During this day, the Supreme Court ordered compensation of $120,000,000 for moral damages to an architect who, during demonstrations around the Mapocho River in 2013, lost vision in his right eye as a result of a paintball fired by a gunman. cash of special forces of Carabineros.
In this way, the court confirmed the resolution issued by the Santiago Appeals Court in 2021, where it holds the State responsible for the lack of services in police action during the public demonstration.
The judgment expressly states that “the non-pecuniary damage claimed by the plaintiff consists of the irreparable pain caused by the loss of vision in his right eye, at the same time that the foregoing has caused difficulties in the development of daily and work activities.” of the actor”. In addition, it is argued that the evidence and the statements of witnesses have managed to prove that this damage was caused by the deficient performance of the Carabineros de Chile.
On the other hand, emphasis is placed on the peaceful social behavior that the architect maintained during the demonstration, who did not show violent or illegal behavior and, therefore, did not contribute to the damage suffered. According to the ruling, “in effect, the factual assumptions make it clear that the causal link derives from the noted police action, which caused the victim an injury to the right eyeball, without there being a hypothesis of co-cause that serves as a justification to proportionally reduce the assessment of the damage caused to the affected party”.
However, the highest Chilean court established an error of law by partially granting the request for loss of earnings, due to the absence of evidence to prove the requested item and the possibility of supplying such insufficiency considering the remaining years. to qualify for retirement.
For this reason, it is considered “that, in relation to the items that make up the compensation for patrimonial damage, it should be noted that although the lost profit is compensable, it must be true, effective damage and that it appears duly accredited, through evidence irrefutable, which did not happen in the species, which is why it was incorrectly accepted by the base judges”, the ruling pointed out.
The decision was adopted by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, made up of minister Sergio Muñoz, minister Adelita Ravanales, ministers Jean Pierre Matus, Mario Carroza and member lawyer Gonzalo Ruz. Ministers Muñoz and Carroza voted against, who were about to confirm the appeal sentence, with a declaration of increasing both compensation items.
