A young woman saw her claim rejected against the municipality of a town south of Greater Buenos Aires, after claiming compensation for an accident suffered on public roads. The ruling considered that It was not possible to prove the damage to the sidewalk that would have caused the fall or the state’s responsibility for the incident..
The case began following the presentation of the plaintiff, who reported that on December 24, 2021, around noon, she suffered a fall on the sidewalk while shopping for Christmas Eve. According to his version, a unevenness in the cement in front of a business premises twisted his left ankle and caused an injury that required medical attention and subsequent treatment.
According to the file, the woman – 28 years old at the time of the incident – explained that she had gone to the hospital three days after the incident due to persistent pain, where they placed a cast on her and indicated surgery. The surgical intervention took place on January 20, 2022 and recovery included kinesiology and medication sessions. At the time of filing the claim, The plaintiff stated that she still felt pain and that this impacted her daily life. and in the care of her three young children, who depend exclusively on her.
The judicial action included the request for a sum close to three million pesos in compensation. physical, psychological, moral and economic damages. According to the presentation, the plaintiff argued that the municipality had the obligation to keep the sidewalks in good condition and that the accident resulted from a state omission in that task.
In the response, the municipality rejected the claimant’s version and denied the existence of a proven defect on public roads. He maintained that the lawsuit lacked documentary and photographic evidence to prove the poor condition of the sidewalk, and questioned the delay in seeking medical attention as an indication that the event may not have happened in the place described.
The municipality stated that objective responsibility for the maintenance of the streets cannot be transformed into an obligation of result, and highlighted the material impossibility of controlling absolutely all public roads. In his defense, he added that there were no previous complaints or records of repairs on that sidewalk and presented a report from the Ministry of Public Spaces and Services that supported that statement.
During the process, the plaintiff did not activate key evidence, such as safety and hygiene expertise, and withdrew part of the testimonial evidence. Nor did he provide documentary, instrumental or photographic evidence of the alleged damage.. The ruling indicated that the breadth of evidence of the administrative trial would have allowed the plaintiff to resort to various means to support her version, but these were not used.
The ruling, handed down by the Administrative Litigation Court No. 1 of Lanús, was based on the general principles of the State’s non-contractual responsibility and the constitutional norms that assign municipalities the duty to preserve public roads. According to the resolution, liability can only be attributed if a specific omission in the service, certain damage and a direct causal link are proven.
In this case, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the defect or the causal relationship with the alleged damage. Although it was proven that he received medical attention for an injury consistent with a fall, this fact could not be linked to a specific state omission in maintaining the sidewalk.
The judge highlighted that The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim and, in the absence of evidence, the claim should be rejected.to. Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that the evidence provided by the municipality, which indicated the non-existence of work or complaints at the site, reinforces the lack of accreditation of the defect.
The ruling also addressed the issue of the amounts claimed, pointing out that compensation must correspond to the damage actually proven and not exceed the limits of reasonableness. The municipality challenged all of the compensation items and considered that the amount requested was disproportionate in relation to the alleged facts.
Regarding the regulation of fees, the resolution established that participating lawyers will receive their fees in accordance with the amount of the claim and the current tariff law. Percentages were set for each legal representative, differentiating between the procedural stages completed and the importance of the tasks carried out.
The ruling also determined that the plaintiff must face the costs of the processas corresponds to the losing party in this type of litigation.
According to the text of the ruling, the resolution was adopted based on the jurisprudential standards of the national and provincial Supreme Court on state responsibility and the duty of proof in claims for accidents on public roads.
The court’s decision implies that the plaintiff will not receive the requested compensation and will have to assume the expenses of the process (costs), since the fact that gave rise to her claim has not been sufficiently proven.
The case highlights the criteria applied by administrative courts to evaluate the responsibility of the local State in the face of claims from individuals for accidents in public spaces and the importance of evidence in this type of process.
