Dublin climber sues centre over fall during induction session

A 35-year-old Dublin woman has brought High Court proceedings after suffering a serious ankle injury during an induction session at an indoor climbing facility. Monica Luba, from Tyrellstown in Dublin, is suing JCN Adventure Ltd, the operators of the Dublin Climbing Centre at Belgard Square East in Tallaght, following a fall on 4 July 2023. The court has heard that Ms Luba fell about 9ft from a bouldering wall and shattered her ankle, an injury that later required surgery. She had started attending the centre earlier that year in an effort to confront a longstanding fear of heights, and the day of the accident was her fourth visit overall. Her claim centres on whether the bouldering wall chosen and the level of instruction provided were appropriate for someone at her stage of training.

According to her legal team, the incident occurred at the end of her second induction session, which was taking place under the supervision of an instructor. Up to that point in the class, she and a friend had been climbing roped routes while wearing harnesses and believed that this was the format the induction would follow. Counsel for Ms Luba argue that she felt safer when attached to a rope and did not expect to be asked to climb without one, particularly given her fear of heights. Against that background, they say, she was brought to a challenging bouldering wall without ropes or a harness and was not adequately prepared for what followed. JCN Adventure Ltd denies all claims, insisting that the wall used was suitable for beginners and that instruction focused on how to hang and fall safely.

What the claimant says happened

In her evidence to the High Court, Ms Luba described how the day began as a confidence-building exercise and ended abruptly in injury. She told the court that the accident happened at the end of her second induction session and that she had been attending with a friend. Earlier in the session, she said, they climbed roped routes with harnesses, following directions from an instructor and assuming that this was the type of climbing they were being trained to do. She said she felt reassured by the presence of the rope and had not anticipated that the course would involve unroped climbing at that stage. That assumption, she suggested, was central to how unprepared she felt when the group moved to the bouldering area.

About 20 minutes before the end of the session, she said, the instructor brought the small group to an area where bouldering takes place without ropes or harnesses. There, according to her account, they were first shown a smaller wall, and the instructor demonstrated how to climb up and then drop down onto the mat below. Her friend followed this demonstration, climbing the wall and dropping to the mat in turn. Although she was nervous, she said she felt under pressure to complete the exercise so that she could finish the course alongside the others. In her words, she attempted the climb despite her fear because she did not want to fall behind.

She told the court that she did not initially realise she would be asked to climb what she considered to be a more demanding wall. Describing the wall involved in her fall, she referred to it as a “spider wall”, saying it was not straight, was more complex and was much higher than the previous wall they had used. The overhanging or irregular features, she said, meant she could not see properly where she was placing her hands and feet as she climbed. Once on the wall, she claimed, she became stuck and could not find a safe way to move either up or down.

In that position and without a rope, she said she felt she had no option but to jump from the wall to the mat below. When she did so, she told the court, her feet twisted on impact and she immediately experienced what she described as terrible, intense pain in her ankle. She realised straight away that something was seriously wrong and the session ended there. She later underwent surgery on the shattered ankle, a medical fact that is not in dispute in the case. Her account of the incident presents the fall as an uncontrolled drop from a wall that, she says, she had not been adequately prepared to climb.

The centre’s defence and claims of shared responsibility

JCN Adventure Ltd, the company behind the Dublin Climbing Centre, has firmly rejected the suggestion that the wall from which Ms Luba fell was “the most difficult wall in the building”. The defence maintains that the wall was, in fact, the most appropriate option for beginners and formed part of a structured induction process at the centre. According to the company’s case, the progression from roped climbing to bouldering was designed to build skills gradually, and the sequence used on the day of the accident was consistent with standard practice. They insist that the bouldering element was not an excessive challenge but a normal component of completing the induction course. Instruction at the time, the company contends, specifically covered how to hang correctly and how to fall safely onto the mats below.

Central to the defence is the argument that Ms Luba did not fully follow those instructions and that her own actions contributed to the accident. JCN Adventure Ltd alleges that she participated in an activity she understood carried a risk of injury, and that by choosing to take part in bouldering she accepted that inherent risk. In cross-examination, she agreed that the day of the accident was her fourth visit to the centre, a point the defence relies on to suggest that she had some familiarity with the environment and the nature of climbing activities there. She also told the court that she had expected to remain on a rope but accepted that she undertook the bouldering section because she wanted to finish the course.

