According to the ruling of the Chamber of Civil n ยบ 618/2010, of October 8, 2010, compensation that passengers have a right under the Compulsory Insurance Travelers is not subject to the existence or absence of fault or liability of the driver, is sufficient proof of the damage and the condition of travelers.
In this procedure, the appellant now sued the bus company and its insurer, claiming damages for injuries sustained when he was a passenger in one of the buses, as a result of a slowdown given by driver, a claim which was rejected at the contested sentence to be understood that no fault could see the driver, who was forced to make an evasive maneuver unexpected character to dodge the vehicle who joined the movement without signaling properly.
TS appeal reverses the decision, as the Compulsory Insurance for Travelers provides travelers the right to compensation for injuries suffered in an accident that takes place during the shift in the means of transport, but not is conditional, as does the audience, the lack of "guilt or responsibility" driver. Is only depend on the condition clears traveler with a travel related, that injury resulting from any of the grounds provided for in art. 7 of RD 157/1989, such as shock, overturning or off the road, and is not to cases of exclusion provided for in art. 9 of that Law, which are those in which the insured caused the accident for being drunk or under the influence of drugs and other substances or by committing malicious acts.
Compulsory Insurance Travelers, says Article 1 of Royal Decree 157/1989, is intended to compensate them or their dependents, when they suffer injuries in an accident that takes place during travel in an environment of public transport persons, provided that the circumstances set forth in this regulation. It established a compulsory insurance, under Article 2, in conjunction with Article 4, for all travelers to use means of transport for the public transport of people, including coaches, who at the time of the accident bears the ticket, payment or free (art. 6), whereby the carrier responds whenever there is objective fact of the accident or injury, regardless of fault or negligence of the driver, employer, or employees, or even third, to the limit and conditions set out therein, so that will suffice to prove the status of travelers with the appropriate ticket and that injury resulting from some of the causes provided in Article 7: "collisions, overturning, scope, off the road or driveway, break, explosion, fire, reaction, and external blow any other fault or abnormality that affects or appropriate vehicle" to be compensation. As has been noted by the interpreters of this provision, the regulation uses a dual technique for determining the scope of coverage of this insurance, listing the hypotheses that could be considered accidents, although this constitutes numerus clausus, because it adds a clause open includes events that occurred on other faults or anomalies that affect or are from the vehicle (STS February 27, 2006).
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment