Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 104/2018 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.DOR.104.2018 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding adequacy of non-material damages in workplace injury case.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 104/2018
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 the appeal to examine whether lower courts correctly awarded non-material damages for a workplace injury. The plaintiff, who injured his left hand while working, received a partial judgment awarding approximately 31,822 EUR, which the defendant contested as insufficient compared to similar cases. The court found the appeal admissible because the defendant argued the lower courts failed to sufficiently apply the principle of objective proportionality in assessing the specific consequences of the injury.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 367. a odst. 1; 367. c odst. 3: An appeal is admissible if the lower courts failed to adequately apply the principle of objective proportionality when assessing non-material damages in a specific case.

Keywords

AI generated
workplace injury compensation non-material damages objective proportionality appeal admissibility labor law damages

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367. a odst. 1 ZPP
367. c odst. 3 ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II Ips 348/2002
Employer liability for concrete mixer accident reduced by employee's 40% contributory negligence. Partially allowed.
II Ips 716/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; doctor's duty to inform prevails over patient's pre-existing condition as sole cause of harm.
II Ips 366/2000
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on employer liability, upholding strict liability and evidence rules under ZOR and ZPP.
II Ips 507/2007
Supreme Court partially allowed appeal to increase non-property damage compensation for physical pain and mental suffering.
AI generated
VSC Sklep Cp 237/2023
Appeal allowed; first instance court failed to rule on insurance coverage and duty of care, violating fair trial rights.
Sodba II Ips 243/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal claiming non-pecuniary damages were not individually assessed in work injury case.
VSC Sodba Cp 419/2019
Court partially allows appeal, increasing non-pecuniary damages for psychological pain caused by reduced life activities.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 8/2016
Supreme Court dismisses appeal withdrawal ruling as the appeal was withdrawn after the court had not yet decided on it.
VSL sodba in sklep II Cp 2083/2009
Employer held fully liable for robbery at hotel due to negligence in security measures and duty of care.

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 sta nižji sodišči v konkretni zadevi pravilno prisodili primerno odškodnino iz naslova nematerialne škode.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali sta nižji sodišči v konkretni zadevi pravilno presodili primerno odškodnino iz naslova nematerialne škode.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je utrpel poškodbo v delovni nesreči, ko je z levo roko udaril ob rob odprtine za opazovanje taline na degazacijskem pokrovu. Sodišče prve stopnje je z delno sodbo toženki naložilo plačilo 31.822,24 EUR za nepremoženjsko in del premoženjske škode.

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

3. Toženka predlaga dopustitev revizije v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali sta nižji sodišči pravilno presodili primerno odškodnino iz naslova nematerialne škode v konkretni zadevi. Meni, da sta nižji sodišči dali premalo poudarka načelu objektivne pogojenosti odškodnine, saj nista vrednotili konkretnih posledic tudi v primerjavi s škodnimi posledicami številnih drugih oškodovancev v različnih primerih sodne prakse. Zatrjuje odstop od sodne prakse v zadevah II Ips 348/2002, II Ips 716/2006, II Ips 366/2000 in II Ips 507/2007. Pri teh zadevah gre za hujše primere, kjer so sodišča prisodila podobne ali celo nižje odškodnine kot v tej zadevi. Tožnikove funkcionalne omejitve zaradi ugotovljenega občasnega mravljinčenja in občasnih blažjih bolečin so majhne, še posebej, ker je desničar.

4. Predlog je utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je ocenilo, da je glede v izreku navedenega pravnega vprašana izpolnjen pogoj za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367. a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP). Zato je revizijo na podlagi tretjega odstavka 367. c člena ZPP dopustilo.