On that basis, the company has pleaded alleged contributory negligence, arguing that any failure to follow safety directions should reduce its responsibility for what happened. Under this defence, the court could find that liability, if established, should be shared between the parties rather than resting solely with the operator. A successful contributory negligence finding would not necessarily absolve JCN Adventure Ltd of all fault, but it could lead to a reduction in any damages awarded. The impact would depend on the court’s assessment of how far Ms Luba’s conduct, as opposed to any shortcomings in instruction or supervision, caused or contributed to her fall. For now, the company maintains that it provided appropriate guidance for a beginner and that the wall choice was reasonable.

Expert evidence and the nature of the injury

The court has also heard expert evidence from engineer David Browne, who appeared on behalf of Ms Luba to analyse the mechanics of the fall. He told the High Court that, in his opinion, she suffered an uncontrolled fall from the bouldering wall rather than a managed or guided descent. Browne said that, given her limited experience and the design of the wall, she should have been instructed not to climb to such a height. The absence of a clear limit on how high she should go, he suggested, left her vulnerable when she became stuck and felt compelled to jump. His evidence is expected to be central as the court considers what instructions were given, how they were understood and whether they were sufficient for a nervous novice climber.

The judge will have to weigh this account against the centre’s contention that appropriate guidance on hanging and falling safely was provided as part of the induction. The defence argues that the exercise was designed precisely to teach participants how to land on the mats and that the wall was selected with beginners in mind. Browne’s analysis, however, raises questions about whether the instructions went far enough for someone still grappling with a fear of heights and unfamiliar with bouldering techniques. These competing interpretations set the stage for a detailed examination of training, supervision and risk management at the facility.

The medical consequences of the fall are not in dispute and will form a significant part of the damages claim if liability is established. It is accepted that her ankle was shattered in the impact and that she later underwent surgery to repair it. The court is expected to hear evidence about her initial treatment, the surgical procedure and her projected recovery, including how long she may face restrictions on walking or working. Any lingering instability, pain or reduced mobility in the ankle will be relevant in assessing both past suffering and any ongoing effect on her daily life. These medical details will sit alongside Browne’s technical analysis as the court considers whether the injury resulted from inadequate instruction and supervision or arose within the usual risks of such activity.

Growing sport, evolving legal questions

The case is unfolding against a backdrop of rapid growth in indoor climbing, as bouldering and rope-assisted routes move from specialist sport to mainstream leisure pursuit. With more first-time climbers entering centres like the Dublin Climbing Centre, courts are being asked to scrutinise how venues induct novices, explain risks and supervise early sessions. In this action, the High Court is being asked to consider whether taking a nervous climber like Ms Luba onto what she described as a “spider wall” during her second induction session was appropriate for her level of experience. Her side contends that bringing her bouldering at that stage was “too much too soon” and that she was ill prepared for climbing and descending without ropes or a harness. The defendant company denies all claims and maintains that the wall involved was suitable for beginners and that instruction emphasised how to hang and fall safely.

Legally, the court must decide the scope of any duty of care owed by the centre to Ms Luba in relation to training, supervision and the choice of wall. It will also have to assess whether there was any breach of that duty in how the induction was structured and whether any such breach caused the fall in which she shattered her ankle. The defence argues that alleged contributory negligence on her part should be recognised, claiming that she failed to follow instructions and knowingly engaged in an activity that carries an inherent risk of injury. Depending on the findings, the court could rule fully in her favour and award damages, find partial liability with a reduction in any damages for contributory negligence, or dismiss the claim entirely.

The trial before Ms Justice Carmel Stewart is set to continue, with further witness testimony and cross-examination expected from both sides. Additional factual and expert witnesses are likely to address how the session was conducted and whether the safety measures and instructions met accepted standards in the indoor climbing industry. Once the evidence concludes, legal teams will make submissions on liability, causation and any contributory negligence, followed by arguments on the appropriate level of damages should the claim succeed. The court may then reserve judgment or, if necessary, schedule further hearings to clarify specific issues. Whatever the outcome, the ruling is expected to resonate beyond this individual case, informing safety practices in climbing and other adventure sports centres and underlining for participants the importance of understanding risks and following the instructions they receive.