Club El Nogal: how far a venue's duty of safety goes

On February 7, 2003, an FARC car bomb exploded at Club El Nogal in Bogotá. The family of one of the victims sued the club for security failures. The Superior Court of Bogotá and then the Supreme Court (ruling SC4427-2020) ruled in their favor and held the club liable together with the FARC.

What the high courts decided

• The Constitutional Court, in unification ruling SU-029 of 2024 (February 8, 2024), set that decision aside. It said security had been treated as an obligation of result (guaranteeing nothing happens), when case law treats it as an obligation of means (taking reasonable measures).
• The Supreme Court issued a new ruling in July 2024 and cleared the club: it found the attack was unforeseeable and irresistible, and that the club could not be required to do more than the State itself.

Why it matters

This case sets the scope of the duty of safety of clubs, shopping malls, hotels and other places open to the public. They are liable when they fail to take reasonable measures to protect visitors, not for anything that happens inside.

It is an extreme case: a terrorist attack, not an ordinary accident.

What it means if something similar happened to you

In an accident inside a venue, such as a fall, a blow or a faulty facility, the question is which reasonable measures were missing: a wet floor with no sign, a broken railing, no supervision. That's why photos of the place, witnesses and the incident report left at the venue are so useful.

---

Sources

• Corte Constitucional, sentencia SU-029 de 2024 (8 de febrero de 2024)
• Infobae (13 de febrero de 2024)
• El Tiempo (24 de julio de 2024)

This is a summary of public news written by García & Asociados Abogados for informational purposes. Every case depends on its own facts and evidence: it doesn’t mean another case will have the same outcome.

Photo: Club El Nogal building in Bogotá — Felipe Restrepo Acosta, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.