The appellant appealed against a judgment of the Court of first instance which denied her damages claim for personal injuries allegedly suffered by tripping over a wet and wrinkled carpet on the ramp of the ship's gangway whilst disembarking and falling to the floor. The Court considered that she did not gather sufficient evidence about the fall and its circumstances of manner, time, and place. The professionals involved only gave an account of what the appellant referred to, concluding that the injuries she had suffered were compatible with a fall. However, the Court held that there were no convincing elements that could constitute the premises of a factual conclusion which favoured the claim.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

It is contended that Ms Ortiz was found moving down a corridor of the access gangway in the early hours of the morning. She tripped over a rug, falling to the floor, and was initially assisted by the only witness, after which she went home. Some time later, she manifested pain in her waist, for which she consulted an orthopaedic doctor.

The appellant attributes responsibility for her personal injuries to the defendant, arguing that the lack of care and the erroneous arrangement of the elements in the access gangway was decisive in causing her to trip and fall to the floor, a circumstance which compromised the owner, on whom the maintenance of the ship depended.

There was only one direct witness to the accident, who did not observe the fall, but helped the plaintiff immediately after the episode. A lack of lighting in the place at the time of the incident has not been absolutely established. This being so, it cannot be taken for granted that human vision was impossible in the corridor due to insufficient artificial light (note that the disembarkation would have taken place at 04h00 according to the appellant), since if the only witness could see the appellant on the floor immediately after the incident (of which she did give direct testimony), Ms Ortiz could well have seen - moments before and in the same visibility conditions - the carpet on which she claims to have tripped, whose location, moreover, does not seem to have been a surprise or a problem to any of the passengers who previously descended the ramp.

In such conditions, the appellant, in the best of cases, cannot disregard the minimum diligence and care that she must have - like any individual - to conduct herself in public places, and not intend to transfer the responsibility of injury to the shipowner, when there are insufficient indications that lead to a risk hypothesis that might sustain her claim, taking into account the state of conservation and maintenance of the corridor in question in accordance to the technical report before the Court.

This being so, the reasons adduced against the defendant, and the fact that the appellant bases her claim on circumstantial (unproven) defects, cannot, by themselves, generate responsibility attributable to the defendant; especially when, moreover, the injuries appear to have been triggered by the inexcusable participation of the victim in the event (recklessness or fault), in so far as she has not proceeded with the minimum diligence, skill, or dexterity essential to manage her person in the face of an avoidable contingency (the loss of control in its path due to the destabilisation produced by tripping) when circumstances are adduced that have not been proven, at least with the magnitude and influence that tend to gravitate towards the defendant's liability.