14-2-2019 | Europa Press gets hold of
He took the hit of glasses when the beer in a stock market was in the box of a supermarket introducing.
The Provincial Hearing of Cantabria has confirmed the sentence to a brewing company that will have to compensate with 94,095 Euros a woman who lost an eye by the impact of a bottle that exploded when it get ready to introduce it in his stock market of the purchase.
The court partially confirms the sentence of the Court of First Instance number 8 of Santander, that in addition to condemning the manufacturer he acquited to the supermarket where was the woman when the facts - also demanded of the responsibility of the produced injuries happened, when understanding that the outbreak was due to that the bottle was defective.
The acquittal of the supermarket supposed that the demand of the injured woman not outside totally considered and, in this way, the sentence to that this one phelp part of the coasts, those that would correspond to the acquitted distributor.
The woman resorted this decision and the Hearing now gives the reason him and it frees to him of the payment of the coasts, because it considers reasonable that it also directed his activity in front of the manufacturer and in front of the provider.
THE BOTTLE WAS NOT STRUCK THEN
The instance sentence relates how the plaintiff was paying the purchase realised in a supermarket and, after passing certain products through the box and when going to place them in stock-market of the purchase, among them two bottles of liter beer, one of them exploded, leaving projected the neck the same, with cork including, hitting several glasses against its left eye.
As a result of the outbreak, the woman remained one week in the hospital, almost loss year and a half, and is lost the vision of an eye. By all this, she solicitd in his demand, directed against the brewing company and the supermarket, an indemnification of 97,550 Euros, amount that finally has been fixed to 94.095 Euros.
In its sentence, the judge alludes to the presented information so much by the brewer as by the supermarket. In first, expert, that could examine the glass pieces which they were, indicated that the outbreak could be due to a severe impact during the manipulation in the distribution chain.
On the contrary, the expert of the supermarket considered that the possibilities of impact of the bottle since is at the disposal of the supermarket are practically null: they move in palets plasticized and the employees not even touch them, since these directly appear for their sale in the same palet.
On the other hand, the witnesses - two employees and a client corroborated that the bottle exploded without the woman had moved it or struck, and without it had made some rare manipulation. With the practiced test, the judge concludes that the bottle was defective and that for that reason an outbreak took place, breaking of inside outwards and leaving shot broken crystals.
The bottle did not fall, was not shaken at the time of being acquired, has not tried on that outside struck. A bottle of beer - it continues the sentence is predicted to hold the tension of the beer, it does not have why to explode, and if it tests and that was an external agent, is not due to conclude that the package had a manufacture defect, end that does not discard totally by any of the experts.
Next to it, the judge understood who no negligence, blames or responsibility can be attributed to the supermarket in the manipulation of the bottles, sight the procedure explained by the witnesses in the sense that perfectly they come sprinted and which until they are not placed in the linear one of sale not they unseal.
PROBATORY DIFFICULTIES JUSTIFY THE DEMAND TO THE SUPERMARKET
This it is the reason by which the judge acquited to the provider of the indemnification payment some, and reason why it decided to condemn the woman to that it assumed part of the coasts.
The Hearing, nevertheless, alludes to the existence of probatory difficulties to determine the concrete causes of the wreck that they prevented a previous and clear individualisation of the responsibilities imputable to each one of the demanded organizations.
Situation that reasonably explains the necessity accumulatedly to exercise the actions in front of the manufacturer and the provider of the defective product cause of the damage, concludes the court in his sentence, that already he is firm, and of that has informed the TSJC in note into press.
You need legal help or you want to contact with a lawyer?
From SITE LAWYERS we guaranteed to our clients a clear advising and immediate for the defense of its fundamental rights It contacts with us giving click in this connection or calling to 608 21 71 94.
If you want that we contact with you in next 24 or 48 hours completes the following form.
Thanks to trust us!