A man suffered permanent injuries and damage to his vehicle following an accident on a municipal property where tests for obtaining a driver’s license were being carried outin a city in the northern part of Buenos Aires province. The incident led to an extensive legal dispute, in which the local administration and the concessionaire company responsible for technical vehicle testing (VTV) were jointly condemned.
The victim went to the municipal property on May 22, 2015 to complete the mandatory technical inspection of his car, an old Peugeot 404. According to the ruling, he was waiting in an assigned sector when he was suddenly hit by a truck crossing the divider between two parts of the property. The driver of this vehicle took part in the practical driving test organized by the city administration.
The ruling, signed by an Administrative Disputes Judge in San Isidro, established that both the municipality and the operator of the vehicle verification service must provide a safe environment for users. The court held both responsible for the lack of adequate protective measures that would have prevented the vehicle from moving from the examination area to the area where other people and cars were present.
The plaintiff had to seek emergency medical help. The collision left him unconscious and suffered multiple traumas and injuries to his lumbar, back, neck and knee areas. He was initially transported in a city ambulance and then had to be treated at various hospitals.
The victim reported that her recovery required prolonged use of immobilizers, a neck brace, and rehabilitation therapies due to the physical disability caused by the event. Despite the treatments, a medical report included in the court file determined a permanent partial disability of more than 21 percent. In addition, a psychological report came to the conclusion that there was psychological damage with lasting consequences.
The lawsuit filed sought damages physical damage, impairment of the vehicle, inability to use the vehicle for months and moral and psychological damage. Compensation was also sought for medical, orthopedic and transportation costs associated with post-accident rescue.
In analyzing the case, the court concluded that the separation between the property sections was inadequate because a wire gate could easily be crossed in the event of unintentional maneuvers or loss of control during a driving test. In this case, the experienced engineer himself described the separation fence as “poor”.
The defenses put forward by the municipality and the VTV concessionaire attempted to dismiss their responsibility on the grounds that the blame lay entirely with the driver of the attacking vehicle, who did not yet have a driving license. However, the judge found this to be the case The local authority is responsible for organizing and supervising the driving testresponsible for the use and safety of the beach.
Based on the evidentiary background, which included witness statements, medical reports and technical expertise, the judge concluded that both agents needed to respond objectively. According to the case law cited, authorities have a duty to act in public spaces and during risky activities, such as: B. Driving ability assessments to take effective preliminary measures to avoid foreseeable damage.
The concession company was accused of ordering its customers’ cars to be parked next to the weak fence that separated the sectors. This increases user exposure to potential accidents caused by third parties during driving training.
The resolution transferred 70 percent responsibility to the municipality and 30 percent to the concessionaire. Both must jointly pay a total compensation of almost 5.8 million pesosAmount resulting from updating the items for physical, moral, mental damage, loss of use of the vehicle, repairs and related costs.
The ruling was based on the application of the old Argentine Civil Code in force at the time of the event, taking into account that the reform introduced after 2015 does not apply retroactively to situations that have already been completed.
At the heart of the court decision was the concept of the state’s lack of performance, a concept with which The public administration is responsible for omissions if it does not comply with the required safety standards in the activities under its control. The court found that the foreseeability of accidents during driving tests required the reinforcement of barriers and controls, conditions that were not met on the day of the incident.
The lawsuit against the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was dismissed. The court did not consider it appropriate to assign responsibility to them since they took the test as part of an aptitude test organized by the city administration. The ruling stated that the municipality must warn and prevent people participating in such tests from possible dangers.
The ruling also included a mechanism to update compensation amounts adjusted for the consumer price index and the application of an annual interest rate until the actual payment date, in line with recent provincial Supreme Court precedents.
As regards the insurance policies, the decision stipulated that the insurer appointed by the concessionaire company was liable up to the exclusive limit specified in the contract, while rejecting any claims against the insurer of the driver and the owner of the rammed vehicle.
The costs (expenses) of the procedure were borne by the municipality and the VTV service concessionaire. The court left the decision on the fees until the judgment became final.
This case, the extended by more than eight yearshighlights the importance of accident prevention and shared responsibility in the management of public spaces where mandatory services and risk activities converge.
About The Author
