The irruption of animals on the roads

31/01/2022

EXEMPTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY:

Royal Legislative Decree 8/2004, of October 29, which approves the revised text of the Law on civil liability and insurance in the circulation of motor vehicles.

Article 1.
1.-The driver of motor vehicles is responsible, by virtue of the risk created by driving them, for damages caused to people or property due to traffic.
In the case of damage to persons, this responsibility will only be exonerated when it proves that the damage was due to the exclusive fault of the injured party or force majeure unrelated to driving or operating the vehicle; Vehicle defects or breakage or failure of any of its parts or mechanisms will not be considered cases of force majeure.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORCE MAJEURE AND FORTUITOUS EVENT
1.-Cases of force majeure
They are defined by their exceptional nature and are circumscribed in natural phenomena, unpredictable, surprising and of great intensity. They are outside the activity of driving, and are considered cases of force majeure: lightning, hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.
2.- Fortuitous cases
Its scope is in driving, so it does not exempt the driver from liability and the vehicle insurer will be obliged to compensate the personal damage caused. The assumptions of fortuitous event, in addition to objects fallen from another vehicle, vehicle stopped due to breakdown or accident, pedestrian irruption, it is also:
- Animal irruption on the road.

REGARDING THE IRRUPTION OF ANIMALS ON THE ROAD:
BEFORE THE REFORMAW 17/2005 of July 19, which regulates the driving permit and license by points and modifies the articulated text of the law on traffic, circulation of motor vehicles and road safety, introduces the ninth additional provision .
-Ninth additional provision. Responsibility in traffic accidents due to abuses of hunting species.
In traffic accidents caused by running over hunting species, the driver of the vehicle will be responsible when he can be charged with non-compliance with traffic regulations. The personal and patrimonial damages in these accidents, will only be demandable to the holders of hunting uses or, failing that, to the owners of the land, when the accident is a direct consequence of the action of hunting or of a lack of diligence in the Preservation of bounded land. The owner of the public road where the accident occurs may also be held liable as a result of his responsibility for its state of conservation and its signage.

CONCLUSION:
-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER or LESSEE OF THE HUNTING LAND IF THERE IS A LACK OF RIGOROUS DILIGENCE IN THE CONSERVATION OF THE BOUNDATED LANDS OR WHETHER THE ACCIDENT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF A HUNTING ACTION.
-LIABILITY OF THE ROAD OWNER FOR LACK OF MAINTENANCE AND SIGNAGE.
*STS Chamber 1st num 50/2016 of February 11: "(....) Now, fully in view of the above, this Chamber wants to expressly confirm the doctrine that emerges from its Judgment 3/2015, of February 25 (Rec. 2244/2012): that, from the rule of the first paragraph of the ninth additional provision of the Road Safety Law introduced by Law 17/2005, it cannot be concluded that the driver's liability was limited to the event of non-compliance by him with the traffic regulations.It was not excluded -that is to say- the responsibility of the driver in accordance with the regulations of the Law on civil liability and insurance in the circulation of motor vehicles, not being able to be considered «strange force majeure to driving" the irruption of game animals on the road. Doctrine that we confirm, in order to eliminate any doubt that the previous Judgment of this Chamber 245/2014, of May 14 (Rec. 2563/2011) may have created in this regard ); even though, in the In the case that was finally decided, the seriously injured plaintiff, a passenger in the vehicle that had collided with a herd of wild boar, and who was claiming compensation from the vehicle's insurance company, had already obtained some compensation, through a transaction with the hunting company that owned the hunting use from which the animals came and with their insurer; and this had also paid the all-risk insurer of the vehicle the amount of the material damage suffered by it as a result of the collision with the wild boars.
(......) In the present case, the sentence to the tenant of the preserve to compensate the damages claimed by the plaintiffs, now appealed, is justified because, compared to what is stated in the appeal (to which no accompanying extraordinary appeal for procedural infraction), the contested sentence was pronounced in the following sense: "especially in cases such as the present one in which, after examining the documentary evidence