700 thousand dirhams in compensation for a girl who was injured on a school trip. A swing fell on her


The Al Ain Court of Appeal amended a ruling by the Court of First Instance that obligated a garden management company to pay a child’s guardian an amount of 400,000 dirhams in compensation for a swing falling on his daughter’s head while she was in the garden on a school trip. suffered by the appellant’s daughter.
In the details, the guardian of a child filed a lawsuit against a garden management company, and the authority responsible for monitoring, supervising and following up on the work of the first defendant, in which he demanded that they oblige them to pay him in his capacity as the natural guardian of his minor daughter an amount of 3 million dirhams in compensation for the psychological and moral damage that befell his daughter. Pointing out that while his “victim” daughter was on a school trip, a swing fell on the students, injuring his daughter, and the first defendant was criminally convicted for that incident.
While the representative of the government cases submitted on behalf of the second defendant a response memorandum through which he requested the dismissal of the case against her, while the first defendant requested the inclusion of the company responsible for the maintenance work of the games and the insurance company insured for the entire project, as two litigants in the lawsuit.
The report of the forensic doctor delegated by the court showed that the accident resulted in multiple fractures in the bones of the skull, face, and neck of the plaintiff’s daughter, and that she now suffers from short memory impairment, forgetfulness, frequent headaches, lack of focus, and a continuous disturbance in mood and character, which constitutes a permanent disability of 30%. From the benefit of the brain, and medical reports proved that the plaintiff’s daughter suffers from psychological effects, which are depressive disorder and frustration as a result of the accident.
A court of first instance ruled obliging the first defendant to pay the plaintiff, in his capacity as the natural guardian of his daughter, 400 thousand dirhams, while obligating her to pay fees and expenses and an amount of three hundred dirhams as legal fees. Violation of what the principles of her profession impose on her by neglecting to perform periodic maintenance, and then the element of error is fixed against her.
The court indicated that the criminal ruling acquitted the opponent required to include the “maintenance company” of a charge of causing injury to the plaintiff’s daughter, based on the fact that that company ended the contract with it before the accident occurred and its responsibility was denied, while the ruling ruled that the lawsuits resulting from disputes arising from contracts, works and services were not accepted. Insurance if these disputes are not presented to the committees for the settlement of disputes arising from contracts and works of insurance services, which was not done in the case.

ALSO READ  Requests for extra-curricular activities drain the efforts of the students’ parents and their pockets

This judiciary was not acceptable to both parties to the case, so the first defendant appealed it in the original appeal, and the plaintiff also appealed it in his capacity as the natural guardian of his daughter in the cross-appeal, where the original appellant reproached the wrong judgment in applying the law and the violation of the documented documents, considering that she appealed the appeal objection against the penal judgment issued in absentia In confronting her, and therefore the element of error is not fixed in her right, which negates her responsibility for compensation, while the appellant cross-polls the appealed ruling for the unfairness of his rights, given that the compensation awarded in the first instance does not correspond to the extent of the damage caused to the appellant’s daughter, especially with regard to the impact of her brain damage on her her future
For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified, in the reasons for its ruling, that it is clear from the criminal case in all its stages that a final and final criminal judgment was issued convicting the original appellant for what was attributed to her of prejudice to the integrity of the body of the victim, the daughter of the cross-appellant, as a result of her breach of what was imposed on her by the principles of her profession, and therefore it is It is considered an argument on the availability of the element of error on its side, which prevents this court from re-discussing it.
In the cross-appeal, the court indicated that the cross-appellant censured the appealed ruling for the unfairness of his rights, given that the compensation awarded in the first instance does not correspond to the extent of the damage incurred to his daughter, especially with regard to the impact of her brain damage on her future, pointing out that this obituary is valid as it is in view of the quality and severity of the damages Injury to the daughter of the appellant, which is directly related to her brain, what the court of first instance estimated in terms of compensation for the injured person would not cover all those damages and all their dimensions.
And the court decided to accept the original and the corresponding appeals in form, in the subject of the original appeal by rejecting it and keeping its fees and expenses with its claimant, and in the subject of the cross-appeal by amending the appealed judgment to oblige the cross-appellant to pay the cross-appellant, who is the natural guardian of his daughter, a total compensation of 700 thousand dirhams, as well as I obliged her to pay the fees and expenses of the counter-appeal, and to support him in the remainder.

ALSO READ  Fujairah port commemorates Martyr's Day

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here