INDEMNITY FOR BODILY INJURIES Participants in the supply chain of goods face not only business problems. Specific problem are transport and traffic accidents. Such accidents might occur anywhere in the supply route – at handling of goods or on the road. When bodily injury is incurred to someone, injured person has the right to reimbursement of non-material damage – to the monetary indemnity. Such indemnity is not a pure monetary claim, but a pecuniary satisfaction to the legally recognised forms of non-material damage.[1] Purpose of satisfaction is that injured person receives subjective contentment.[2] Since long ago in our law the following forms of indemnity are recognised: physical and mental pain and suffering, permanent reduce of life activity, deformity, fear, future damage, and severe disability and death of relative or of someone close.[3] Among the forms of indemnity there are also inconveniences during treatment (e.g. shorter unconsciousness, hospitalisation, forced lying on a bed, various types of immobilisation and fixation, x-raying, surgeries, infusions, transfusions, injections, bandaging wounds, removal of stitches, use of a wheelchair or crutches, sick leave, attending clinics, physiotherapy, etc.), which are generally treated in the context of the indemnity for physical pain. However, for example states of unconsciousness might be treated differently: while the shorter unconsciousness might be considered in the context of indemnity for physical pain, the long-term conditions of unconsciousness, when the affected person is torn from the living environment for extended periods of time (e.g. for a month or more), might be treated in the context of indemnity for permanent reduce of life activity. Furthermore, the indemnity does not always belong to someone, but only when the strength and duration of pain and fear, or other circumstances of the case justify it, in order to restore victim’s psychical balance. In principle, the indemnity belongs for each form separately. In extremely difficult cases, where injured person’s suffers are mutually conditioned and intertwined, so that they can not be separated, someone may claim a single indemnity for the entire non-material loss. Among these forms especially »the death of relative or of someone close« shows, that the circle of persons entitled to indemnity for their own non-material damage is not limited only to those who were directly involved in the loss event. Of course, under the condition that there is a legally relevant causation – the existence of a cause which, in the ordinary course of things, lead to the harmful consequence (the theory of adequate causation). But this does not mean that we take as a starting point an imaginary person (extremely strong, medium strong or weak), the reference level represents the person concerned. It is known, that people differ in the psychic sensitivity, therefore, they react differently to the death of relative or of someone close. If loss event (example of the death of only child) itself causes the non-material damage to a person and if legally relevant causation is established, than such damage represents legally recognised basis for full indemnity. Therefore, such – indirect – victim might also be entitled to all the claims recognised by the law.[4] Indemnity matters are – for the injured person, and for the one who caused the damage as well – often onerous and painfull. Žiga Stupica (dajatve/en/publications/e-book-customs-duty-and-tax-in-international-trade) (In: ventilatorbesed/?opcija=kom_clanki&oce=64&id=5337) [1] From the judgement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian orig.: Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije), No II Ips 466/2002 from 16 October 2003. [2] Stojan Cigoj: Contractual obligations: Obligations Act with the Commentary of Stojan Cigoj (Slovenian orig.: Obligacijska razmerja: zakon o obligacijskih razmerjih s komentarjem Stojana Cigoja), ČZ Uradni list SR Slovenije, 1978, page 216. [3] Both, the provisions of Articles 200, 201 and 203 of the Obligations Act, Official Journal of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Slovenian orig.: Zakon o obligacijskih razmerjih, Uradni list Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije), No 29/1978 et seq., as well as the provisions of Articles 179, 180 and 182 of Code of Obligations, Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian orig.: Obligacijski zakonik, Uradni list Republike Slovenije), No 83/2001 et seq. [4] The text of the paragraph from: the Conclusions 1, 4 and 15 of the consultations of the Federal Court, the Supreme Courts of Republics and of Autonomous Regions, and of the Supreme Military Court (Slovenian orig.: Zvezno sodišče, vrhovna sodišča republik in avtonomnih pokrajin ter Vrhovno vojaško sodišče) from 15 and 16 October 1986 in Ljubljana (in: The Report on the case-law of the Supreme Court of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian orig.: Poročilo o sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča Socialistične republike Slovenije), No 2/1986, pages 1, 7, 8 and 22), and the Conclusion 1 of the legal opinion of the civil case-law, adopted at the general session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian orig.: Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije) from 18 and 19 June 1992 (in: The Report on the case-law of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian orig.: Poročilo o sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije), No 1/1992, pages 11-13). Photo: Accident near the ‘Šubičeva’, Ljubljana (Slovenian orig.: Nesreča pred Šubičko) – author: Jonas Žnidaršič (flickr/photos/milijonar/781322653/in/photostream/) – rights reserved.
Posted on: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:17:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015