A club's liability when gear loaned to a member fails

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It is what I have learned managing equipment and talking to people in the sector. If your club lends gear regularly, this is exactly the conversation that deserves professional input. The framework described here is Spanish law.

It is the scenario nobody wants and almost no club talks about: a member takes club gear out, something fails, and there is harm.

The framework, briefly

A club lending gear to its members is not their employer, so the workplace PPE rules — Spain's RD 773/1997 — do not apply directly. What does apply is civil liability for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code: whoever, by act or omission, causes harm to another through fault or negligence is obliged to make it good.

The word that decides everything there is negligence. And negligence, in practice, is measured by comparing what you did against what is reasonably expected of someone in your position.

What "reasonably expected" means

This is where the boring stuff matters. The two references that end up being used are:

The manufacturer's instructions. They are public, specific and particular to that item. If they say to retire after an impact and it was not retired, the conversation ends quickly.

The industry standard. What well-run clubs do: periodic inspection by a competent person, a record of that inspection, retirement criteria applied. That hardly anyone legally compels you to do it does not mean it is not expected of you.

What an expert witness will ask for

If that moment ever comes, the questions are predictable:

• Is there a record for that specific item?
• When was it last inspected and who inspected it?
• What was noted in that inspection?
• Are the manufacturer's instructions for that model kept?
• Who had the item before, and is any incident recorded?
• Is there a written retirement procedure, and has it been applied to other items?

Notice that none of the questions is about the quality of your gear. They are all about your record. A club with average gear and an impeccable record is in a very different position from one with excellent gear and no traceability.

That is the practical reason, beyond safety, why the inspection record is worth the effort.

What will not save you

The signed waiver. It helps show that you informed people of the risk inherent to the activity, and that has value. But you cannot exclude liability for gross negligence or wilful misconduct by contract: article 1102 of the Civil Code declares void any advance waiver of the action for wilful misconduct, and unfair terms are treated as not written. A signed sheet does not turn an uninspected rope into an accepted risk.

"It's free". Lending gear without charging does not remove the duty of care.

"A member who knows a lot checked it". Without a written record of who, when and what they found, that inspection does not exist in practical terms.

What does help

Club public liability insurance, reviewed specifically for equipment lending. Many club policies cover the sporting activity and say nothing clear about loaned gear. It is worth a call to your broker to ask explicitly.

A written procedure that is actually followed. Having the protocol and not following it is worse than not having one. Consistency between what you say you do and what you record is what holds your position up.

Usage traceability. Knowing who had each item lets you detect the incident nobody reported, which is where most failures come from.

Documented minimum training for whoever inspects.

The uncomfortable conclusion

The best risk management is not a signed sheet or a clause: it is being able to demonstrate, with dates and names, that the club did what is expected of a serious club.

And that gets built beforehand, over years, in a record nobody looks at. Exactly the kind of work that gets no thanks until the day it is needed.