|
||
| VICTORIES |
| Moral
damage - myth or reality??? Two contradicting court decisions about the same lawsuit |
|
Case # 2 -1009 Year 2001 DecisionIn the name of UkraineOn August 6, 2001 the city court of Kakhovka district, Kherson region Composed of: judge Zubik V.V. Secretary Iotova O.O. Examined civil lawsuit filed by Dubinska Raisa Mykolivna to Tkachenko Natalia Viktorivna. The court determined: Dubinska R.M. demands to reimburse material and moral damage caused by Tkachenko N.V. in the amount of UAH 1430. She motivates her demand with the fact that the defendant did not take care of her dog that broke the leash and attacked the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent UAH 430 for medical treatment and the plaintiff also evaluates the moral damage in the amount of UAH 1000. The defendant disagrees with the plaintiff's demands saying that the dog was on the leash. It is an accident that a dog broke the leash and attacked the plaintiff. The lawsuit can not be satisfied. On February 15, 2001 during daytime in village Sergiivka, Kakhovka district, the dog who belongs to Takchenko N.V. attacked Dubinska R.V. and caused physical injuries. According to articles 440.440-1 of Civicl codex of Ukraine the damage caused to a person must be reimbursed by the person who provocated the damage. Proof of the guilt according to article 30 of Civil Codex of Ukraine is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant violated the rules of keeping her dog, which led to damage. The plaintiff also did not prove that the dog broke the leash due to improper treatment of the defendant. The witnesses proved that the dog was always leashed. According to the articles 440.440-1 of Civil Codex of Ukraine, articles 15, 30, 62 of Civil-Procedural Codex. Concluded: The plaintiff's demands must be refused. The appellation can be sent within 15 days from the day of announcement of this decision. |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||