The supermarket chain and an insurer are in the sights of Justice for the theft of a vehicle from the parking lot
</p><div>
<p>Room B of the National Chamber of Civil Appeals <span style="background-color: #ffff99;">condemned the supermarket chain Coto S.A and an insurer for the damages suffered by a customer</span>, who had his vehicle stolen from the parking lot of a commercial premises.
The incident occurred in 2015, when the client located his vehicle in the second row of the parking lot, very close to the entrance of the establishment, taking advantage of the fact that there were not too many rolled in the branch of the defendant, notes Judicial Journal.
A few minutes later and after buying various products, The plaintiff went to the sector where he had parked his car. At that moment, he noticed that in the place where he had left his car there was another.
As stated in the case, the man at first "thought he was wrong and had left him in another sector, so he started to walk through the parking lot, "but then he found that his shot was no longer there. The man called the security personnel who were there, who gave the warning to the police.
the sentence of first instance condemned the supermarket and its insurer to the sum of $ 142,500, plus their respective interests and costs of the process. All this in the cars "T., Á. F. c / Coto Centro Integral de Comercialización S.A. and Other s / damages."
In this scenario, the judges stressed the probative difficulty in the face of the generalized attitude of these centers of consumption of "not provide any proof or proof of income", as well as the lack of surveillance cameras or security personnel in their parking lot.
They also emphasized the complaint made by the shareholder and that it was settled in the respective book. The firm also did not control vehicle entry and exit, which could have distorted the denounced fact.
However, they noted that the actor made the police report just one hour after paying for purchases at the establishment. "Such immediacy is an indirect sign that corroborates the existence of the fact, in a matter in which, certainly, the evidence of evidence and presumptions is admissible. It should be remembered – here – that according to art. 53 of the LDC, the supplier is required to provide to the process all the elements of evidence that are in his possession and to collaborate to clarify the issue discussed in the trial, "the ruling continued.
And he added: "It is clear that in the present case, the defendant has not fulfilled, in the least, with this duty, since it did not contribute any element that allowed to clarify the matter, adopting a reluctant behavior ".
They also emphasized the complaint made by the shareholder and that it was settled in the respective book. The firm also did not control the entry and exit of vehicles, which could have distorted the fact denounced.
The judges stressed that it was Coto C.I.C.S.A. who "I was better able to prove that the subtraction of the vehicle did not happen in its facilities ", and they warned: "All of this is enough to take it for granted that the incident occurred inside the parking lot that exploits the encartament, so that the principle of objective responsibility that implies the existence of a security obligation, by which it is applied guarantees to the consumer that during the effective development of the benefit no damage to his property will be caused. "
"The definitive breach of this security duty makes the supplier responsible for the damages caused based on the guarantee as an objective factor of attribution, "concluded the Court.
Find out the latest on digital economy, startups, fintech, corporate innovation and blockchain. <strong>CLICK HERE</strong>
</div></pre>
Source link
https://www.iprofesional.com/legales/300173-inflacion-gasto-empleo-Fallo-quien-debe-pagar-por-robo-de-auto-en-estacionamiento-de-supermercado-Coto
