|
Notas:
|
En la STS, 1a, 17.7.2007 (RJ 2007\4895, MP: Francisco Marín Castán), el Tribunal Supremo sostiene que los daños que sufre una amiga de los demandados en el inmueble de éstos al tropezar con un juguete abandonado en el suelo del pasillo, insuficientemente iluminado, no son indemnizables, porque dada la especial relación de confianza entre las partes, ese nivel extremo de diligencia no es exigible. El Tribunal parece aplicar al caso un patrón de diligencia quam in suis, la que despliega uno en sus propios asuntos,
que permitiría limitar la responsabilidad a los casos de dolo o culpa grave.
El trabajo comenta la sentencia y presenta, además, la clasificación entre invitee, licensee y trespasser que el Common Law norteamericano ha utilizado tradicionalmente para delimitar los niveles de cuidado de
propietarios (o poseedores) de inmuebles y que el borrador No. 6 del Restatement (Third) of Torts, de 12.9.2007, ha simplificado, añadiendo a la regla tradicional de No Duty to Trespasser la de una negligencia simple para los Innocent Trespasser.
The Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court’s Civil Chamber of July 17th 2007 (RJ 2007\4895, Opinion of the Court by Magistrate Francisco Marín Castán) held that the injuries suffered by an invitee after
tripping over a forgotten toy left in an ill-lit corridor are not compensable. According to the Court, a qualified level of care to avoid the damage was not required in such a situation. The Court seems to resort
to quam in suis level of care, in other words, the level of care defendants would have adopted if dealing with their own issues. Thus, only damages arisen from gross negligence or intentional breach of duty are
compensable.
This article comments on the judgment and introduces the reader to the US Common Law classification distinguishing among invitee, licensee and trespasser. This classification has traditionally guided the task of setting the boundaries of the duty of care to be requested to land owners or tenants. Recently, Draft. No. 6 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, of October 12th 2007, has provided a simple but workable response
consisting on adding to the non duty to trespasser rule a standard level of care in cases of innocent trespassers. |
