Claims for Damages Caused by an Amusement Ride Fall Under Strict Liability, as Such Rides May Be Classified as “Inherently Dangerous Mechanisms”

A Collegiate Court in Civil Matters recently issued a ruling in which it determined that amusement rides, by themselves, are considered “dangerous mechanisms”, giving rise to any claim for damages generated by mechanical games being admissible to claim Objective Civil Liability.

In order to understand the general panorama of the damages trial and the figure of Objective Civil Liability, it is worth making a few brief clarifications: the Federal Civil Code and the civil codes of the respective federative entities regulate this figure.

In general terms, to unravel the nature of this legal figure, it is noted that the Federal Civil Code[1] It establishes that Civil Liability can be of a contractual or non-contractual nature. On the one hand, Contractual Civil Liability consists of all those obligations that arise from a contractual link (breach of a contract, inaccurate performance, etc.), and on the other, Non-Contractual Civil Liability arises from damage caused to a person without any legal relationship between the author of the damage and the injured party.[2]

In this regard, Extracontractual Civil Liability has two aspects: Subjective Civil Liability and Objective Civil Liability. The judicial opinion issued by the Collegiate Court addresses a scenario of Objective Civil Liability. To briefly understand their differences:

1. Subjective Responsibility arises from an illicit act in general and translates into a duty of reparation;
2.  Objective Civil Liability does not necessarily imply an unlawful act, but the production of damage is sufficient for the obligation to repair it to arise.

In this sense, the doctrine has defined Objective Civil Liability as the “Theory of Created Risk”,[3] in which any activity that generates a risk is subject to the agent who manages it being held responsible for any damages that may be generated.

In this regard, Article 1913 of the Federal Civil Code establishes the following:

Article 1913: When a person makes use of mechanisms, instruments, devices, motor vehicles or substances that are dangerous in themselves, due to the speed they develop, due to their explosive or flammable nature, due to the energy of the electric current they conduct or for other similar causes, he or she is obliged to answer for the damage he or she causes, even if he or she does not act illegally, unless he or she proves that said damage was caused by the fault or inexcusable negligence of the victim.

In all cases, the owner of the mechanisms, instruments, devices, motor vehicles or dangerous substances will be jointly liable for any damages caused.

The article regulates a catalogue of “dangerous things” (mechanisms, instruments, devices, substances, etc.) that can, by themselves, generate a risk and, in the event of causing damage, the Objective Civil Liability would be updated. However, it is not clear from the article itself what type of activities and objects are subject to this scrutiny.

Faced with this dilemma, a Collegiate Court published a criterion (which, for the moment, is not mandatory, since it consists exclusively of an isolated thesis and is only of a guiding nature) in which it is determined that mechanical games are dangerous mechanisms in themselves.

The above is based on the premise that mechanical games are built with heavy metals, with electrical charges and exposed to meteorological factors (due to their location in amusement parks), which leads to progressive wear of the mechanical game, making it more susceptible to damage.

This criterion is derived from a judgment of objective liability, in which the defendant was the owner of a mechanical game in which damage had been caused. The defendant argued that the use of the mechanical game did not constitute a “dangerous mechanism”, since it had suitable safety measures.

We consider it positive that there are more and more specific interpretations, since the generality of "dangerous things" can include countless alternatives that must be limited on a case-by-case basis with the passage of time and the issuance of new judicial criteria.

[1] The Federal Civil Code will be used for illustrative purposes.

[2] CONTRACTUAL AND EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. THEIR DISTINCTION. Digital Registry number 2004315 available at: https://sjf2.scjn.gob.mx/detalle/tesis/2004315

[3]Campos Díaz, M. (2000). Objective Liability or the Created Risk. UNAM Institute of Legal Research. Available at: https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/7/3496/8.pdf