Traffic accident

After a traffic accident , the insurer of the responsible party paid the driver of the other vehicle compensation for injuries, compensation for injuries money was insufficient money was little more points for consequences more points for sequelae , that a higher disability (total disability) be recognized, in addition to a corrective supplement and the interests of art. 20 of the Insurance Contract Act (LCS). The insurer defended itself by saying that the money requested excessive amount was being requested and that some consequences that were sought to be added were already included or derived from others, so they could not be separately assessed.

In the first instance, the court increased the compensation , but only slightly, accepted the consequences according to the forensic report, and granted only “procedural” interests from the judgment (art. 576 LEC). Subsequently, the Provincial Court increased the compensation, acknowledged the total disability and also applied the interests under art. 20 LCS.

The case reached the Supreme Court (SC) because the plaintiff insisted that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the compensation rule misapplied the tariff rule The SC rejects the appeal. It explains that in cassation, the facts cannot be "reconstructed"

or discussed again regarding the existing sequelae, as this largely depends on medicine and the expert evidence , which the judge assesses. It also clarifies that the exclusion rule , which the judge assesses. It also clarifies that the automatic mechanism that prevents a complete reparation if there are indeed different sequelae with their own entity. In this specific case, even admitting the debate, the SC states that the practical result is equivalent, the final score falls within what would have been obtained by valuing separately, so there is no "useful effect" in changing it. final score falls within what would have come out valuing separately, so there is no "useful effect" in changing it.