Andorra la VellaThe High Court has been very hard on the defense in the case of a skiing accident where a young man was left a quadriplegic and can only move his head. After the conviction against an employee of the slopes, the parents and sister of the victim asked for compensation for moral damage. 14 years have passed since the accident for which a worker on the slopes and the snow field was convicted in 2017 in a double instance.
The defense urged that all three prove that they were suffering moral damage due to the tetraplegia that the young man is suffering from. The Superior classifies the request of the defense questioning the moral damage as “unbelievable”. The sentence states that “there is no need to appeal to a special sensitivity to make it understood that in the face of a misfortune of your loved one, the moral damage suffered is obvious and that the sum of €30,000 for each parent who will have to attend to their child all his life in the most basic needs of a human being is moderate, because the damage is extreme (perhaps only surpassed by death). And with regard to the sister who lived with the family, the moral suffering is also undeniable and her reparation of €10,000 must also be ratified. The misfortune in the heart of the family cannot be overlooked by anyone”.
The attack on the defense continues because it has questioned the father’s need for a van with an access ramp to transport his quadriplegic son. The argument is that it was seven years ago and he hadn’t asked for it. He is reminded that when he was a child his father could move him by the neck, but being a 15-year-old the situation is different.
The text states that “with regard to the damages claimed by the father (in the amount of €29,905.93) who had to purchase a van for the family’s journeys with an absolutely disabled son, adapted to this situation with a rear door and access ramp, the appellants consider that the need for this future expenditure (acquired in 2018 when the accident occurred in 2010) has not been proven and that, ultimately, it means unjust enrichment on the part of the father who can also use it for other needs. But the truth is that the fact that it was necessary to acquire a van adapted to the situation of a child absolutely prevented from governing himself derives from the fact that the volume and weight of the child eight years later was different and this justifies that for travel, an adapted van must be used and which can be considered as a future expense of his son that he has covered”.
The Superior has confirmed the right to receive compensation. The young man and the mother of around 30,000 euros, the father of 30,000 plus the same amount to pay for the adapted vehicle and the sister of 10,000 euros.