Thursday, May 5, 2011

Veronica Agostinitwitter

- Obligations. Tort. Abuse of a diver by a motor vessel resulting in serious injury. Responsibility of the operator of the boat's default could require extreme diligence in response to the extraordinary risk that arises who runs a pleasure boat, top, and completely oblivious to the assumption by the victim to the sport. Civil

Supreme Court Judgement of March 14, 2011.

FIRST .- Abstract background.
1. A following the accident on August 13, 2000, consisting of a collision with a diver by a motor boat, resulting serious injury, followed before the Magistrate's Court No. 3 of the trial of misdemeanors Tortosa No. 168/01, in which the initial conviction was overturned pilot reported on appeal by the AP that acquitted him in response to doubts as to the exact spot where the accident had prevented attributing negligent conduct. The court's ruling was temporarily implemented, leading to the insurance company slogans in favor of the injured party the amount subject to a sentence (principal and interest), that subsequently returned as a result of the acquittal enacted in the second criminal court.
2. The injured party filed suit against the employer or operator of the boat, the owner, and the entity which guaranteed civil liability, claim appropriate compensation for personal injuries and material damages suffered, plus the respective legal interests (from any judicial with respect to the first two defendants, and Article 20 LCS delay with respect to the insurer), and costs of litigation. Alternatively, the claim against the insurer was limited as to principal, the limits of compulsory insurance.
3. The complaint was partially upheld by the court, which observed a concurrence negligent conduct and 25% attributed responsibility to the victim. The sentence imposed on the insurer requested the default interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of the accident.

More »


Post a Comment