The “appeal” awarded the student and his father 150,000 dirhams in compensation

A quarrel between two students over a "pen" left a third with an eye impairment

Abu Dhabi appeal overturned the first degree ruling.

Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal canceled a ruling of the Court of First Instance, which ruled to reject a compensation lawsuit filed by the father of a student against a private school and the families of two students, during a quarrel in the classroom over a pencil, causing his son to be permanently impaired in his eye, and the court ruled to compel the three appellants to jointly pay the appellant and his son an amount 150 thousand dirhams.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit in which the judgment requested the delegation of a medical committee specialized in eye surgery, to review the case file and its documents and medical reports to examine the injury to his son's right eye, explain the injury that occurred to him, indicate the percentage of disability from that injury, and prepare a detailed report regarding Injury, and obligating the defendants to show solidarity and solidarity among themselves to compensate the court for the material and moral damages suffered by the plaintiff, and obligate the defendants to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.

He explained that his son is a student in the second grade, and while he was receiving a class inside the school, and in the presence of the subject teacher, the son of the first defendant quarreled with the son of the second defendant, over possession of a pencil, and during the first pull of the pen forcefully from the hand of the second, the pen entered the right eye of his son who was seated Behind them, which led to a severe and direct injury to the right eye with severe bleeding in the eye, and he was transported by ambulance to a hospital, and an operation was performed on him.

He pointed out that his son continued to suffer from severe pain, continuous bleeding, and lack of vision in the affected eye, and he was transferred to another hospital, and the presence of bleeding was discovered, and a new operation was performed, pointing out that he accompanied his son for treatment abroad, and an operation was performed for him, and his retina was fixed. The right eye with vitrectomy, and his son still suffers from the effects of the injury, in addition to the moral damage and the state of terror that he lives as the father of the victim and fear for his future.

While the forensic report showed that the child's condition has stabilized, and that the injury as a result of the accident is a rupture of the cornea of ​​the right eye accompanied by a rupture and eruption, although he was treated surgically to correct the tear in the cornea, restore the iris, and retinal detachment, and he was treated with several surgeries to remove the vitreous fluid and stabilize the retina. And beautify the focus of the eye, and the process of injecting a liquid substance (silicone oil) into the back parts of the eye, indicating that the injury left it with a permanent disability, and the percentage of eye disability is estimated at 40% of the benefit of vision, and the court decided to reject the case, and obligate the applicant to pay fees and expenses and an amount of 400 dirhams as fees. The law firm.

The plaintiff (the father of the child) did not agree with this court, so he appealed against him with the appeal, denouncing the verdict's contradiction with the documents presented in the case papers, and the appellant’s acknowledgment of the occurrence of the incident, and he sought to annul the judgment, and the judiciary again obliging the appellant to show solidarity and solidarity to compensate the appellant for material and moral damages, and for them to pay fees And the expenses and against attorney fees.

The first respondent confirmed that the pen had accidentally hit the appellant’s son’s eye, without negligence or misconduct, and the accident was judged, and he sought exemption from any claims or obligations, whether material or otherwise, and exempt him from any fees, while the father of the second child did not respond, and the school paid ( Third respondent) that the incident attracted two children to a pencil, which resulted in the injury of the student, and considered it a regular and repeated occurrence in schools, and it only took a fraction of a minute, indicating that the class teacher had nothing to do with what happened, and she could not prevent that act that happened suddenly without Expect, and it only took a few seconds.

While the appellant's defense confirmed during the pleading session that the parents of the two children acknowledged the incident of the accident, and the injury to the eye of the appellant according to medical reports, and although it is not considered a deliberate injury, because there is no evidence of willfulness, it is considered an injury by a common error, and the elements of tort The error of the causal relationship between error and damage, and the appellant’s defense held the school responsible for criminal negligence, for failing to take appropriate care, attention, precaution, and caution to guard against damaging students ’lives.

The court ruled to accept the appeal formally, and in the matter to cancel the appealed ruling, and to rule again to compel the three appellants to jointly pay the appellant and his son an amount of 150,000 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages and pay them the expenses.

The injury left a permanent 40% impairment of the vision benefit.

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