Legislator Case Law & Legislation
Sklep II DoR 73/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.73.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as procedural conditions under ZPP Art. 367a are not met.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 73/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's application for review of the second-instance judgment regarding a compensation claim for occupational exposure to isocyanates. The defendant argued that objective liability should be replaced by fault-based liability for the specific damages claimed. The court dismissed the application because the statutory conditions for admitting a review under Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure: A review application is inadmissible if the conditions for its admission under Article 367a are not met, regardless of the substantive arguments regarding liability principles.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure review application admission conditions occupational liability isocyanate exposure supreme court dismissed application

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated

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]

Odškodninski spor - pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnica je s tožbo zahtevala odškodnino za premoženjsko in za nepremoženjsko škodo, ki je posledica bolezni zaradi (dolgotrajne) izpostavljenosti izocianatom v času zaposlitve pri toženi stranki. Sodišče prve stopnje je z vmesno sodbo odločilo, da je temelj toženkine odškodninske odgovornosti podan, sodišče druge stopnje pa je vmesno sodbo prvostopenjskega sodišča potrdilo.

2. Tožena stranka je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje. Meni, da za tožničino škodo ni objektivno odgovorna ter da je treba v konkretnem primeru vzročnost presojati po načelu krivde.

3. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 367.c člena istega zakona predlog zavrnilo.