Three Terra Natura directors were accused of a crime linked to manslaughter after a fatal tiger attack. A worker was found guilty at a court in Benidorm this Wednesday, at the Criminal Court. The charges and defense reached a settlement in which the accused admitted guilt and accepted responsibility. A compensation payment totaling about 400,000 euros was arranged for the worker’s family, with the majority going to his son, who was two years old when the incident occurred. All three defendants accepted the sentence of six months in prison each.
The individuals who sat on the bench included the park manager, Jose Alberto Gaforioas, along with two middle managers, the technical director and the head of the animal area, in addition to the veterinary and park care coordinator. They were held responsible for the worker’s lack of training in occupational risk prevention. The victim, Ainho P., aged 37, died on July 2, 2016, while Terra Natura staff were cleaning the tiger enclosure at the park. One of the doors connecting the enclosures to the tiger cage had been left open, allowing the cat to attack the worker. In the court findings, the deceased had not received safety training nor were they informed of the mandatory safety protocols for anyone performing similar duties.
The trial was scheduled at the Third High Criminal Court in Benidorm and was expected to last three days. It concluded earlier than anticipated when a settlement was reached, after negotiations that stretched over more than three hours. Park staff and the victim’s relatives were present in the hallway, and witnesses were called. The current park management, which attended with the defendants, declined to comment on the case.
Three-Hour Settlement
Although initially denying guilt and defending their innocence, the defendants showed willingness to settle on Wednesday, with negotiations extending through much of the morning. Judicial sources consulted by this publication indicated that a significant part of the delay stemmed from the then manager’s insistence on clarifying that safety training fell outside their direct responsibilities. Ultimately, the indictment was amended to reflect the defendants’ agreement, and it stated that the other two defendants were charged with monitoring and controlling the actions in question.
The other two defendants were seen leaving the Palace of Justice. The scene captured a moment of quiet reflection as the case concluded. The proceedings began to unfold around 9:30 in the morning and finished shortly after noon, with the judge calling for public attendance to witness the terms of the agreement. The judge opened by expressing sorrow for the irreparable loss suffered by Ainhoa.
All three defendants were summoned to testify and confirmed, in sequence, their agreement with the indictment and the terms being negotiated. They accepted six-month sentences and were disqualified for an additional 18 months. The park and its insurers acknowledged legal liability for the events. The largest portions of the compensation went to the victim’s son and wife, while the remaining sums were allocated to the victim’s parents and sister. A postponement of the sentence was granted to avoid immediate imprisonment for the accused.
The prosecutor’s office met with the victim’s relatives, and the proceedings continued in a manner that aimed to bring closure to the family while recognizing the park’s accountability for the incident. A private prosecution lawyer commented on the deal, noting that the park’s acknowledgment that the victim bore no responsibility was a meaningful step. The lawyer suggested that the family could begin to move forward and rebuild after such a tragedy, particularly given that the son, aged two at the time of the death, stood to receive the largest share of compensation.
The tone at the exit of the Palace of Justice reflected a sense of relief mixed with a somber acknowledgement of the loss. The deal was seen as a path toward turning the page for the family and moving forward after this painful chapter, as reported by the involved parties and observers. The final arrangement also clarified that the compensation recognized the victim’s family as the primary beneficiaries of the settlement, while affirming the park’s responsibility for ensuring safety standards to prevent future incidents.
The court’s handling of the case underscored the seriousness of occupational safety in animal parks. It demonstrated that when proper training and protocols are neglected, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate incident, affecting families and the broader community. The resolution provided a measure of justice for the bereaved and a reminder to park authorities and similar institutions about the imperative of robust safety practices for all workers involved in dangerous environments.