The Supreme Court confirms the physical and moral Spanish Costa Concordia passengers damages.

April 29 , 2016 // Legal Reforms and Debate : Liability derived from the use of motor vehicles

The 1st Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed in its judgment of 8 April 2016 the compensation that Costa Crociere must pay for physical and moral damages to each of the twenty Spanish passengers the Italian ship Costa Concordia, which sank on 13 January 2012 off the island of Giglio (Italy).
The shipowning company will have to pay 12,000 euros for moral damages to each of them by anxiety, anxiety, anxiety and stress that lived the night of shipwreck in Italian waters.
Besides the 17 who were injured they will receive an additional amount specified in the medicolegal reports provided by Costa Crociere.
The resolution dismissing the appeal brought by the Spanish Association of People Affected by the Costa Concordia 2012 requesting a total of 1,320,000 euros, 60,000 per passenger.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme ratifies the judgment of the Provincial Court of Madrid who understood that you had to evaluate moral damages independently and without prior accreditation by the difficult situation experienced by passengers during the wreck.
At the same time, the physical damage he pulled 10 percent of the correction factor.
With its ruling, he corrected the Court of First Instance recognized 330,000 euros 15,000 euros for each of the 22 passengers Spaniards by all concepts -Damage physical, mental and moral according to the scale of traffic accidents.
The sentence, which has been a speaker Judge Fernando Pantaleon Prieto, share the decision of the Provincial Court of Madrid and believes that it was right to give equal treatment to all passengers, granting compensation for moral damages.
In this sense, it refers to the use of the scale of traffic accidents, with no binding criteria, in cases other than traffic accidents as medical malpractice.
The sentence complements the doctrine stating that the use of such rules as guiding criteria does not exclude compensation for moral damages separately from non consequence of that bodily harm, requirement latter hypothesis that eliminates the possibility of double compensation.
However the Supreme Court considers that he failed to exclude or subtract from the compensation quantified according to the scale factor corrector 10 percent applied in the above reports provided by Costa Crociere.
Nevertheless, the ruling makes clear that the judgment does not change at the end because the applicant association had not requested in its application.