her allegations. In contrast, the climbing center presented a wealth of evidence, including witness testimonies, photographs, and an expert report. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the climbing center was not liable for the accident. The fall was deemed to be the climber’s fault, as she improperly hooked herself during descent by attaching the self-belay device to the leg loop of her harness.
The court has consistently ruled that liability in sports or risky activities is limited to cases where the risk was exacerbated by the service provider’s actions which was not the case in this specific scenario.
—
For both cases, the UIAA Legal Affairs Commission – responsible for managing the database – highlight the following areas – the legal framework/analysis; summary of the facts; summary of the arguments of the parties; a reasoning summary; as well as the LAC’s own reflections on the judgement.
To access the database please click here.
The database also provides the opportunity for users to submit cases for inclusion.
—
Main photo: Action from a UIAA-sanctioned competition, and not related to the case studies mentioned above, held at a climbing gym in Glasgow, Scotland. Credit: UIAA/Luke Briggs
