The Santiago Court of Appeal upheld the ruling that ordered a municipal bus company to pay compensation to passengers injured in a traffic accident on the Paposo track in the Antofagasta region in December 2019.
It appears from the judgment that the action brought by the actors was, as can be seen, based precisely on the regime of non-contractual liability and, in particular, on their status as owners of the bus involved in the accident or incident and in accordance with § 27 para. 1 BGB is responsible for what is provided for in Article 174 (169) of Law 18.290. In fact, defamation in this sense is clear insofar as it is expressed “The lawsuit filed is based on the defendant’s capacity as the owner of the bus that caused the traffic accident at issue in this case and for which it would be civilly liable for the damages caused to our customers in accordance with the provisions of Article 174 of the Traffic Law No. 18,290…” noticed this later “As the owner of the vehicle driven by the driver who caused the damage, the defendant must therefore pay for the damage caused…””. The basis or reason for asserting the claim was so true and clear that the defendant understood it in the same way and therefore she declared that the liability provided for in Article 174 of Law 18.290 was not applicable to her, claiming that this for this purpose, a prior criminal or criminal conviction of the bus driver (who died in the accident) would be required.
Consequently, the resolution states that the responsibility of TUR BUS as the owner of the above-mentioned vehicle was the subject of debate, was the subject of the trial and that, therefore, the judge, when making his decision on the matter, does not have to incur the amount in excess of which it will attributed. . In short, the grounds for annulment are not set out on this point.
He adds that with regard to the other chapters of the challenge, that is, the alleged inability of the court to determine the circumstances of the incident and the failure to establish the traffic violations attributable to the bus driver, it should be noted that such questions have little meaning or no they have to do with the vice the Ultra Petita, as set out in the third to fifth reasons of this resolution. Finally, as regards the statements made in recitals 21 and 22 of the judgment, it is nevertheless correct to consider that this entails an imbalance, since such considerations may concern the subsidiary right to the regime of Article 174 of Law 18.290 be remedied through due legal process.
