One of the winning results of the litigation team led by María Mercedes Gonzalo Garachana included an advance in Dominican jurisprudence regarding damages related to traffic accidents. The relevant parts are quoted below:
Judgment No. 037-2018-SSEN-01938, issued on November 9, 2018, by the Fifth Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the National District.
Claims in civil liability based on the act of an inanimate object (article 1384, paragraph 1 of the Dominican Civil Code), as a result of infractions that cause damages, the origin of which comes from traffic accidents, in accordance with Law 63-17, constitute quasi-delicts, so the applicable statute of limitations is that enshrined in article 2271 of the Civil Code.
In this regard, it has considered that: “Claims for compensation for damages based on the liability of the guardian of the inanimate object, such as the case in question, are based on the lack of guardianship and that this lack implies negligence or imprudence on the part of the guardian, constitutes a civil quasi-delict (SCJ November 10, 1954, BJ 532, Page 2272); therefore, by virtue of the jurisprudential criterion previously exposed, this Court understands that the prescription applicable in this case is that enshrined in article 2271 of the Civil Code, which establishes that: “It prescribes by the passage of the same period of six months, counted from the moment in which the action arises in quasi-delictual civil liability whose prescription had not been fixed by law, expressly in a longer period (…)”.
“Regarding the term of the prescription, it has indicated: “Both parties confirm that the event generating the present action occurred on March 15, 2016, however, the Court has been able to verify that the introductory act of the instance, which is the procedural action that creates the jurisdictional relationship between the parties and the Court, was notified on May 25, 2018, so two (02) years, two (02) months and ten (10) days had elapsed between the event generating the damage and the filing of the claim, therefore, consequently, the present claim for the civil quasi-delict was filed outside the term established by law, since the limit for filing it was six months, which is evident was not observed by the plaintiff, in that same sense, since the extinctive prescription of the action is a request to exercise it when the term has elapsed, it is appropriate to declare the claim for compensation for damages based on the act of the inanimate object inadmissible, due to extinctive prescription of the action.”
“Claims for compensation for damages based on the liability of the guardian of the inanimate object, such as the case in question, are based on the lack of guardianship and that this lack implies negligence or imprudence on the part of the guardian, constitutes a civil quasi-delict (SCJ November 10, 1954, BJ 532, Page 2272); therefore, by virtue of the jurisprudential criterion previously exposed, this Court understands that the prescription applicable in this case is that enshrined in article 2271 of the Civil Code, which establishes that: “It prescribes by the passage of the same period of six months, counted from the moment in which the action arises in quasi-delictual civil liability whose prescription had not been fixed by law, expressly in a longer period (…)”.
