BCC 343/2005

This case involved a claim by a father for compensation for injuries to his son. There was a previous criminal ruling on the case so it was not possible for the civil courts to reopen the matter. The court had authority to assess the compensation and rate of damage.

Background

The father of an injured person filed a case against two defendants before the court requesting they pay compensation. The father said that the first defendant had injured his son.

The court ruled that the defendants should pay the estimated compensation.

The first defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The first defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. It was said that the court established its ruling based on an expert report without referring the case to a medical commission. The defendant also said that the court estimated the rate of damage based on the report of a medical examiner although the report was not an indicator of the rate of damage.