Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 121/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:III.DOR.121.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding whether an employee's act was instinctive and hypnotic to exempt liability.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 121/2023
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 granted permission for a review appeal concerning the liability of an injured employee. The lower courts ruled on damages and costs, with the second instance court upholding the first instance judgment on liability but rejecting the appeal on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court determined that the conditions for a review were met specifically regarding the question of whether the employee's act constituted an instinctive and hypnotic action exempting them from responsibility.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 367.a odst. 1: Permission for a review appeal is granted when the Supreme Court finds that the appeal raises a question of law or fact of significant importance for the uniform application of law, such as determining whether an employee's act was instinctive and hypnotic to preclude liability attribution.

Keywords

AI generated
review appeal permission instinctive act defense hypnotic act defense employee liability exemption ZPP 367.a

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
324. odst. 7 ZPP
AI generated
VSRS sodba II Ips 228/2014
Supreme Court rejects appeal, ruling that prior knowledge of ownership disputes negates good faith possession claims. Good faith is determined by conduct regarding ownership disputes, not internal belief. The court upheld the lower court's finding of bad faith possession. The court rejected the appeal, ruling that the defendants' prior knowledge of ownership disputes negated their claim of good faith possession. The court held that good faith is determined by conduct regarding ownership disputes, not internal belief. The lower court's finding of bad faith possession was upheld. The court rejected the appeal, ruling that the defendants' prior knowledge of ownership disputes negated their claim of good faith possession. The court held that good faith is determined by conduct regarding ownership disputes, not internal belief. The lower court's finding of bad faith possession was upheld.
VSC Sodba Cp 174/2020
Appeal partially allowed regarding legal costs; death linked to building permit due to ventilation defect.
Sklep II DoR 436/2011
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request for revision due to failure to meet statutory conditions under ZPP Art. 367a.3.1.1.
VSL sodba I Cp 3467/2014
Appeal dismissed; defendant not heir, acted unlawfully withdrawing funds after death, liable for damages.
VSK Sodba in sklep I Cp 491/2015
Appeal partially allowed; default judgment against second defendant reversed due to lack of factual findings on unjust enrichment.

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 vprašanja, ali dejanje poškodovanega delavca pomeni instinktivno in hipno dejanje, zaradi katerega poškodovanemu delavcu ni mogoče pripisati odgovornosti za nastale poškodbe.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali dejanje poškodovanega delavca pomeni instinktivno in hipno dejanje, zaradi katerega poškodovanemu delavcu ni mogoče pripisati odgovornosti za nastale poškodbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je prvi in drugi toženki naložilo plačilo 87.721,06 EUR z obrestmi (I. točka izreka), zavrnilo pa je tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 9.746,79 EUR z obrestmi (II. točka izreka). Odločilo je še, da morata prva in druga toženka tožeči stranki povrniti 90 % njenih pravdnih stroškov, ki bodo odmerjeni s posebnim sklepom (III. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbi prve in druge toženke ter sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v izpodbijanih I. in III. točki izreka potrdilo (I. točka izreka). Odločilo je, da prva in druga toženka sami krijeta svoje pritožbene stroške (II. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga druga toženka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

5. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).