The accident resulted in skull fractures, memory impairment, and frequent headaches

700 thousand dirhams in compensation for a child after a swing fell on her head

The Al Ain Court of Appeal amended a judgment of the first instance court that obligated a garden management company to pay a guardian of a child 400 thousand dirhams, in compensation for a swing falling on her head while she was in the garden on a school trip, and the court ruled to increase the amount of compensation to 700 thousand dirhams, commensurate with the quality and severity of the damages that have been infected.

In the details, the child's guardian filed a lawsuit against a garden management company, and the entity responsible for monitoring, supervising and following up on the actions of the first defendant, demanding that they pay him - in his capacity as the natural guardian of his minor daughter - an amount of three million dirhams, in compensation for the damages that befell the child. Psychological and moral, referring to the fall of a swing on the students during a school trip, which led to her injury. The first defendant was criminally convicted for that incident.

A representative of the second defendant submitted a response memorandum requesting the dismissal of the case, while the first defendant requested that the company responsible for the maintenance of the games and the insurance company insured by it be included as two litigants in the lawsuit.

The forensic doctor’s report 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 concentration, and a continuous disturbance in mood and character, which constitutes a permanent disability of 30% of her life. Brain benefit.

The medical reports also proved that the plaintiff's daughter suffers from psychological effects, which are depressive disorder and frustration as a result of the accident.

The Court of First Instance ordered the first defendant to pay 400,000 dirhams to the plaintiff, and 300 dirhams as attorney's fees.

It based its judgment on the conviction of the first defendant, who is the criminal operator of the garden, on the charge of violating the safety of the body of the plaintiff’s daughter, as a result of her breach of what was imposed on her by the principles of her profession, 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 be included (the maintenance company) of a charge of causing injury to the plaintiff’s daughter, based on the fact that that company had ended the contract with it before the accident occurred, and its liability was denied, while the ruling ruled that the claims arising from disputes arising from contracts would not be accepted. and insurance business and services if those disputes are not brought before the dispute settlement committees arising from contracts and insurance services business, which was not done in the case.

The judiciary was not accepted by the two parties to the case, so the first defendant, in the original, and the plaintiff, appealed against it.

The appellant reproached the wrong judgment in applying the law and the violation of what was established in the documents, considering that she appealed the appeal against the absentee criminal judgment issued against her, and therefore the element of error is not established in her right, which negates her responsibility for compensation, while the appellant crossly mourned the appealed judgment for the unfairness of the judgment. His rights, given that the compensation awarded in the first instance is not commensurate with the extent of the damage caused to the appellant's daughter, especially with regard to the impact of her brain damage on her future.

For its part, the Court of Appeal stated in the reasons for its ruling that it was evident from the criminal case in all its stages that a final and final criminal judgment had been issued convicting the original appellant for the harm attributed to her to the safety of the body of the victim, the daughter of the appellant, correspondingly, as a result of her breach of what was imposed on her by the principles of her profession. Hence, it is considered an argument for 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 criticized the appealed ruling for unfairness to 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 of The severity of the damage suffered by the child, and it is directly related to her brain, what the court of first instance estimated in terms of compensation for the victim would not cover the damage in all its dimensions.

The court ruled to amend the appealed judgment to oblige the appellant to pay the child's guardian a total compensation of 700,000 dirhams.

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