Launched in 2024, the UIAA mountaineering and climbing accidents case law database now includes reports from 15 different cases. These are drawn from accidents which took place in 12 different countries and on five continents.
The latest case study concern an accidents which took place in climbing gym in Italy.
Summary of the Facts
During an indoor climbing course organised by the amateur sports association Olympic Rock Trieste, a participant (G.M.) was seriously injured after falling approximately seven 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.
Reasoning Summary
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 favour of the injured party amounted to €13,556.40.
UIAA Legal Affairs Commission Summary
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.
Further Resources
To access the database please click here.
The database also provides the opportunity for users to submit cases for inclusion.