A court in Chapecó has determined that the Chapecoense football club exhibited “serious fault” regarding the 2016 aircraft tragedy. The ruling centers on the club’s failure to properly verify the operational conditions, flight plans, and regularity of the contracted airline.
Negligence in Service Selection
According to the sentence from the 2nd Civil Court of Chapecó, the club chose the airline LaMia primarily because it offered the lowest price. This decision was made despite the existence of safer, regular options provided by recognized national and international commercial airlines.
The court stated that this choice demonstrated negligence in selecting a service provider. This is especially significant given the inherent risks and the nature of the activity involved in the transport.
Legal Challenges and Rejected Defenses
Chapecoense attempted to avoid the obligation to pay damages by attributing the accident to third parties. The club argued that the fault lay exclusively with the airline and the pilot.
the club claimed that the journalist involved traveled as a guest without cost, which they argued would remove the consumer relationship. The judge rejected these arguments.
Denied Claims and Process Changes
Not all requests from the family were granted. The magistrate denied claims for a pension and material damages, noting that economic dependence of the partner was not proven.
The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of specific expenses for reimbursement, such as costs for psychological treatment.
While the lawsuit originally included LaMia and an insurance company as defendants, the family later dropped those claims. The club from Santa Catarina remained the sole defendant in the process.
The 2016 Tragedy
The crash occurred on November 29, 2016, in Medellín, resulting in 71 deaths. The victims included players, club officials, and journalists.
Only six people survived the accident. These survivors were players Alan Ruschel, Jakson Follmann, and Neto; journalist Rafael Henzel; and crew members Erwin Tumiri and Ximena Suárez.
This legal outcome could influence how other sports organizations approach the vetting of chartered transport in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the court find Chapecoense liable for the accident?
The 2nd Civil Court of Chapecó found the club guilty of “serious fault” for failing to adequately verify the regularity of the contracted company, the flight plans, and the operational conditions of the aircraft, choosing the provider based on the lowest price.
Who were the survivors of the crash?
The six survivors were players Alan Ruschel, Jakson Follmann, and Neto; journalist Rafael Henzel; and crew members Erwin Tumiri and Ximena Suárez.
Were LaMia and the insurance company held responsible in this specific ruling?
No. Although they were initially named as defendants, the family dropped the claims against LaMia and the insurance company during the proceedings, leaving the club as the sole defendant.
Do you believe sports organizations should be held strictly liable for the safety standards of the third-party charter companies they hire?
