Ayman shape
The Civil Court obligated an insurance company and a believer car driver with a solidarity of 13,000 dinars for a woman who was injured in a traffic accident caused by the driver of the vehicle, and the court confirmed that the vehicle’s driver’s injury to lose consciousness during the accident is not a compelling circumstance of his knowledge of the possibility of cramps during driving, and he was obliged to expenses, legal interest, and lawyer fees.
The facts of the lawsuit are obtained, while the lawyer, Alaa Adel and Sahar Nabil, the prosecutor, mentioned that on 10/25/2021, their client was subjected to a traffic accident caused by the first defendant, who was driving his car insured with the second defendant, and because of the lack of caution on the road, the plaintiff collided and left her physical and material damage, where the medical committees reported that she had suffered from an injury The chest with a fracture in the fifth rib to the tenth, as a simple bruise, a breaking break of the broken protrusive in the second, third and fourth cotton vertebrae, an injury in the pelvis with a fracture in the vial branch, a soft tissue injury to the right knee and the right thigh, a blood gathering in the thigh, and the permanent deficit was estimated at 20%.
The plaintiff’s representatives indicated that a criminal ruling was issued to the first defendant to punish him by imprisonment for a month for the accusation assigned to him, as a result of that incident, in a way that had the corner of the error against his compensation, and requested the ruling to her with material and literary compensation and the treatment expenses that incurred her as a result of the accident.
The driver of the car driver pushed a force majeure, as his client was suffering from cramps, and he was unconscious during the accident, but the court confirmed that this payment had been shown before the criminal court, and it was not accustomed to it as a barrier of responsibility, and ruled that the accused would be punished, which the court must adhere to the authenticity of the criminal ruling in what was separated in it, and he was refrained from re -discussing the matter.
The court added: “On the assumption of the existence of a force majeure, the adherence to paying the existence of a Cairo force is not a way to pay responsibility, since the force majeure is not considered if it is possible to expect the person concerned to it, as the lesson in measuring the degree of expectation is the inability to expect the loss of the first defendant to be aware of the awareness, and this is an intuitive condition in the application of the force of the force majeure, so if the person expects the accident, or if it is possible to expect or pay it, then there is no room for applying the theory to avoid the effect of the incident. He was aware of the health status that afflicts him, and despite his knowledge of this, he led the vehicle with the possibility of expecting the possibility of a seizure of cramps, which is in no way to consider that the loss of the first defendant for his consciousness is a force majeure, he was unable The first defendant has occurred in the outputs of negligence.
The court ruled that the defendant obliges them to perform solidarity to the plaintiff, the amount of 13374 dinars, with legal interest at 3% from the date of the claim until complete payment, and obligated them to the occasion of the expenses of the lawsuit and the secretariat of the medical committee, and in exchange for law fees.
