In a recent ruling by the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeal of San Isidro, the judges have ruled a partial modification of a verdict in a dog bite damages case in October 2020. As a result of the attack by one of the defendant’s animals, the plaintiff suffered injuries to his left leg, which then had to pay compensation.
According to the decision, the person concerned filed a claim for damages against the dog’s owners, pointing out that the incident caused injuries and subsequent damage to the back of the left leg. The lawsuit also included claims for physical disability, moral harm and the need for psychological treatment, aspects that were considered in both the first and second instances.
In the first instance, the judge found it proven that the defendant’s animal had bitten the actor without any prior provocation of the victim being proven. This circumstance led to the plaintiff’s claims being upheld and compensation of 786,000 pesos plus the corresponding interest and legal costs being assessed.
The victim lodged an appeal, questioning in particular the amounts awarded to compensate for psychological and moral damage, considering them insufficient given the consequences suffered. He also expressed his disagreement with the dismissal of physical disability, arguing that the report confirmed not only the presence of injuries, but also aesthetic changes, which, in his opinion, should be compensated for the impairment of physical integrity.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the elements presented in the proceedings and analyzed the basis of the contested judgment. When analyzing the disability that had occurred, the court came to the conclusion that awarding compensation was not appropriate. because the medical report stated that the actor has no functional limitations as a result of the episode. The judges pointed out that incapacity to work not only requires the existence of physical consequences, but also a specific reduction in psychophysical performance, which was not proven in the files.
With regard to aesthetic damage, the judges pointed out that although scars may constitute harm, reparation, which is not moral harm, only exists if it has an impact on the economic, social or personal opportunities of the victim. In this case, the board concluded that it had not been proven that the scarring effects had a negative impact on the plaintiff’s activities, so that his compensation fell within the scope of non-pecuniary damages.
As for moral damage, it was estimated at 150,000 pesos. The resolution considered that the suffering caused by the animal attack, together with the medical care and the recovery process, constitute conditions for which remediation is appropriate, even if subsequent physical impairments cannot be proven. The court considered the amount allocated to be justified as it corresponds to objective parameters and the level of suffering demonstrated in the case.
The issue of psychological harm was at the heart of the House’s decision. After reviewing the medical-legal expert’s report, the court recognized that the plaintiff was suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressive moods recommended by the specialists a twelve-month psychotherapeutic treatment with weekly frequency. The court considered it appropriate to recognize coverage for this treatment.
In their ruling, the judges noted that the original award amount should be adjusted to cover the costs of psychological treatment and increased to 720,000 pesos. They noted that this adjustment is in line with both the extension recommended by the expert and the values in force at the time of the judgment and is intended to ensure adequate and effective reparation. This allows the affected person to undergo the necessary therapy to overcome the consequences of the traumatic event.
Regarding the costs (expenses) of the proceedings in this case, the court decided to impose them on the defendant as the losing party. Fee settlement was postponed for reasons of timely processing in accordance with the procedural rules.
While considering the case, the Court of Appeal also clarified that the amount claimed in the lawsuit does not constitute an upper limit for determining the amount of damages awarded. The compensation amounts must be based on economic reality and the proven circumstances. in the contested judgment.
The judges based their decisions on precedents from the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires and on the jurisprudence of the Chamber itself, which made it possible to give coherence and predictability to the adopted criterion.
Throughout the appeal process, the judges insisted on the need to examine each claim in detail, consistent with the scope of the appeal process and the record, and emphasized that the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving not only the existence of the alleged facts, but also the causal connection and the specific amount of damages claimed.
Particularly noteworthy is the way in which the court evaluated the expert reports. The court clarified that these reports have probative value unless they are contradicted by equivalent elements or adequately refuted by the opposing party. In this sense, the decision to recognize the cost of annual psychological therapy was based on the agreement between the diagnosis of the specialists and the absence of demonstrable objections in the file.
Another relevant aspect of the judgment lies in the restrictive criterion for recognizing aesthetic damage as an independent issue. The judges were clear that the mere presence of scars is not enough to grant reparation in its own right unless there is evidence of adverse financial impact on the victim in his or her work or social life.
What was crucial for the appeal court was that the plaintiff had requested an increase in the approved amount to cover the costs of psychological treatment and that this proposal was based on the specific values of the recommended sessions. The court partially accepted this argument and increased the compensation up to the threshold estimated by the expert.
The second instance judgment confirmed the remaining aspects of the original judgment, including the rejection of the physical disability claim and the confirmation of the amount of moral damage, in both cases due to the absence of elements justifying modification.
About The Author
