Recently, newspapers in many places (m.in. your, your i your) reported a case of an award from the carrier, the passenger who was beaten to the amount 20.000 zł with interest and costs for breach of the carrier's obligation to ensure passenger safety. Judgment sets a precedent so it's worth over him for a moment stoop.
Pobity student
In September 2005 r. student was beaten up in the bus transport in Lublin. Beat three men made the, who got off the bus and departed, place before the police arrived. As the court has determined, driver during the incident did not react, although the carrier's regulations provide for the possibility of notification of police or municipal police, and even change the route and the nearest police station podjechania.
Beating was severe – student broken nose, He also suffered serious head injuries. Required surgery.
The victim immediately turned to the MPK Lublin to request compensation for the beating in the amount of 20.000 zł. The carrier refused to pay the amount demanded and the matter went to court. Judgment of 01.09.2011 r. Lublin Regional Court finally upheld the passenger's claims and awarded in his favor from the carrier the amount of 20.000 zł, together with interest. In total, the victim receives 28.000 zł.
The obligation to provide security
Judgment is based on the content art. 14 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. the carrier is obliged to offer travelers the relevant safety and hygiene and comfort and proper support. It is hard to argue with the content provision – indeed, the carrier shall ensure that, transport by the means of transportation are safe.
But this also includes security against other travelers? Such an obligation would seem to be impossible to meet in public transport. No one made after the control of persons entering the bus, So the carrier is typically not able to prevent a possible attack on a passenger by another passenger. In this regard, the carrier's liability is based on the principle of guilt and. The carrier does not respond so, if exercised due diligence, to ensure safety.
In this case, however, – as I gather from the press – the basis for charges against the carrier was to keep the driver after beating. He ought to lock the door and go to the police. In this case, the perpetrators were caught, instead of escape. It is undoubtedly true, But it does not prevent the assault. Which brings us to another question, moreover,…
Damages or compensation?
Compensation provides compensation for damage to property. It can be awarded both for breach of contract and tort committed. It is different from the remedy – It is the equalization of harm and may be awarded only in tort.
What has been granted by the court pobitemu student? Unfortunately there's no clarity – some sources indicate, ordered to pay restitution that he, others that the carrier has to pay compensation. Taking into account, that journalists generally do not distinguish between these two concepts, so it is difficult based on their relationships to solve this issue. I can only attempt to try to bring some – imperfect due to the lack of access to the file – hypothesis.
The obligation to provide security due to the art. 14 extends only to travelers or to the contract of carriage, and not to all persons. It must therefore be, that this obligation is a component of the contract of carriage. Violation of this requirement, therefore introducing an contractual responsibility (with only an award of damages), and not in tort (with the possibility of an award of both damages and compensation). From this point of view, the court could not award damages to the carrier, as the carrier has not committed a tort.
However, there are views (sometimes shared in the case law), that in some cases, the mere failure to meet obligations to the other person may also be tort. Perhaps in this case, the court took the view, that a breach of contract of carriage by the carrier was so grossly, that can be classified as a tort. Also, this concept does not explain, however, ordered to pay restitution. The source of harm to the plaintiff was in fact beaten by unknown assailants, a retrieval – as indicated above – carrier could not prevent. It would only prevent their escape. Breach of the duty to ensure the safety of the carrier does not become the reason why beatings – it is therefore difficult, that the carrier was liable for payment of damages for a beating.
The height makes the amount awarded, the hypothesis that compensation for damage to property caused by the beating seems to be difficult to defend. First, the economic loss is seldom so round as in this case (20.000 zł). Secondly, it is difficult to predict, what would it involve (I assume, that hospital treatment was free, medication costs probably would not have reached this size, in the case of a student probably difficult to speak of such a high lost earnings).
The only concept leading to the award of the amount demanded by airline, what comes to my head, This claim is a mixed character. If your carrier is improper behavior allowed the perpetrators to escape beatings, de facto deprived of the passenger to obtain redress from the perpetrators. Atonement in this case would be just ok. 20.000 zł, So the carrier for the improper performance of the contract is liable for damage beaten in the amount of lost compensation.
Of course, these digressions are only hypothesis (I encourage readers to pose their own). But I'll try to get to the described above – then I will be able to describe and assess in detail the reasoning of the court.
At such times lawyers become similar to the scientists studying wildlife 🙂
Something was seen, but not to the end and do not accurately, data is uncertain, So we put the hypothesis.
But that's the fun 🙂 As I have judgment against him, I could only describe it, and so I can play detective 🙂 A judgment describe the way, as soon as I get to it.
A little strange, that there is nowhere specified a signature file. Unfortunately it still happens today, and not infrequently. Injury, interesting because the judgment.
I took steps, to get judgment, so hopefully, that soon I will be able to write something more 🙂
Also immediately thought of this, that guy is seeking compensation for that, that prevented him de facto redress 🙂
On the other hand, if such. the vehicle was monitoring or witnesses who can describe the attackers to award such amount is not obvious – yet the lack of recognition of the perpetrators of the act does not mean automatically the lack of opportunities to seek redress.
Well, maybe one of the courts, however, adopted, that driver behavior, who had a duty to help and minimize the damage was, however, the basis for compensation?
Explanation of the verdict is already in my hands, So in a few days to write, and he leaned on the court 🙂
Dodger 🙂 But thanks to this he landed on justification… so you do not spoil the fun does not comment on further 🙂
I'll say this – by me (and advocate of the court) justification is there, where 🙂
Ask for the signature of a court case in Lublin SO. Or is there another article on this issue, gdzie omówione/przytoczone jest uzasadnienie orzeczenia?