Goméz, Mario Félix v. VICOV S.A.

G. 1245. XLII.
Download Judgment: Spanish
Country: Argentina
Region: Americas
Year: 2009
Court: Supreme Court of Justice [Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina]
Health Topics: Disabilities, Public safety
Human Rights: Right to health, Right to life
Tags: Right to Fair Trial, Right to Health, Right to Life, Right to Property

The plaintiff filed a suit against the concessionary company of the National Route N°12 for liquidated damages because the plaintiff was victim of a car accident when a horse crossed the Route in the middle of the night and he resulted injured.

The First Instance Court of the City of Posadas admitted the suit. The respondent brought the case with the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeal that revoked the previous judgement and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal of inapplicability of law with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Misiones which dismissed the appeal because the challenged decision was based in a subjective discrepancy and the appeal of inapplicability of law should not be conceded in cases of subjective discrepancy. The plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice stating that the challenged judgement was arbitrary and that the following constitutional rights were violated: consumer rights (article 42 National Constitution), right to fair trial (article 19 National Constitution), property right (article 17 National Constitution) and right to equality (article 16 National Constitution).

The Supreme Court of Justice held that when a Supreme Court of Justice of a Province decided upon a local appeal, such as the inapplicability of law appeal, they weren't subject of revision with the extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice, except in exceptional cases where there has been an arbitrary decision that violated constitutional rights of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Justice didn't have the competence to review an appeal that dealt with the application of local laws, facts and procedure of the suit. For those reasons the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the case.

 

View Summary as PDF