Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Masterbates In Front Of Me

CIVIL - Location of Work - The owner is not responsible for accidents


Cordoba Justice did not grant a claim for damages initiated by a contractor who suffered a fall while pruning a tree on the property of his employer. The provincial Chamber held that "to be a work location, is inapplicable to Article 1113 of the Civil Code."

The House Civil and Commercial competently Second Nomination of the city of Rio Cuarto decided unanimously to reject the claim for damages initiated by a man who suffered an accident while pruning trees located on land owned by the defendant.

The Court of Appeals Córdoba judges composed of José María Ordoñez, Daniel Mola and Horacio Taddei, stated that "it is a work location, is inapplicable to Article 1113 of the Civil Code."

A man was hired to perform a set of pruning trees. While he was doing his job fell from a tree and damage to the hand caused mainly by the chainsaw he was handling. The trimmer had used a platform and a tractor owned by whoever I hire to prune to achieve the eucalyptus were high. After this episode the subject harmful sued the owner of the trees.

At first the demand was rejected. The actor then appealed the ruling grade. Be wronged by the lack of application of Article 1113 of the Civil Code because he understood that it was a case of something and risky activity. He noted that the situation had set a course of accident. Once

raised the case to the Court of Appeal, it noted that the relationship between the parties the case should be located "in the figure of the location of work, depending on the specific characteristics surrounding the case, in which farm recruiting a suitable person or an expert in the field, tree pruning, " to perform this specific task for a few eucalyptus trees owned by the defendant, determined or determinable price. "

Subsequently, the Court said Cordoba risky activity invoked by the actor for the application of Article 1113 of the Civil Code "far from being developed by the defendant, is one that has done the same plaintiff, who assumes If the risks inherent in this activity as landlord in the lease contract of work. "

addition, the Civil and Commercial Chamber noted that the plaintiff had mistaken "the taxpayer to whom the law to shift the presumption of liability for a risky exercise, since this activity only served the actor and not the defendant. "

Meanwhile, Rio Cuarto Justice explained that the plaintiff could not invoke the existence of an occupational accident under the "profound differences between the location of BOUT (governing this case) and the location of services (which would include the employment contract), in which figure it would be possible to access the damages sought by the plaintiff. "

Accordingly, the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the province of Córdoba decided to reject the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirm the lower court decision that did not rise to the claim for damages brought by a tree surgeon who had an accident while fulfilling his duties.

Judicial Journal

FOR MORE INFORMATION DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT phones (0342) 489.6831 or (0342) 155.472616 or e-mail: @ gmail.com or ma_sandria@yahoo.com abogado.mas. ar

0 comments:

Post a Comment