Fall inside the bus or subway

18/05/2022

> Mandatory travellers Insurance

It is included in the price of any collective public transport ticket with capacity for nine or more people (bus, metro, train, boat) or others with a lower capacity in which the traction is by cable (chair lifts, cable cars, funiculars, etc.).

From the moment a user of public transport, be it a bus, metro, train, etc. or any other type, buy the ticket has insurance for which you can request compensation from both the public service company and the person responsible for the accident.

The Mandatory Travelers Insurance includes coverage during the journey but also while you get on and off the means of transport or when you pick up your luggage.

The SOVI is a compulsory private insurance, as its name indicates, that all means of public transport must have because every journey implies a risk.

This insurance is not exclusive , that is, one that the passenger has contracted on his own is compatible with that of public transport.

It is necessary to have the ticket except in certain cases:

-That due to the circumstances of the accident it may have been destroyed or lost.

-That those affected are minors who by regulation are excluded from paying the ticket, who will also be insured,

-That it is the company's personnel that perform services aimed at the maintenance or operation of the vehicle or administration personnel that perform control functions during the trip.

The SOVI only covers personal and bodily damage, not material.

The injuries that can be compensated by the SOV have their own type of injury that is established in Royal Decree 1575/1989, of December 22.

Travelers who cause accidents while intoxicated, under the influence of drugs or stimulants or by committing malicious acts will be excluded from this SOV coverage.

-The civil liability insurance is compatible with the Compulsory Travelers Insurance, but it is essential to prove the responsibility of the bus driver or of a third vehicle in the accident, and direct the claim to the corresponding insurance company.

-This compatibility with the Compulsory Travelers Insurance is recognized by the Supreme Court in the STS (Civil Chamber, Section 1) no. 627/2011 of September 19 (RJ 2011\6424): "The injured party was injured in an accident that occurred while traveling on a Tuzca company urban bus, and, therefore, while in possession of a ticket in which, together with the rate, the mandatory travel insurance provided by the insurer Mercurio SA is paid As the accident was caused by sudden braking, civil liability was declared, covered by the mandatory insurance required by the LRCSCVM. compensation claimed- it is possible given the different nature of both insurances.Travellers insurance is regulated by the still valid RD 1575/1989, of December 30-22. It quotes and reproduces articles 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9. The traveler's insurance is a personal insurance, included in article 100 LCS, which exclusively covers bodily injuries of the traveler that cause death, permanent disability or temporary disability, and that may be linked to any culpable or fortuitous accident, unless it was caused by the insured himself. In front of it, a very different insurance concurs, contemplated by RD 7/2001, of January 12, which approves the Regulation on civil liability and insurance in the circulation of motor vehicles. It cites and reproduces articles 1, 9 and 10. It is a civil liability insurance, of those included in articles 73 and 75 LCS, whose insured is not the passenger but the owner of the motor vehicle, who must respond for the conduct of the driver. It is not an accident insurance that covers personal damage, regardless of the cause of the accident, but only addresses the responsibility in its causation, in such a way that the (non-contractual) liability of the person who caused it will be covered. . Hence, the insurer can be subrogated in the actions that its insured has against the person responsible, which does not fit in accident insurance. We are therefore faced with a non-contractual liability, required of the insurer in accordance with article 1 of the Law on the Use and Circulation of Motor Vehicles, both in its previous wording, incorporated by DA 8 of Law 30/1995, of 30 November, as in its wording after the entry into force of RDL 8/2004, of October 29, which approves the TRLRCSCVM.

CONCLUSION:

-Compulsory Travelers Insurance is a type of accident insurance and, therefore, as personal insurance, the covered risk is the person of the traveler, so the right of the insured does not depend on the faulty or negligent action of the carrier .

- The civil liability insurance covers the risk of birth by the driver and the owner of the vehicle of civil liability against third parties, that is, on the occasion of a traffic event, of an objective nature in the case of damage to people, and subjective when dealing with material damage. As insurance for damages and not for people, the protected interest is that of the person responsible for the damage, since what is insured is not the possibility of the accident of third parties but the liability debt that the responsible insured will be forced to assume.

-This different nature, purpose and coverage and the express compatibility of the two types of insurance, entails the possibility of claiming under the civil liability insurance, to complete the corresponding indemnities in which they were not contemplated in the scope of the Compulsory Insurance of Travellers.

-The SOV as an accident insurance modality and, therefore, as personal insurance, covers the damages suffered in an accident that takes place during a trip in a means of transport.

-The civil liability insurance with motor vehicles, such as damage insurance and not personal insurance, covers the risk of birth by the driver and the owner of the vehicle of civil liability against third parties, that is, on the occasion of an event of traffic, insofar as what is insured is not the possibility of a third-party accident but rather the liability debt that the liable insured person will be forced to assume.

-There is no duplicity in the compensation but different risk and compensable interest and, therefore, the prohibition on unjust enrichment is not applicable.

-The fact that the compensation of the SOV has nothing to do with the fault in the occurrence of the accident so that if under the coverage of the SOV the damages that are not provided for in said insurance cannot be included, which means that the injured party may file a civil liability action against the carrier.

-The insurance company that covers the SOV, will be obliged to compensate the damages suffered by the simple fact of the accident.

-If the action derived from the Compulsory Travelers Insurance is dismissed or to complete the indemnities that are not provided for in this insurance, the injured party may file direct action against the insurer and civil liability action against the carrier, provided that the fault of the accident is not exclusive to the injured party or there is no force majeure that caused the accident.

- BARCELONA PROVINCIAL COURT SECTION DATED 10/19/2020 APPEAL NO.: 160/2020 RESOLUTION NO.: 79 0/2020Along with this, the aforementioned precepts also establish the exoneration of conviction to the insurer when there is force majeure unrelated to driving"......"The civil liability insurance regulated in the LRCSCVM is intended to cover the risk of birth to charge of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, of the civil liability against third parties provided for in article 1 of the LRCSCVM, that is, on the occasion of a traffic event, of an objective nature in the case of damage to people. This precept establishes a principle of strict liability, by virtue of the risk or danger posed by driving, a risk that is socially accepted, which leads the legislator to an alteration of the rules of subjective liability of article 1,902 of the Civil Code. The consequence is the establishment of strict liability, which supposes imputation criteria unrelated to the concurrence of fault or negligence, and, in addition, a presumption of causality is established between the risky activities and the harmful consequences that appear as characteristics of the former. This presumption can only be weakened by demonstrating that the causes of exoneration configured by law concur as excluding the causal link between the action and the damage. Moreover, in order to ensure the indemnity of the victims, assumptions of responsibility are accepted even when there are circumstances of force majeure, repealing the general rule of article 1,105 of the Civil Code. In other words, the cases excluding liability established in article 1 of the LRCSCVM are cases of force majeure, but, Except in the case of the specific ones mentioned, any other case of force majeure supposes the need to indemnify. For force majeure to display its effectiveness in the sense that it weakens responsibility, it must be foreign to driving or operating the vehicle, understanding as such that which arises from the sector of activity considered as a source of risk. In this sense, the ruling of the Supreme Court of February 4, 2015 declares that when force majeure is not unrelated to driving, we are facing a fortuitous event, which is not expressly included as an exclusionary element of compulsory insurance coverage. Thus, in view of the exposed doctrine,