Case3
Páginas: 2 (292 palabras)
Publicado: 8 de diciembre de 2011
Case 3
To start with, we assume that this is a case of omission with negligence.
This is the reason why if we were John′s lawyer we would sue the companyConstructions, S.L, for the damages suffered by John. Our reasons, based on the art. 1902 that obliged the person who by act or omission causes damage to another when thereis fault or negligence to repair the damage caused, will be focused on the fact that there were not collective systems such as nets or handrails that could preventthe fall of our client. We will sue the company for the personal damages caused by the fall.
First at all, we will give two different solutions depending to thecircumstances that we considered, because the solution will not be the same if the omission was committed by the company or if it was committed by John, in which casethere will not be a non contractual liability.
On the first hand, if John wasn't wearing helmet and security harness, he would be the responsible, and the companywouldn't be responsible of the fall. In this case, if we were the judge, we would declare John responsible because basing on the article 1903CC, the obligation imposedby the article 1902 is enforceable for personal acts and omission.
On the other hand, if John was wearing helmet and security harness and there were not collectiveprotection systems, we will declare guilty the company for non contractual liability and it should have to pay for personal damages and it also will be fined for nottaking the necessary measures.
In any of these cases, we would declare that the company should pay a fine, being necessary and essential using protection measures.
To start with, we assume that this is a case of omission with negligence.
This is the reason why if we were John′s lawyer we would sue the companyConstructions, S.L, for the damages suffered by John. Our reasons, based on the art. 1902 that obliged the person who by act or omission causes damage to another when thereis fault or negligence to repair the damage caused, will be focused on the fact that there were not collective systems such as nets or handrails that could preventthe fall of our client. We will sue the company for the personal damages caused by the fall.
First at all, we will give two different solutions depending to thecircumstances that we considered, because the solution will not be the same if the omission was committed by the company or if it was committed by John, in which casethere will not be a non contractual liability.
On the first hand, if John wasn't wearing helmet and security harness, he would be the responsible, and the companywouldn't be responsible of the fall. In this case, if we were the judge, we would declare John responsible because basing on the article 1903CC, the obligation imposedby the article 1902 is enforceable for personal acts and omission.
On the other hand, if John was wearing helmet and security harness and there were not collectiveprotection systems, we will declare guilty the company for non contractual liability and it should have to pay for personal damages and it also will be fined for nottaking the necessary measures.
In any of these cases, we would declare that the company should pay a fine, being necessary and essential using protection measures.
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.