Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 192/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.192.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request against lower court's partial award of damages in a traffic accident case.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 192/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's request for permission to appeal, citing non-compliance with statutory requirements for review. The lower courts had partially awarded damages for property and non-property loss following a traffic accident, with the second instance increasing the compensation amount. The court denied the appeal because the appellant failed to meet the strict conditions for allowing a review under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367.c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the conditions for its allowance under the first paragraph of Article 367.a are not met.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal civil procedure law damages award traffic accident liability review of judgment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367.c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 250/2024
Supreme Court allows review for failure to substantively examine appeal reasons, violating procedural rules and denying remedy rights.
VSRS sklep II Ips 207/2012
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, ruling pedestrian crossing at night near intersections was not unforeseeable for a highly careful driver. The court found the Supreme Court erred in applying the standard of care, requiring a full re-examination of partial exemption from liability. The court held that the Supreme Court erred in applying the standard of care, requiring a full re-examination of partial exemption from liability. The court held that the Supreme Court erred in applying the standard of care, requiring a full re-examination of partial exemption from liability.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 9/2024
Supreme Court allows appeal; lower courts dismissed appeal due to insufficient notice of service fiction during court holidays.
VSL sodba II Cp 1811/2013
Court partially allows appeal in traffic accident case, increasing non-pecuniary damages for mental suffering due to disability.
VSRS Sodba II Ips 66/2019
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal on tort damages, ruling future pain counts only until disability assessment. Future pain counts only until disability assessment; future disability counts thereafter. Appeal dismissed for lack of grounds.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa prvi odstavek 367.a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče zavrnilo predlog v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367.c člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je vtoževal plačilo odškodnine za premoženjsko in nepremoženjsko škodo v skupni višini 82.023,58 EUR zaradi poškodb, ki jih je utrpel v nezgodi, ki jo je povzročil zavarovanec toženke.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je postopek ustavilo glede 9.500 EUR zaradi delnega umika tožbe, sicer pa toženi stranki naložilo plačilo 53.065,50 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. V presežku je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo. Odločilo je še o pravdnih stroških.

3. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbama obeh pravdnih strank delno ugodilo, tako da je prisojeno odškodnino zvišalo za 3.000 EUR (iz naslova odškodnine za skaženost), hkrati pa za manjši del zamudnih obresti zamaknilo datum, od katerega tečejo. Spremenilo je tudi odločitev o pravdnih stroških.

4. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožnik vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem zatrjuje zmotno uporabo materialnega prava. Meni, da bi mu morala biti prisojena višja odškodnina tudi iz naslova telesnih bolečin in nevšečnosti med zdravljenjem ter zmanjšanja življenjskih aktivnosti. Dopustitev revizije predlaga glede vprašanja, ali je bila tožniku glede na obseg škode, ki jo je utrpel v obravnavanem škodnem dogodku, prisojena pravična denarna odškodnina. Njegovo pomembnost utemeljuje z zagotovitvijo pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava in njegovega razvoja preko sodne prakse. Zatrjuje odstop od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča.

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče zavrnilo predlog v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367.c člena ZPP.

7. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, navedenem v uvodu sklepa. Odločbo je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).