A skier suffered a violent blow while descending to the parking beach on the Cathedral hill. He did not visualize a steel cable that crossed the sector that violently hit his face. The accident caused injuries in his upper teeth. The young man attributed responsibilities to the Cerro concessionaire and that is why he sued her in the civil jurisdiction of Bariloche. He claimed compensation exceeding 6 million pesos for the damages caused. He founded his claim on the alleged imprudence and negligence of the company Cathedral Alta Patagonia SA by leaving a dangerous element exposed in an enabled passage area.
The company categorically denied the facts as raised. He argued that there was no consumption relationship between the parties at the time of the accident, since the man acquired his instructor pass three days after the denounced episode.
Consequently, he argued that there was no security obligation towards his person. He added that the place where the accident occurred did not constitute an skiable area, but a delimited forbidden sector. He said that the skier violated safety standards when trying to shorten the parking lot in a place not enabled for circulation.
The second, insurance company cited in guarantee, adhered to the defense of Cathedral Alta Patagonia. In his presentation, he pointed out that the exclusive responsibility of the accident fell to the plaintiff himself, who, according to his own said, moved off his track without respecting the operating rules of the ski center.
Bariloche’s civil judge analyzed the testimonies and documentary evidence incorporated into the file. Two face -to -face witnesses confirmed that the accident occurred next to an elevation medium, in the return zone of a telesquí. Both statements agreed that the actor descended on skiing in a sector delimited and reserved exclusively for the operation of the means of transport.
The judicial resolution stressed that the instructor circulated outside the clues prepared and enabled by the concessionaire, in an area where the risks were inherent in the absence of non -skiing beacon of non -ski sectors. He added that the placement of a closing network in the place was incompatible with the normal functioning of the elevation medium that operated in that area, a circumstance that reinforced the absence of responsibility attributable to the company.
He also took into account that the young man in his capacity as an ski instructor, knew or should know the rules of operation and safety of the winter center. For that reason, he had to act more prudence than an occasional skier.
That is why the intervening judge concluded that the fact was not attributable to Cathedral Alta Patagonia, but that the reckless act of the skier interrupted the causal link required to hold the concessionaire responsible. Consequently, the magistrate decided to fully reject the demand. The sentence of first instance is not firm and can be appealed.
Related news :