Absolved a hotel to pay 6,000 euros to an employee for a slip on a ladder

The Court of First Instance number 11 of Seville has dismissed the lawsuit filed by an employee against the hotel in the Andalusian capital where he served for a slip on a ladder and has absolved the company of the claims demanded against him, which was the payment of 6,051.45 euros.

Thus, the judge of First Instance number 11 of Seville, Francisco Berjano, states that after the previous hearing held on December 11, and without needing to develop hearing for oral trial, was the process seen for sentencing, which was dictated by the day 11.

In the ruling, to which Europa Press has had access, the magistrate indicates that of the test carried out it is accredited that on February 2, 2017 the plaintiff was working in a hotel in the neighborhood of Nervión and at a certain time, after passing by the pool area that is outdoors, he set out to descend a five-step staircase that connects the area with the basement “suffering a slip and falling floor.”

As a consequence of this fall he suffered injuries consisting of scalp injury, head trauma, cervicalgia and coccyx fracture.

In this case “has not been proven” by the employee the existence of culpable or negligent behavior on the part of the hotel, “which for the prosperity of the claim originating cars was necessary to do, not being in a risk scenario extraordinary that would make applicable the doctrine of investment of the evidentiary burden, or in the event of a foreseeable risk that would reveal the absence of special precautionary measures that could avoid carrying out this foreseeable risk.

“The only credited is that the plaintiff suffered the fall indicated by a slip down the five-step staircase that communicated the pool area with the basement uncovered, since it is the plaintiff herself who refers in his claim to the mentioned slip “, says the sentence.

However, what has not been proven is what could be the cause that motivated the applicant to slip or that it was imputable

to the defendant. “It is alleged by the plaintiff that the aforementioned ladder did not comply with the required safety conditions, but, in this regard, there is an absolute lack of proof, as well as any other cause that could have influenced that said fall had occurred. and that it would have gone beyond what could have been a loss of stability of the applicant herself “, according to Judge Franciscom Berjano.

“IT WAS SOMETHING NERVOUS AND RUSHED”

Precisely, the expert evidence provided by the applicant leads to the conclusion that no liability can be required of the

defendant, since that evidence is that the ladder by which the applicant fell had tiles washed Chinese that was “sufficiently slip, so it can not be attributed to the type of material that constitutes the floor of the ladder the cause of the aforementioned fall, taking into account, in addition, that the footwear worn by the plaintiff, in turn, was rubber and non-slip characteristics “.

On the other hand, it is evident that the aforementioned ladder is covered and that what is not covered is the pool, since it is open air, but this “does not imply any negligence on the part of the defendant”.

This expert report states a circumstance that could have “decisive influence” on the event, as it was that the plaintiff herself told the expert that prepared the technical report on the aforementioned ladder that day “was somewhat nervous and hurried by their chores , which could motivate that will not pay due attention stumbling or sliding and falling to the ground “.

After exposing juurisprudencia on these cases, the judge argues that “can not be assessed responsibility in cases in which the fall was due to the distraction or precipitation or acceleration of the injured or is explained in the context of the general risks of the life as it is an obstacle (ladder) that is within normal or predictable for the victim, although in this case it has already been said that there is no evidence that the situation and characteristics of the ladder in question had led to the fall for which it is claimed. ”

“There is no evidence that the fall suffered by the plaintiff was due to any act attributable to the defendant, nor that the fall caused by a poor state of the ladder down, so it is not possible to estimate the demand,” concludes The magistrate.

“A RISK THAT DEPARTS LIFE DAILY”

In short, “the fall was a consequence of a risk that life holds daily and in an ordinary way, was not exceptional and such risk must be borne by the person who suffered it because there is no negligent behavior by the defendant owner. of the establishment “.