A karting company in Tenerife has been ordered by the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife to pay 37,500 euros, plus interest and court costs, to a user who suffered an accident at its facilities when her vehicle was run over by another in the course of a race.
Both in the first instance and now, the ruling is clear in attributing responsibility to the incorrect behavior of the employees of the recreational facility, for not having been aware of the development of the route, which was carried out in a manner described as “aggressive”.
The complainant accuses the workers of acting negligently by omission, since none of them admits that they saw how the other vehicles left the lanes and collided with each other, for which reason they should have intervened and removed it from the circuit.
The Court appeals to the jurisprudence of other judicial areas in which it is indicated that, when the user practices these activities, he assumes the existence of certain risks and that it is precisely the difficulty that attracts customers, generally those responsible for what they happen are themselves.
However, it is also indicated that one must not fail to take into account that both the vehicle and the track and the circumstances that may generate danger must be controlled to minimize the risk, with the adaptation of the precise security measures.
On numerous occasions, the courts side with the companies when the injury is due to the user suffering damages due to improper driving, lack of dexterity, collisions with others kart or loss of control, among other circumstances.
However, the same would not happen when employees do not do everything possible to avoid “dangerous activities, extravagant or inappropriate risks”, considering it “crucial” that the company provide a vehicle and facilities in good condition to encourage driving on certain margins. reasonable security.
Therefore, although we are dealing with a recreational-sports practice with a “reasonably assumed” risk, this does not imply renouncing that the facilities, the track, the vehicle and the circumstances that may generate danger are controlled to minimize the risk with the adoption of appropriate security measures.
In this case, it is concluded that the lack of attention and diligence of the employees was the cause of the accident, and this is how it is determined inasmuch as during the trial the person in charge declared that he had not seen anything and does not remember the plaintiff.
The person who caused the accident that rear-ended the victim who left the circuit with the harmful effects that required medical attention, and led her to go to court, was also not identified.
The Court recalls that among the company’s rules is that it undertakes to remove from the circuit anyone who drives inappropriately or aggressively, especially if the other participant does so by leaving the track or colliding with other drivers, as occurred on this occasion.
