Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 188/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.DOR.188.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review of liability for sidewalk trip due to non-compliant concrete blocks.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 188/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia permitted a review of the second-instance court's decision regarding the defendant's liability for a pedestrian's fall. The defendant argued that the uneven concrete blocks did not constitute a defect because they were within normal limits for the path, while the plaintiff claimed the surface was unsafe. The court found the review admissible because the lower courts failed to explain their rejection of the defendant's contribution defense and deviated from established Supreme Court precedent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 367.a odst. 1; 367.c odst. 3: A review is admissible when the second-instance court's decision on liability is legally erroneous and lacks reasoning on specific defenses, deviating from established case law.

Keywords

AI generated
liability for personal injury defective sidewalk contributory negligence review admissibility concrete blocks pedestrian safety second instance court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 Zakona o pravdnem postopku
367.c odst. 3 Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II Ips 19/2009
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses liability claim for minor sidewalk plate lift under fault-based tort law.
II Ips 85/2013
Supreme Court allows appeal, ruling mere path neglect isn't automatic liability without significant deviation from normal walking standards.
I Cp 1229/2015
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes appeal court decision for lack of reasoned award justification.
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 419/2002
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal as interest claims were not main requests and value was under threshold.
VSL sodba II Cp 2866/2013
Appeal partially allowed; interest start date corrected due to insurer delay under compulsory traffic insurance law.
VSRS sodba II Ips 260/2013
Appeal dismissed; mere disagreement with expert opinion does not justify ordering a new expert witness.
VSM sodba I Cp 1515/2013
Court partially allows appeal against liability for damage caused by neighbor's tool, adjusting insurance limits.
Sklep II Ips 39/2003
Appeal dismissed because the disputed amount in the civil tort case did not exceed the statutory threshold for review. The court held that the claim for damages for mental suffering and funeral expenses combined did not surpass the limit. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as inadmissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the disputed value in the civil tort claim did not exceed the statutory threshold for review. The court held that the combined claim for mental suffering and funeral expenses did not surpass the limit. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as inadmissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revizija se dopusti glede pravnega vprašanja, ali je materialnopravno pravilna odločitev sodišča druge stopnje o obstoju odgovornosti zavarovanca toženke.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede pravnega vprašanja, ali je odločitev sodišča druge stopnje o obstoju odgovornosti zavarovanca toženke materialnopravno pravilna.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v ponovljenem postopku tožnici prisodilo 13.118,81 EUR odškodnine z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od zneska 11.800,00 EUR od 4. 11. 2011 dalje in od 1.318,81 EUR od 2. 10. 2012 dalje.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo toženke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Toženka je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper drugostopenjsko sodbo in predlagala njeno dopustitev glede pravnega vprašanja, ali je materialnopravno pravilna odločitev sodišča druge stopnje o obstoju odgovornosti zavarovanca toženke. Konkretna pot glede na gradbene standarde v delu, kjer je prišlo do padca, ni bila brezhibno izvedena, vendar je zmoten zaključek nižjih sodišč, da zato ne ustreza standardom normalne pohodne površine. Izstopajoče granitne kocke od 1 cm do največ 2,5 cm v višino ne pomenijo stanja, ki ga pešec (na sicer poznani poti) ne bi pričakoval. Konkretna pohodna površina je v mejah normalnega in sprejemljivega, saj ravnih in enakomernih pohodnih površin skoraj ni. Konkretna površina pomeni nevarnost le za nepazljivega pešca, ob normalni ali povečani pazljivosti pešca se nezgoda ne more zgoditi. Tožnica pri hoji ni bila običajno pazljiva in je nastanek škodnega dogodka pripisati izključno njej. V postopku ni bilo dokazano, da je vzrok padca v pohodni površini. Sodišče je ugotavljalo le protipravnost, ne pa tudi drugih predpostavk odškodninske odgovornosti. Sodba sodišča druge stopnje glede ugovora soprispevka ni obrazložena in se je v tem delu ne da preizkusiti. Odločitev nižjih sodišč odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča RS (II Ips 19/2009 z dne 27. 1. 2011 in II Ips 85/2013 z dne 6. 2. 2014) ter sodne prakse višjih sodišč (sodba Višjega sodišča v Mariboru I Cp 1229/2015 z dne 22. 3. 2016).

4. Predlog je utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je ocenilo, da je glede v izreku opredeljenega pravnega vprašanja izpolnjen pogoj za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), zato jo je dopustilo na podlagi tretjega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP.