{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-158929", "citation": "Res. 01374-2016 Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Inexistencia de responsabilidad objetiva de empresa de transporte por muerte de pasajero en asalto", "title_en": "No strict liability of transport company for passenger death during robbery", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal confirma el rechazo de la acción civil resarcitoria contra la empresa de transporte público, aunque por razones distintas al tribunal de juicio. La Cámara rechaza la tesis de culpa de la víctima por su legítima defensa, pero determina que no existe responsabilidad objetiva al amparo del artículo 35 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, pues la muerte del pasajero durante un asalto no constituye un riesgo 'normal' del servicio de transporte público, sino un evento anormal y ajeno a la empresa. El tribunal analiza la teoría del riesgo, la causalidad adecuada y las obligaciones del concesionario, concluyendo que el daño provino de agentes externos y no guarda conexión causal con la prestación del servicio, por lo que la empresa es ajena al daño y queda exenta de responsabilidad.", "summary_en": "The Criminal Sentencing Appeals Court confirms the dismissal of the civil compensation claim against the public transport company, albeit on different grounds than the trial court. The Chamber rejects the lower court's reasoning of victim fault due to self-defense, but finds no strict liability under Article 35 of the Consumer Protection Law. The passenger's death during an armed robbery is not a 'normal' risk inherent to public bus service, but an abnormal event external to the company. The court analyzes the theory of risk, adequate causation, and the concessionaire's statutorily defined duties, concluding the harm was caused by external actors and has no causal link to the provision of transport service; thus, the company is foreign to the damage and exempt from liability.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José", "date": "28/09/2016", "year": "2016", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "acción civil resarcitoria", "responsabilidad objetiva", "causalidad adecuada", "eximente de responsabilidad", "hecho de un tercero" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Ley Reguladora Transporte Remunerado Personas Vehículos Automotores", "article": "17", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 3503", "article": "17", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Reguladora Transporte Remunerado Personas Vehículos Automotores", "article": "20", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 3503", "article": "20", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "1045", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 63", "article": "1045", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-20421", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7331", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-20421", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "article": "31", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7472", "article": "31", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "article": "32", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7472", "article": "32", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "article": "35", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7472", "article": "35", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "responsabilidad civil objetiva", "acción civil resarcitoria", "transporte público", "asalto", "riesgo normal del servicio", "causalidad adecuada", "consumidor", "eximente de responsabilidad", "hecho de un tercero" ], "keywords_en": [ "strict liability", "civil compensation claim", "public transport", "robbery", "normal service risk", "adequate causation", "consumer", "exemption from liability", "act of a third party" ], "excerpt_es": "Tomando en cuenta todo lo anterior, esta Cámara considera que la muerte del señor [Nombre [Nombre3]] dentro del autobús que atendía la concesión de transporte público, no puede atribuírsele como un riesgo propio o normal del servicio que se brindaba, eliminándose con ello la causalidad entre este y el resultado dañoso. En primer lugar, se tuvo por demostrado en la sentencia número 683-2015 (firme al día de hoy) emitida por el Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, que el servicio de transporte se estaba ejecutando de manera usual (normal) y que, los sujetos que amenazaron con armas de fuego a los pasajeros de dicho autobús, lo abordaron haciéndose pasar por usuarios, ya que lo esperaron en una de las paradas oficiales, en las que requirieron su servicio. Con esto se recalca que el asalto fue producido por agentes externos a la empresa. En segundo lugar, la muerte no fue el producto directo de la forma en la cual se estaba ejecutando la conducción por parte del chofer de la unidad, ni sobrevino por algún tipo de insuficiencia en el servicio que debía brindarse al usuario que aumentara el riesgo de este. Finalmente, tampoco se tuvo por cierto que el enfrentamiento fuera producido por algún funcionario de la empresa en cuestión, por lo que el resultado no tiene una conexión causal con las acciones -de transporte- ejecutadas por la demandada civil. Con base en todo lo dicho, no puede establecerse que el fallecimiento del agraviado haya sido consecuencia directa del riesgo normal creado por el servicio que se le brindaba, sino que se cataloga como un evento que lo sobrepasa, convirtiéndose en un daño \"anormal\".", "excerpt_en": "Taking all the above into account, this Chamber finds that the death of Mr. [Name [Name3]] inside the bus operating under the public transport concession cannot be attributed as a proper or normal risk of the service provided, thereby eliminating the causal link between it and the harmful result. First, it was proven in judgment number 683-2015 (now final) that the transport service was being executed in the usual (normal) manner, and the individuals who threatened passengers with firearms boarded the bus posing as users, having waited at an official stop where they requested service. This underscores that the robbery was carried out by persons external to the company. Second, the death was not the direct result of the driver's manner of operating the vehicle, nor did it arise from any inadequacy in the service that should have been provided to the user and that would have increased risk. Finally, it was also not proven that the confrontation was provoked by any employee of the company; therefore, the outcome has no causal connection with the transport-related actions of the civil defendant. Based on the above, it cannot be established that the victim's death was a direct consequence of the normal risk created by the service being provided; rather, it is classified as an event that surpasses it, constituting an 'abnormal' harm.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The appeal is dismissed and the rejection of the civil compensation claim against the public transport company is upheld, because the harm was foreign to the company and did not constitute a normal risk of the service.", "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación y se mantiene el rechazo de la acción civil resarcitoria contra la empresa de transporte público, al considerarse que el daño fue ajeno a la empresa y no configura un riesgo normal del servicio." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "it cannot be established that the victim's death was a direct consequence of the normal risk created by the service being provided; rather, it is classified as an event that surpasses it, constituting an 'abnormal' harm.", "quote_es": "no puede establecerse que el fallecimiento del agraviado haya sido consecuencia directa del riesgo normal creado por el servicio que se le brindaba, sino que se cataloga como un evento que lo sobrepasa, convirtiéndose en un daño \"anormal\"." }, { "context": "Citando el Art. 35 de la Ley 7472", "quote_en": "Only he who proves that he was foreign to the damage is released.", "quote_es": "Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño." }, { "context": "Citando a la Sala Primera, resolución 399-F-2009", "quote_en": "the proof of exempting causes (victim's fault, an act of a third party, or force majeure) acts upon the causal link, ruling out that the conduct attributed to the defendant was the producer of the injury suffered.", "quote_es": "la comprobación de las causas eximentes (culpa de la víctima, de un hecho de tercero o la fuerza mayor), actúa sobre el nexo de causalidad, descartando que la conducta atribuida a la parte demandada fuera la productora de la lesión sufrida." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-20421", "citation": "Ley 7331", "title_en": "Traffic Law on Public Land Routes", "title_es": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres", "doc_type": "law", "date": "13/04/1993", "year": "1993" }, { "id": "norm-26481", "citation": "Ley 7472", "title_en": "Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection", "title_es": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "doc_type": "law", "date": "20/12/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-20421", "citation": "Ley 7331", "title_en": "Traffic Law on Public Land Routes", "title_es": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres", "doc_type": "law", "date": "13/04/1993", "year": "1993" }, { "id": "norm-26481", "citation": "Ley 7472", "title_en": "Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection", "title_es": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "doc_type": "law", "date": "20/12/1994", "year": "1994" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-20421", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres" }, { "target_id": "norm-26481", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "norm-9433", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=9433&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Reguladora Transporte Remunerado Personas Vehículos Automotores", "norm_id": "9433" }, { "ref_id": "norm-15437", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=15437&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Civil", "norm_id": "15437" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-444026", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-444026" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-444027", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-444027" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-462985", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-462985" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-158929", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [ { "art_num": "17", "art_scij": "55208", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "norm_fecha": "10 May 1965", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora Transporte Remunerado Personas Vehículos Automotores", "norm_num": "3503", "norm_ver": "80722", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "20", "art_scij": "55211", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-9433", "norm_fecha": "10 May 1965", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora Transporte Remunerado Personas Vehículos Automotores", "norm_num": "3503", "norm_ver": "80722", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "1045", "art_scij": "89940", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "90115", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "1", "art_scij": "108000", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-20421", "norm_fecha": "13 Abr 1993", "norm_name": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres", "norm_num": "7331", "norm_ver": "99802", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "31", "art_scij": "128968", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_fecha": "20 Dic 1994", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_ver": "104340", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "32", "art_scij": "128969", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_fecha": "20 Dic 1994", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_ver": "104340", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "35", "art_scij": "128972", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_fecha": "20 Dic 1994", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_ver": "104340", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" }, { "doc_id": "norm-20421", "norm_num": "7331", "norm_name": "Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "13/04/1993" }, { "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "20/12/1994" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0034-444026", "sen-1-0034-444027", "sen-1-0034-462985" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Inexistencia de responsabilidad objetiva de empresa de transporte público por muerte de pasajero que opone resistencia durante un asalto" } ], "id": 3, "nombre": "Acción civil resarcitoria" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Inexistencia de responsabilidad objetiva de empresa de transporte público por muerte de pasajero que opone resistencia durante un asalto" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Responsabilidad civil derivada del hecho punible" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Inexistencia de responsabilidad objetiva de empresa de transporte público por muerte de pasajero que opone resistencia durante un asalto" } ], "id": 4, "nombre": "Homicidio calificado" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Inexistencia respecto a empresa de transporte público por muerte de pasajero que opone resistencia durante un asalto" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Responsabilidad civil objetiva" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Asalto y muerte de pasajero que opone resistencia" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Inexistencia de responsabilidad civil de la empresa" } ], "id": 5, "nombre": "Transporte público" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“III.- El alegato es improcedente. El Tribunal de juicio estableció que debía eximirse a la empresa de transportes por la existencia de culpa de la víctima, para lo cual determinó: “En relación con la acción civil resarcitoria planteada por la actora civil en contra de la Empresa denominada Servicio de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, se declara con lugar la excepción de falta de derecho y en consecuencia sin lugar la acción civil resarcitoria incoada por la señora [Nombre [Nombre1]]. Los hechos demostrados en esta sentencia demuestran que la empresa demanda (sic) no ha incurrido en ningún supuesto de responsabilidad civil. (…) El servicio público que brinda la empresa de transporte demandada solo puede verse exenta de los daños sufridos por quienes reciban un servicio durante el mismo cuando se esté en presencia de un caso fortuito, de fuerza mayor o el hecho de la víctima, al tenor del artículo 1043 (sic) del Código Civil. Los dos primeros no son supuestos a considerar en el caso bajo examen, más (sic) si el tercero, sea un hecho de la propia víctima. La acción del occiso de resistir el asalto fue la que provocó la lamentable decisión del agente activo del delito para detonar el arma y consecuentemente provocarle la muerte a la propia víctima. La legítima defensa ejercida por el occiso, como se sabe, es una causal que excluye la antijuridicidad de su actuar y que el ordenamiento jurídico tolera, más (sic) no promueve, es decir repeler la violencia con violencia es una decisión propia de cada quien de modo que al escoger esta vía y usar su propia arma para enfrentar violentamente la acción violenta (sic) del delincuente la víctima salió del ámbito de protección que la empresa podría ofrecerle y la empresa en consecuencia dejó de tener la obligación objetiva que le impone el numeral 35 supra citado (…) Como se puede observar, el ordenamiento no le exigía a la víctima tomar la iniciativa de repeler con violencia la sustracción masiva en curso y en perjuicio de todos los pasajeros que ejercía [Nombre2] y de haber actuado con mesura no hubiere resultado abatido, tal cual no les sucedió al resto de pasajeros que estaban también siendo asaltados” (cfr. folios 560 a 562). Como se observa, el razonamiento del Tribunal toma el acto de legítima defensa desplegado por el ofendido ante una agresión ilegítima del encartado sentenciado, y le da una interpretación tergiversada de sus implicaciones legales. Ello, debido a que para que se aplique la excepción de culpa de la víctima, se requiere que la acción ejecutada por esta sea la que desencadene la causalidad que produce el daño. En el presente caso, según los hechos probados en la sentencia número 683-2015 emitida por el Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, todo se originó en la conducta que desplegó el imputado [Nombre2] y otro sujeto desconocido cuando amenazaron con armas de fuego a los pasajeros de un autobús para despojarlos de sus bienes y, en defensa propia y de quienes viajaban en él, el señor [Nombre [Nombre3]] usó el arma de fuego que portaba, desencadenándose un intercambio de disparos, producto de lo cual perdió la vida (ver folios 439 a 440). Como se observa, la causalidad fue puesta en marcha por el sentenciado, quien eligió un arma de fuego como medio intimidatorio, aceptando las consecuencias de su uso. Así, no podría establecerse que el impulso causal fue de la víctima, porque esta, más bien, intentó intervenir en los acontecimientos puestos en movimiento por los asaltantes con el fin de evitar el despojo de los bienes. Es por esto que no puede avalarse el criterio del Tribunal de juicio encaminado a responsabilizar, civilmente, al agraviado por su muerte. No obstante lo anterior, esta Cámara debe mantener el rechazo de la acción civil resarcitoria dirigida contra la empresa Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, aunque por razones diversas a las brindadas por el a quo. Para ello se ha tomado en cuenta que la responsabilidad civil tiene dos orígenes, uno subjetivo y otro objetivo. El subjetivo va de la mano con la demostración de una acción dolosa o culposa, según se establece en el artículo 1045 del Código Civil y el objetivo tiene relación con el régimen específico que, por ley, se fijó para cada caso particular, sin que exista, para su demostración, la obligación de probar la presencia de dolo o culpa. En el presente asunto, indudablemente, la recurrente plantea una discusión dirigida a determinar si se le puede atribuir este segundo tipo de responsabilidad a la empresa que brindaba el servicio público donde ocurrió la muerte del agraviado. Para ello, se debe examinar la concurrencia de algunos elementos, los cuales tienen que ser demostrados en el proceso, con el fin de poder concluir si se le puede o no exigir la obligación de reparar el daño producido. Al respecto, resulta necesario referir lo dicho por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia: “Asimismo, es importante considerar, por su influencia en eltema probatorio, que los elementos determinantes para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad civil, sea esta subjetiva u objetiva, son: una conducta lesiva (la cual puede ser activa o pasiva, legítima o ilegítima), la existencia de un daño (es decir, una lesión a un bien jurídico tutelado), un nexo de causalidad que vincule los dos anteriores, y en la mayoría de los casos la verificación de un criterio de atribución, que dependerá del régimen legal específico. En cuanto a la causalidad, es menester indicar que se trata deuna valoración casuística realizada por el juzgador en la cual, con base en los hechos, determina la existencia de relación entre el daño reclamado y la conducta desplegada por el agente económico. Si bien existen diversas teorías sobre la materia, la que se ha considerado más acorde con el régimen costarricense es la de causalidad adecuada,según la cual existe una vinculación entre daño y conducta cuando el primero se origine, si no necesariamente, al menos con una alta probabilidad según las circunstanciasespecíficas que incidan en la materia, de la segunda (en este sentido, pueden verse, entre otras, las resoluciones 467-F-2008 de las 14 horas 25 minutos del 4 de julio de20085, o la 1008-F-2006 de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 21 de diciembre de 2006). En este punto, es importante aclarar que la comprobación de las causas eximentes (culpa de lavíctima, de un hecho de tercero o la fuerza mayor), actúa sobre el nexo de causalidad, descartando que la conducta atribuida a la parte demandada fuera la productora de lalesión sufrida.” (Resolución número 399-F-2009, de las 10:45 horas del 23 de abril de 2009; en el mismo sentido, pueden consultarse la resolución 398-F de las 10:40 horas del mismo día y año). En el presente caso, la recurrente indica que el marco legal aplicable para exigirle a la empresa de transporte público una indemnización, es el que dicta la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor (Ley número 7472), ya que, de acuerdo con los hechos probados, la muerte del señor [[Nombre4] ] acaeció en un autobús de la ruta que Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada prestaba en esa época. Así que, primero que todo, se debe examinar esto, con el fin de establecer si ese es el marco legal de responsabilidad aplicable. Según los hechos probados de la sentencia número 683-2015, emitida por el Tribunal de Juicio del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José (ver folios 439 a 440 del legajo principal), el ofendido viajaba en un servicio de transporte público cuando dos sujetos -quienes también habían abordado el autobús- amenazaron con armas de fuego a los pasajeros y al chofer requiriéndoles la entrega de todos sus bienes. Es por esto que [Nombre [Nombre3]] sacó el arma de fuego que portaba y la accionó contra uno de los asaltantes, quien respondió de igual forma contra el agraviado, acabando con su vida. El artículo primero de la ley numero 7472 indica: “El objetivo de la presente Ley es proteger, efectivamente, los derechos y los intereses legítimos del consumidor, la tutela y la promoción del proceso de competencia y libre concurrencia, mediante la prevención, la prohibición de monopolios, las prácticas monopolísticas y otras restricciones al funcionamiento eficiente del mercado y la eliminación de las regulaciones innecesarias para las actividades económicas”. Esta misma ley define qué debe entenderse como consumidor en el artículo dos: “Toda persona física o entidad de hecho o de derecho, que, como destinatario final, adquiere, disfruta o utiliza los bienes o los servicios, o bien, recibe información o propuestas para ello. También se considera consumidor al pequeño industrial o al artesano –en los términos definidos en el Reglamento de esta Ley- que adquiera productos terminados o insumos para integrarlos en los procesos para producir, transformar, comercializar o prestar servicios a terceros”. Por su parte, el numeral 31 de este cuerpo normativo establece que “Los consumidores son beneficiarios de las normas de este capítulo; los productores y los comerciantes, tanto del sector público como del privado, quedan obligados a cumplirlas”. Con base en los artículos anteriores, todo parece indicar que la relación de consumo del servicio de transporte que se instauró en el momento en el cual el ofendido abordó el autobús y canceló su pasaje (no hay prueba en contrario que demuestre que no se dieron así los hechos) permite la aplicación del régimen de responsabilidad contenido en esta ley especial. Asimismo, el numeral 32 establece cuáles son los derechos fundamentales e irrenunciables que se le reconocen a los consumidores, entre los que se encuentran: “(…) a) La protección contra los riesgos que puedan afectar su salud, su seguridad y el medio ambiente. b) La protección de sus legítimos intereses económicos y sociales. (…) f) Mecanismos efectivos de acceso para la tutela administrativa y judicial de sus derechos e intereses legítimos, que conduzcan a prevenir adecuadamente, sancionar y reparar con prontitud la lesión de estos, según corresponda. (…)” De acuerdo con esto, la ley en mención dispuso un régimen de responsabilidad objetiva en el artículo 35, el cual indica: “El productor, el proveedor y el comerciante deben responder concurrente e independientemente de la existencia de culpa, si el consumidor resulta perjudicado por razón del bien o el servicio, de informaciones inadecuadas o insuficientes sobre ellos o de su utilización y riesgos. Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño. Los representantes legales de los establecimientos mercantiles o, en su caso, los encargados del negocio son responsables por los actos o los hechos propios o por los de sus dependientes o auxiliares. Los técnicos, los encargados de la elaboración y el control responden solidariamente, cuando así corresponda, por las violaciones a esta Ley en perjuicio del consumidor” (La negrita es suplida) Así, esta norma prevé dos tipos de responsabilidad objetiva. La primera cuando el daño es el producto de informaciones inadecuadas o insuficientes o se origina en la utilización y los riesgos del bien o el servicio que se brinde por parte del comerciante, lo que implica una relación directa entre quien brinda el servicio o el bien y el consumidor. En este presupuesto existe una circunstancia expresa que excluye la obligación de responder por la afectación producida, cuando se demuestre que el daño ha sido ajeno a quien daba el servicio o comerciaba el bien. La segunda, cuando permite que técnicos, encargados de la elaboración y el control también respondan solidariamente por la afectación producida, sin que se entienda que esta debe –necesariamente- excluir la primera o viceversa, pues la norma autoriza el reconocimiento solidario de la obligación de reparar. En el presente asunto, por las condiciones en las que se dieron los hechos, esta norma es aplicable en su primer supuesto, pues estamos frente al proveedor de un servicio (Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada) y un sujeto que era el consumidor de este ([Nombre [Nombre3]]), debiendo analizarse si su fallecimiento (daño producido) durante el asalto al autobús (conducta lesiva realizada por el sentenciado [Nombre2] ) fue en razón de la utilización y riesgos del servicio que le brindó el comerciante (causalidad específica para este régimen de responsabilidad objetiva). Este último requerimiento, precisamente, es el que nos obliga a examinar el artículo 35 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, cuando refiere que no debe reparar el daño quien ha sido ajeno a este. Ahora bien, se ha dicho que: “Corre por cuenta del accionado probar que es ajeno a la producción del daño, es decir, debe demostrar la concurrencia de alguna de las causas eximentes de responsabilidad, ya sea la culpa de la víctima, el hecho de un tercero o la fuerza mayor. Asimismo, el demandado puede liberarse de la responsabilidad en el tanto logre comprobar que el régimen establecido en el cardinal 35 de la Ley de Defensa del Consumidor no le es aplicable, ya sea porque no concurren en la especie los presupuestos subjetivos para su aplicación (por ejemplo, si las partes no se encontraran en una relación de consumo), o bien, en el caso específico de la teoría del riesgo que contempla dicha norma, que este no se ubica en un grado de anormalidad.” (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, resolución número 1308-F, de las 11:20 horas del 17 de diciembre de 2009) . De acuerdo con esto, y al descartarse la presencia de culpa para exigir la responsabilidad civil objetiva para quien brinda un servicio, la causalidad nos obliga a analizar cuál es el riesgo que genera la actividad que desarrolla quien ofrece ese servicio, y cuál sería la condición “normal” de este (y por consiguiente, la que impondría los límites por los que respondería la empresa que brinda el servicio), para lo cual se toma en cuenta la definición de la Real Academia Española, que señala que “normal” es lo que \"por su naturaleza, forma o magnitud, se ajusta a ciertas normas fijadas de antemano\" (http://dle.rae.es/?id=QcGec7P). En razón de esto, para determinar cuál es el funcionamiento de la empresa de transportes dentro de la normalidad, debemos acudir a la normativa vigente que la rige para establecer en qué consiste el servicio que brinda la empresa dicha y qué debe considerarse dentro del riesgo habitual generado por su actividad. Así, la ley número 3503 denominada Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores, establece en su artículo primero: \"El transporte remunerado de personas en vehículos automotores colectivos, excepto los automóviles de servicio de taxi regulado en otra ley, que se lleva a cabo por calles, carreteras y caminos dentro del territorio nacional, es un servicio público regulado, controlado y vigilado por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. La prestación es delegada en particulares a quienes autoriza expresamente, de acuerdo con las normas aquí establecidas\". De conformidad con esto, el numeral 17 establece una serie de obligaciones para el concesionario que brinda el transporte, indicándose las siguientes: \"a) No cobrar por el transporte un precio distinto del establecido en las tarifas aprobadas por la Comisión Técnica de Transportes. b) Realizar el transporte en toda la ruta especificada en la concesión y efectuar el recorrido conforme a los horarios e itinerarios aprobados. c) Sustituir los vehículos que, temporal o definitivamente, se retiran del servicio, por otros de capacidad igual o mayor, características idénticas y calidad igual o mejor. d) Llevar la contabilidad de los ingresos y gastos de operación, de conformidad con las normas contables generalmente aceptadas; poner esa contabilidad a disposición del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes y de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos y suministrar los datos estadísticos e informes sobre los resultados económicos y financieros de la operación del servicio, así como los comprobantes que ambas instituciones requieran. El concesionario deberá presentar esta información, por lo menos, una vez al año y cuando lo dispongan el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes o la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos. e) No suspender la prestación del servicio durante la vigencia de la concesión. (Así reformado por el artículo 64 de la Ley Nº 7593 de 9 de agosto de 1996)\". Esta serie de responsabilidades del concesionario se unen a la contemplada en el artículo 20, en el cual se establece la obligación de que el empresario debe contratar choferes que posean una licencia especial para conducir este tipo de vehículos; también a la que ordena que las paradas que se realicen para dejar o subir pasajeros sean las que establece el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (ver artículo 8 de la Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores). A esto se unen las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley de Tránsito vigente para el momento en el cual ocurrió el incidente que acabó con la vida del ofendido (Ley número 7331), y que están dirigidas a establecer cuáles son los parámetros de normalidad en la conducción de vehículos en general (respeto a las paradas establecidas por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, velocidad en la circulación, atención a las señales de tránsito verticales y horizontales, forma de conducir, entre otras). Tomando en cuenta todo lo anterior, esta Cámara considera que la muerte del señor [Nombre [Nombre3]] dentro del autobús que atendía la concesión de transporte público, no puede atribuírsele como un riesgo propio o normal del servicio que se brindaba, eliminándose con ello la causalidad entre este y el resultado dañoso. En primer lugar, se tuvo por demostrado en la sentencia número 683-2015 (firme al día de hoy) emitida por el Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, que el servicio de transporte se estaba ejecutando de manera usual (normal) y que, los sujetos que amenazaron con armas de fuego a los pasajeros de dicho autobús, lo abordaron haciéndose pasar por usuarios, ya que lo esperaron en una de las paradas oficiales, en las que requirieron su servicio. Con esto se recalca que el asalto fue producido por agentes externos a la empresa. En segundo lugar, la muerte no fue el producto directo de la forma en la cual se estaba ejecutando la conducción por parte del chofer de la unidad, ni sobrevino por algún tipo de insuficiencia en el servicio que debía brindarse al usuario que aumentara el riesgo de este. Finalmente, tampoco se tuvo por cierto que el enfrentamiento fuera producido por algún funcionario de la empresa en cuestión, por lo que el resultado no tiene una conexión causal con las acciones -de transporte- ejecutadas por la demandada civil. Con base en todo lo dicho, no puede establecerse que el fallecimiento del agraviado haya sido consecuencia directa del riesgo normal creado por el servicio que se le brindaba, sino que se cataloga como un evento que lo sobrepasa, convirtiéndose en un daño \"anormal\". Si se relaciona esto con el artículo 35 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, encontramos que este es el supuesto que exime de responsabilidad objetiva a la empresa que brinda el servicio cuando el legislador estableció que \"Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño\". De acuerdo con los hechos probados, no es posible relacionar a la empresa de transportes con la muerte producida por el imputado, por lo que se concluye que el daño fue ajeno a la demandada civil y, en consecuencia, debe mantenerse la declaratoria sin lugar de la acción civil resarcitoria que dictó el Tribunal de Juicio, en cuanto a Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, aunque por razones distintas a las establecidas en la sentencia impugnada. Por todo lo anterior, se debe declarar sin lugar el reclamo formulado por la impugnante.”", "body_en_text": "“III.- The argument is unfounded. The Trial Court determined that the transport company should be exempted due to the existence of victim’s fault, for which it determined: “Regarding the civil action for damages filed by the civil plaintiff against the Company called Servicio de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, the exception of lack of right is granted and, consequently, the civil action for damages brought by Mrs. [Nombre [Nombre1]] is dismissed. The facts proven in this judgment demonstrate that the defendant company (sic) has not incurred in any scenario of civil liability. (…) The public service provided by the defendant transport company can only be exempted from the damages suffered by those who receive a service during it when in the presence of a fortuitous event, force majeure or the act of the victim, pursuant to article 1043 (sic) of the Civil Code. The first two are not scenarios to consider in the case under review, but (sic) the third is, that is, an act of the victim themselves. The deceased's act of resisting the assault was what provoked the regrettable decision of the active agent of the crime to fire the weapon and consequently cause the death of the victim themselves. The legitimate self-defense exercised by the deceased, as is known, is a cause that excludes the unlawfulness of his actions and that the legal system tolerates, but (sic) does not promote, meaning repelling violence with violence is a decision of each individual so that by choosing this path and using his own weapon to violently confront the violent action (sic) of the criminal, the victim left the scope of protection that the company could offer him and the company consequently ceased to have the objective obligation imposed by numeral 35 cited above (…) As can be observed, the legal system did not require the victim to take the initiative to repel with violence the mass robbery in progress and to the detriment of all passengers that [Nombre2] was carrying out, and had he acted with restraint he would not have been shot, just as did not happen to the rest of the passengers who were also being assaulted” (cfr. folios 560 to 562). As observed, the Court's reasoning takes the act of legitimate self-defense deployed by the aggrieved party against an unlawful aggression by the convicted defendant, and gives it a distorted interpretation of its legal implications. This is because, for the exception of victim’s fault to apply, it is required that the action executed by the victim be the one that triggers the causation that produces the damage. In the present case, according to the facts proven in judgment number 683-2015 issued by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, everything originated in the conduct displayed by the accused [Nombre2] and another unknown subject when they threatened the passengers of a bus with firearms to strip them of their belongings and, in defense of himself and of those traveling in it, Mr. [Nombre [Nombre3]] used the firearm he was carrying, unleashing an exchange of gunfire, as a result of which he lost his life (see folios 439 to 440). As observed, the causation was set in motion by the sentenced person, who chose a firearm as an intimidating means, accepting the consequences of its use. Thus, it could not be established that the causal impulse came from the victim, because the victim, rather, tried to intervene in the events set in motion by the assailants in order to prevent the dispossession of belongings. This is why the criterion of the Trial Court aimed at holding the aggrieved party civilly responsible for his own death cannot be endorsed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Chamber must maintain the dismissal of the civil action for damages directed against the company Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, although for reasons different from those provided by the a quo. For this, it has been taken into account that civil liability has two origins, one subjective and the other objective. The subjective goes hand in hand with the demonstration of a fraudulent or negligent action (dolo o culpa), as established in article 1045 of the Civil Code, and the objective is related to the specific regime that, by law, was set for each particular case, without there being, for its demonstration, the obligation to prove the presence of fraud or negligence (dolo o culpa). In the present matter, undoubtedly, the appellant raises a discussion aimed at determining whether this second type of liability can be attributed to the company that provided the public service where the aggrieved party’s death occurred. For this, the concurrence of some elements must be examined, which have to be demonstrated in the process, in order to conclude whether or not the obligation to repair the damage caused can be demanded of it. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to what was stated by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice: “Likewise, it is important to consider, due to its influence on the evidentiary matter, that the determining elements for the emergence of civil liability, whether subjective or objective, are: a harmful conduct (which may be active or passive, lawful or unlawful), the existence of damage (that is, an injury to a protected legal interest), a causal link (nexo de causalidad) that connects the two previous ones, and in most cases the verification of a criterion of attribution, which will depend on the specific legal regime. Regarding causation (causalidad), it is necessary to indicate that it is a case-by-case assessment carried out by the judge in which, based on the facts, determines the existence of a relationship between the damage claimed and the conduct displayed by the economic agent. Although there are various theories on the matter, the one considered most consistent with the Costa Rican regime is that of adequate causation (causalidad adecuada), according to which there is a link between damage and conduct when the former originates, if not necessarily, at least with a high probability according to the specific circumstances affecting the matter, from the latter (in this sense, see, among others, resolutions 467-F-2008 from 14 hours 25 minutes on July 4, 2008, or 1008-F-2006 from 9 hours 30 minutes on December 21, 2006). At this point, it is important to clarify that the verification of exempting causes (victim’s fault, act of a third party, or force majeure) acts upon the causal link, ruling out that the conduct attributed to the defendant was the producer of the injury suffered.” (Resolution number 399-F-2009, from 10:45 hours on April 23, 2009; in the same sense, see resolution 398-F from 10:40 hours on the same day and year). In the present case, the appellant indicates that the applicable legal framework to demand compensation from the public transport company is that dictated by the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Law number 7472), since, according to the proven facts, the death of Mr. [[Nombre4] ] occurred on a bus of the route that Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada operated at that time. So, first of all, this must be examined, in order to establish if that is the applicable legal framework of liability. According to the proven facts of judgment number 683-2015, issued by the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José (see folios 439 to 440 of the main file), the aggrieved party was traveling in a public transport service when two subjects - who had also boarded the bus - threatened the passengers and the driver with firearms, demanding they hand over all their belongings. This is why [Nombre [Nombre3]] drew the firearm he was carrying and fired it at one of the assailants, who responded in the same manner against the aggrieved party, ending his life. Article one of Law number 7472 states: “The objective of this Law is to effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the consumer, the tutelage and promotion of the competition process and free concurrence, through the prevention, prohibition of monopolies, monopolistic practices and other restrictions on the efficient functioning of the market and the elimination of unnecessary regulations for economic activities”. This same law defines what must be understood as a consumer in article two: “Any natural person or de facto or de jure entity, who, as a final recipient, acquires, enjoys, or uses goods or services, or receives information or proposals for them. The small industrialist or artisan is also considered a consumer – in the terms defined in the Regulation of this Law – who acquires finished products or inputs to integrate them into processes to produce, transform, commercialize, or provide services to third parties”. For its part, numeral 31 of this regulatory body establishes that “Consumers are beneficiaries of the rules of this chapter; producers and merchants, both from the public and private sectors, are obligated to comply with them”. Based on the previous articles, everything seems to indicate that the consumer relationship of the transport service that was established at the moment in which the aggrieved party boarded the bus and paid his fare (there is no evidence to the contrary showing that the facts did not happen this way) allows the application of the liability regime contained in this special law. Likewise, numeral 32 establishes which are the fundamental and inalienable rights recognized to consumers, among which are: “(…) a) Protection against risks that may affect their health, their safety, and the environment. b) The protection of their legitimate economic and social interests. (…) f) Effective access mechanisms for the administrative and judicial tutelage of their rights and legitimate interests, which lead to adequately preventing, sanctioning, and promptly repairing the injury thereof, as appropriate. (…)” According to this, the law in question established a regime of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) in article 35, which states: “The producer, the provider, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed due to the good or service, inadequate or insufficient information about them, or their use and risks. Only he who demonstrates that he was unrelated to the damage is released. The legal representatives of commercial establishments or, as the case may be, those in charge of the business are responsible for their own acts or deeds or for those of their dependents or auxiliaries. The technicians, those in charge of preparation and control respond jointly and severally, when appropriate, for the violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer” (Bold is supplied). Thus, this norm provides for two types of strict liability. The first when the damage is the product of inadequate or insufficient information or originates in the use and risks of the good or service provided by the merchant, which implies a direct relationship between the one providing the service or good and the consumer. In this premise, there is an express circumstance that excludes the obligation to respond for the harm caused, when it is demonstrated that the damage was unrelated to the one providing the service or trading the good. The second, when it allows that technicians, those in charge of preparation and control also respond jointly and severally for the harm caused, without it being understood that this must – necessarily – exclude the first or vice versa, since the norm authorizes the joint and several recognition of the obligation to repair. In the present case, due to the conditions in which the events occurred, this norm is applicable in its first scenario, since we are before the provider of a service (Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada) and a subject who was the consumer of it ([Nombre [Nombre3]]), and it must be analyzed whether his death (damage caused) during the bus assault (harmful conduct performed by the sentenced [Nombre2] ) was due to the use and risks of the service provided by the merchant (specific causation for this strict liability regime). This last requirement, precisely, is what forces us to examine article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection, when it states that he who has been unrelated to the damage must not repair it. Now then, it has been said that: “It is the defendant’s burden to prove that he is unrelated to the production of the damage, that is, he must demonstrate the concurrence of any of the exempting causes of liability, whether victim’s fault, the act of a third party, or force majeure. Likewise, the defendant can be released from liability insofar as he manages to prove that the regime established in cardinal 35 of the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable to him, either because the subjective premises for its application do not concur in the species (for example, if the parties were not in a consumer relationship), or, in the specific case of the theory of risk contemplated by said norm, that this is not located in a degree of abnormality.” (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 1308-F, from 11:20 hours on December 17, 2009). According to this, and having ruled out the presence of fault to demand strict civil liability for one providing a service, causation forces us to analyze what is the risk generated by the activity carried out by the one offering that service, and what would be the “normal” condition of it (and consequently, the one imposing the limits for which the company providing the service would be responsible), for which the definition of the Royal Spanish Academy is taken into account, which indicates that “normal” is that which \"by its nature, form or magnitude, conforms to certain norms fixed beforehand\" (http://dle.rae.es/?id=QcGec7P). Because of this, to determine what is the operation of the transport company within normality, we must turn to the current regulations governing it to establish what the service provided by said company consists of and what must be considered within the usual risk generated by its activity. Thus, Law number 3503 called Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores, establishes in its first article: \"The remunerated transport of persons in collective motor vehicles, except automobiles for taxi service regulated in another law, which is carried out through streets, highways and roads within the national territory, is a public service regulated, controlled and monitored by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, MOPT). The provision is delegated to private parties whom it expressly authorizes, in accordance with the norms established herein\". In accordance with this, numeral 17 establishes a series of obligations for the concessionaire that provides the transport, indicating the following: \"a) Not charge for transport a price different from that established in the tariffs approved by the Comisión Técnica de Transportes. b) Carry out transport along the entire route specified in the concession and make the journey according to the approved schedules and itineraries. c) Substitute vehicles that, temporarily or permanently, are withdrawn from service, for others of equal or greater capacity, identical characteristics and equal or better quality. d) Keep accounting of operating income and expenses, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; make that accounting available to the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes and the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos and provide the statistical data and reports on the economic and financial results of the service operation, as well as the receipts that both institutions require. The concessionaire must present this information at least once a year and when ordered by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes or the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos. e) Not suspend the provision of the service during the validity of the concession. (Thus reformed by article 64 of Law No. 7593 of August 9, 1996)\". This series of responsibilities of the concessionaire are joined to the one contemplated in article 20, which establishes the obligation that the entrepreneur must hire drivers who possess a special license to drive this type of vehicle; also to the one ordering that the stops made to drop off or pick up passengers are those established by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, MOPT (see article 8 of the Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores). To this are added the provisions contained in the Traffic Law (Ley de Tránsito) in force at the time when the incident that ended the aggrieved party’s life occurred (Law number 7331), and which are aimed at establishing what the normality parameters are for the driving of vehicles in general (respect for the stops established by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, MOPT, circulation speed, attention to vertical and horizontal traffic signs, manner of driving, among others). Taking into account all the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the death of Mr. [Nombre [Nombre3]] inside the bus serving the public transport concession cannot be attributed as a risk inherent to or normal of the service being provided, thereby eliminating the causation between it and the harmful result. In the first place, it was taken as proven in judgment number 683-2015 (final as of today) issued by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, that the transport service was being carried out in a usual (normal) manner and that the subjects who threatened the passengers of said bus with firearms boarded it by posing as users, since they waited for it at one of the official stops, at which they requested its service. This emphasizes that the assault was produced by agents external to the company. In the second place, the death was not the direct product of the manner in which the driving was being executed by the unit’s driver, nor did it come about due to some type of insufficiency in the service that should be provided to the user that would increase its risk. Finally, it was also not taken as true that the confrontation was produced by any employee of the company in question, so the result has no causal connection with the -transport- actions executed by the civil defendant. Based on everything said, it cannot be established that the aggrieved party’s death was a direct consequence of the normal risk created by the service provided to him, but rather it is cataloged as an event that exceeds it, becoming an \"abnormal\" damage. If this is related to article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection, we find that this is the scenario that exempts from strict liability the company providing the service when the legislator established that \"Only he who demonstrates that he was unrelated to the damage is released\". According to the proven facts, it is not possible to relate the transport company to the death caused by the accused, so it is concluded that the damage was unrelated to the civil defendant and, consequently, the declaration without merit of the civil action for damages that the Trial Court ordered must be maintained, regarding Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, although for reasons different from those established in the appealed judgment. For all the foregoing, the claim made by the appellant must be declared without merit.”\n\nWhile there are diverse theories on the matter, the one considered most consistent with the Costa Rican regime is that of adequate causation, according to which there is a link between damage and conduct when the former originates, if not necessarily, at least with a high probability according to the specific circumstances affecting the matter, from the latter (in this sense, see, among others, rulings 467-F-2008 of 2:25 p.m. on July 4, 20085, or 1008-F-2006 of 9:30 a.m. on December 21, 2006). At this point, it is important to clarify that the verification of exempting causes (fault of the victim, an act of a third party, or force majeure) acts upon the causal link, ruling out that the conduct attributed to the defendant was the producer of the injury suffered.\" (Resolution number 399-F-2009, of 10:45 a.m. on April 23, 2009; in the same sense, see resolution 398-F of 10:40 a.m. on the same day and year). In the present case, the appellant indicates that the applicable legal framework to demand compensation from the public transport company is that dictated by the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor (Law number 7472), since, according to the proven facts, the death of Mr. [[Name4] ] occurred on a bus of the route that Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada operated at that time. So, first of all, this must be examined in order to establish if that is the applicable legal framework for liability. According to the proven facts of judgment number 683-2015, issued by the Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) of the First Judicial Circuit of San José (see folios 439 to 440 of the main file), the victim was traveling on a public transport service when two subjects - who had also boarded the bus - threatened the passengers and the driver with firearms, requiring them to hand over all their belongings. It is for this reason that [Name [Name3]] took out the firearm he was carrying and fired it at one of the assailants, who responded in kind against the victim, ending his life. The first article of Law number 7472 states: \"The objective of this Law is to effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the consumer, the guardianship and promotion of the process of competition and free concurrence, through the prevention, prohibition of monopolies, monopolistic practices and other restrictions on the efficient functioning of the market and the elimination of unnecessary regulations for economic activities\". This same law defines what should be understood as a consumer in article two: \"Any individual or de facto or de jure entity that, as a final recipient, acquires, enjoys or uses goods or services, or receives information or proposals for them. A small industrialist or artisan is also considered a consumer – in the terms defined in the Regulation (Reglamento) to this Law – who acquires finished products or inputs to integrate them into processes to produce, transform, commercialize or provide services to third parties\". For its part, section 31 of this normative body establishes that \"Consumers are beneficiaries of the norms of this chapter; producers and merchants, both from the public and private sectors, are obliged to comply with them\". Based on the preceding articles, everything seems to indicate that the consumer relationship of the transport service that was established at the moment the victim boarded the bus and paid his fare (there is no proof to the contrary showing that the events did not occur that way) allows for the application of the liability regime contained in this special law. Likewise, section 32 establishes what are the fundamental and inalienable rights recognized to consumers, among which are: \"(…) a) Protection against risks that may affect their health, safety and the environment. b) Protection of their legitimate economic and social interests. (…) f) Effective access mechanisms for the administrative and judicial protection of their rights and legitimate interests, which lead to adequately preventing, sanctioning and promptly repairing the injury to these, as appropriate. (…)\" Accordingly, the mentioned law provided for a strict liability regime in article 35, which indicates: \"The producer, supplier and merchant must answer concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed because of the good or service, because of inadequate or insufficient information about them or because of their use and risks. Only whoever demonstrates that they were unrelated to the damage is released. The legal representatives of commercial establishments or, where appropriate, the persons in charge of the business are responsible for their own acts or facts or for those of their dependents or assistants. Technicians, those in charge of preparation and control are jointly and severally liable (responden solidariamente), when appropriate, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer\" (The bold text is supplied). Thus, this norm provides for two types of strict liability. The first, when the damage is the product of inadequate or insufficient information or originates from the use and risks of the good or service provided by the merchant, which implies a direct relationship between whoever provides the service or good and the consumer. In this assumption, there is an express circumstance that excludes the obligation to answer for the harm produced, when it is demonstrated that the damage was unrelated to whoever provided the service or sold the good. The second, when it allows that technicians, those in charge of preparation and control also be jointly responsible for the harm produced, without it being understood that this must – necessarily – exclude the first or vice versa, as the norm authorizes the joint and several recognition of the obligation to repair. In the present matter, due to the conditions in which the facts occurred, this norm is applicable in its first scenario, as we are facing a service provider (Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada) and a subject who was its consumer ([Name [Name3]]), and it must be analyzed whether his death (damage produced) during the bus assault (harmful conduct carried out by the sentenced [Name2]) was because of the use and risks of the service provided by the merchant (specific causation for this strict liability regime). This last requirement, precisely, is what obliges us to examine article 35 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, when it refers that whoever has been unrelated to the damage must not repair it. Having said that, it has been stated that: \"It falls to the defendant to prove that they are unrelated to the production of the damage, that is, they must demonstrate the concurrence of some of the exempting causes of liability, be it the fault of the victim, the act of a third party or force majeure. Likewise, the defendant can be freed from liability insofar as they manage to prove that the regime established in cardinal 35 of the Ley de Defensa del Consumidor is not applicable to them, either because the subjective assumptions for its application do not concur in the matter (for example, if the parties were not in a consumer relationship), or, in the specific case of the risk theory contemplated by said norm, because this risk is not located at a degree of abnormality.\" (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 1308-F, of 11:20 a.m. on December 17, 2009). In accordance with this, and upon discarding the presence of fault to demand strict civil liability for whoever provides a service, causation obliges us to analyze what the risk generated by the activity developed by whoever offers that service is, and what the \"normal\" condition of this would be (and consequently, that which would impose the limits for which the company providing the service would answer), for which the definition of the Real Academia Española is taken into account, which indicates that \"normal\" is that which \"by its nature, form or magnitude, conforms to certain norms fixed beforehand\" (http://dle.rae.es/?id=QcGec7P). For this reason, to determine what the normal functioning of the transport company is, we must turn to the current regulations that govern it to establish what the service provided by said company consists of and what should be considered within the usual risk generated by its activity. Thus, Law number 3503, called Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores, establishes in its first article: \"The remunerated transport of people in collective motor vehicles, except taxi service automobiles regulated in another law, which is carried out on streets, highways and roads within the national territory, is a public service regulated, controlled and monitored by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes). The provision is delegated to private parties whom it expressly authorizes, in accordance with the norms established herein\". Pursuant to this, section 17 establishes a series of obligations for the concessionaire providing the transport, indicating the following: \"a) Not to charge a price for the transport different from that established in the rates approved by the Technical Transport Commission (Comisión Técnica de Transportes). b) To carry out the transport along the entire route specified in the concession and make the journey according to the approved schedules and itineraries. c) To substitute vehicles that, temporarily or definitively, are withdrawn from service, with others of equal or greater capacity, identical characteristics and equal or better quality. d) To keep accounts of the income and operating expenses, in accordance with generally accepted accounting norms; to make that accounting available to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos) and to supply the statistical data and reports on the economic and financial results of the operation of the service, as well as the receipts that both institutions require. The concessionaire must present this information at least once a year and when ordered by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport or the Public Services Regulatory Authority. e) Not to suspend the provision of the service during the term of the concession. (As amended by article 64 of Law No. 7593 of August 9, 1996)\". This series of responsibilities of the concessionaire are joined with that contemplated in article 20, which establishes the obligation for the entrepreneur to hire drivers who possess a special license to drive this type of vehicle; also with that which orders that the stops made to drop off or pick up passengers be those established by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (see article 8 of the Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores). To this are added the provisions contained in the Ley de Tránsito (Law number 7331, Traffic Law) in force at the time when the incident that ended the victim's life occurred, and which are aimed at establishing what the parameters of normality are in the driving of vehicles in general (respect for stops established by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, speed in traffic, attention to vertical and horizontal traffic signs, manner of driving, among others). Taking all of the above into account, this Chamber considers that the death of Mr. [Name [Name3]] inside the bus serving the public transport concession cannot be attributed as an inherent or normal risk of the service provided, thereby eliminating the causation between this and the harmful result. Firstly, it was proven in judgment number 683-2015 (final as of today) issued by the Criminal Court (Tribunal Penal) of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, that the transport service was being carried out in a usual (normal) manner and that the subjects who threatened the passengers of said bus with firearms boarded it pretending to be users, as they waited for it at one of the official stops, where they requested its service. This emphasizes that the assault was produced by agents external to the company. Secondly, the death was not the direct product of the manner in which the driving was being executed by the driver of the unit, nor did it occur due to any type of insufficiency in the service that should have been provided to the user that increased his risk. Finally, it was also not proven that the confrontation was produced by any employee of the company in question, so the result has no causal connection with the actions - of transport - executed by the civil defendant. Based on all that has been said, it cannot be established that the death of the victim was a direct consequence of the normal risk created by the service being provided to him, but rather it is categorized as an event that exceeds it, becoming an \"abnormal\" damage. If this is related to article 35 of the Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, we find that this is the scenario that exempts the company providing the service from strict liability when the legislator established that \"Only whoever demonstrates that they were unrelated to the damage is released\". According to the proven facts, it is not possible to link the transport company to the death caused by the accused, so it is concluded that the damage was unrelated to the civil defendant and, consequently, the dismissal ruling of the civil action for damages (acción civil resarcitoria) handed down by the Trial Court must be upheld, with respect to Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, although for reasons different from those established in the appealed judgment. For all of the foregoing, the claim made by the appellant must be declared without merit.\"\n\nThe self-defense exercised by the deceased, as is known, is a ground that excludes the unlawfulness of his conduct and which the legal system tolerates, but (sic) does not promote, meaning that repelling violence with violence is a decision belonging to each individual, so that by choosing this path and using his own weapon to violently confront the violent action (sic) of the criminal, the victim left the scope of protection that the company could offer him, and the company consequently ceased to have the strict liability obligation imposed by Article 35 cited above (...) As can be observed, the legal system did not require the victim to take the initiative of violently repelling the ongoing mass theft to the detriment of all passengers being carried out by [Name2] and had he acted with restraint he would not have been struck down, just as did not happen to the rest of the passengers who were also being robbed\" (cf. folios 560 to 562). As observed, the reasoning of the Trial Court takes the act of self-defense deployed by the injured party in the face of an unlawful aggression by the convicted defendant, and gives it a distorted interpretation of its legal implications. This is because, for the victim's fault exception to apply, it is required that the action executed by the victim be the one that triggers the causation that produces the damage. In the present case, according to the facts proven in judgment number 683-2015 issued by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, everything originated from the conduct deployed by the accused [Name2] and another unknown subject when they threatened the passengers of a bus with firearms to dispossess them of their belongings, and, in defense of himself and those traveling on it, Mr. [Name [Name3]] used the firearm he was carrying, triggering an exchange of gunfire, as a result of which he lost his life (see folios 439 to 440). As observed, the causation was set in motion by the convict, who chose a firearm as a means of intimidation, accepting the consequences of its use. Thus, it could not be established that the causal impetus came from the victim, because he, rather, attempted to intervene in the events set in motion by the assailants in order to prevent the dispossession of belongings. This is why the criterion of the Trial Court aimed at holding the aggrieved party civilly liable for his death cannot be endorsed. Notwithstanding the above, this Chamber must uphold the dismissal of the civil action for damages filed against the company Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada, albeit for reasons different from those provided by the a quo. To this end, it has been taken into account that civil liability has two sources, one subjective and the other strict (objetivo). The subjective goes hand in hand with the demonstration of a willful or negligent action, as established in Article 1045 of the Civil Code, and the strict (objetivo) relates to the specific regime that, by law, was set for each particular case, without there being, for its demonstration, the obligation to prove the presence of intent or negligence. In the present matter, undoubtedly, the appellant raises a discussion aimed at determining whether this second type of liability can be attributed to the company that provided the public service where the aggrieved party's death occurred. To this end, the concurrence of some elements must be examined, which must be demonstrated in the process, in order to conclude whether or not the obligation to repair the damage produced can be demanded of it. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to what was stated by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice: \"Likewise, it is important to consider, due to its influence on the evidentiary matter, that the determining elements for the emergence of civil liability, whether subjective or strict (objetiva), are: a harmful conduct (which may be active or passive, legitimate or illegitimate), the existence of damage (i.e., an injury to a protected legal interest), a causal link connecting the previous two, and in most cases the verification of an attribution criterion, which will depend on the specific legal regime. Regarding causation, it is necessary to indicate that it is a casuistic assessment carried out by the judge in which, based on the facts, the existence of a relationship between the claimed damage and the conduct deployed by the economic agent is determined. Although there are various theories on the matter, the one that has been considered most consistent with the Costa Rican regime is that of adequate causation, according to which there is a link between damage and conduct when the former originates, if not necessarily, at least with a high probability according to the specific circumstances affecting the matter, from the latter (in this sense, see, among others, resolutions 467-F-2008 of 14:25 on July 4, 2008, or 1008-F-2006 of 9:30 on December 21, 2006). At this point, it is important to clarify that the verification of exempting causes (fault of the victim, an act of a third party, or force majeure), acts upon the causal link, ruling out that the conduct attributed to the defendant was the producer of the injury suffered.\" (Resolution number 399-F-2009, of 10:45 on April 23, 2009; in the same sense, see resolution 398-F of 10:40 of the same day and year). In the present case, the appellant indicates that the applicable legal framework to demand compensation from the public transport company is that dictated by the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Law number 7472), since, according to the proven facts, the death of Mr. [Name4] occurred on a bus of the route that Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada provided at that time. So, first of all, this must be examined, in order to establish if that is the applicable legal liability framework. According to the proven facts of judgment number 683-2015, issued by the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José (see folios 439 to 440 of the main file), the injured party was traveling on a public transportation service when two subjects—who had also boarded the bus—threatened the passengers and the driver with firearms, demanding they hand over all their belongings. It is for this reason that [Name [Name3]] drew the firearm he was carrying and fired it at one of the assailants, who responded in the same manner against the aggrieved party, ending his life. The first article of Law number 7472 states: \"The objective of this Law is to effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the consumer, the guardianship and promotion of the process of competition and free concurrence, through the prevention, prohibition of monopolies, monopolistic practices and other restrictions on the efficient functioning of the market and the elimination of unnecessary regulations for economic activities.\" This same law defines what should be understood as a consumer in Article two: \"Any individual or de facto or de jure entity that, as a final recipient, acquires, enjoys or uses goods or services, or receives information or proposals for them. A consumer is also considered to be the small industrialist or artisan—in the terms defined in the Regulation of this Law—who acquires finished products or inputs to integrate them into processes to produce, transform, commercialize or provide services to third parties.\" For its part, numeral 31 of this normative body establishes that \"Consumers are beneficiaries of the rules of this chapter; producers and merchants, both from the public and private sector, are obliged to comply with them.\" Based on the preceding articles, everything seems to indicate that the consumer relationship of the transport service established at the moment when the injured party boarded the bus and paid his fare (there is no proof to the contrary demonstrating that the facts did not occur this way) allows the application of the liability regime contained in this special law. Likewise, numeral 32 establishes the fundamental and inalienable rights recognized to consumers, among which are: \"(...) a) Protection against risks that may affect their health, safety, and the environment. b) Protection of their legitimate economic and social interests. (...) f) Effective access mechanisms for the administrative and judicial protection of their rights and legitimate interests, which lead to adequately preventing, sanctioning, and promptly repairing the injury to these, as applicable. (...)\" In accordance with this, the law in question provided for a strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) regime in Article 35, which states: \"The producer, the provider, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed by reason of the good or service, or due to inadequate or insufficient information about them or their use and risks. Only one who demonstrates that they were unrelated to the damage is exonerated. The legal representatives of commercial establishments or, where applicable, those in charge of the business are responsible for their own acts or deeds or for those of their dependents or assistants. Technicians, those in charge of production and control are jointly and severally liable, when appropriate, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer.\" (The bolding is supplied) Thus, this rule provides for two types of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva). The first is when the damage is the product of inadequate or insufficient information or originates from the use and risks of the good or service provided by the merchant, which implies a direct relationship between the service or good provider and the consumer. In this assumption, there is an express circumstance that excludes the obligation to respond for the harm caused, when it is demonstrated that the damage was unrelated to the one providing the service or trading the good. The second, when it allows technicians, those in charge of production and control to also be jointly and severally liable for the harm caused, without it being understood that this must—necessarily—exclude the first or vice versa, since the rule authorizes joint and several recognition of the obligation to repair. In the present matter, due to the conditions under which the facts occurred, this rule is applicable in its first assumption, because we are before the provider of a service (Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada) and a subject who was the consumer of it ([Name [Name3]]), and it must be analyzed whether his death (damage produced) during the assault on the bus (harmful conduct carried out by the convict [Name2]) was by reason of the use and risks of the service provided to him by the merchant (specific causation for this strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) regime). This last requirement, precisely, is what obliges us to examine Article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, when it states that whoever has been unrelated to the damage need not repair it. Now, it has been said that: \"It is incumbent upon the defendant to prove that he is unrelated to the production of the damage, i.e., he must demonstrate the concurrence of one of the exempting causes of liability, be it the fault of the victim, the act of a third party, or force majeure. Likewise, the defendant can exonerate himself from liability insofar as he manages to prove that the regime established in Article 35 of the Consumer Defense Law is not applicable to him, either because the subjective prerequisites for its application do not concur in the species (for example, if the parties were not in a consumer relationship), or, in the specific case of the risk theory contemplated in said rule, that this risk is not located at a degree of abnormality.\" (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 1308-F, of 11:20 on December 17, 2009). According to this, and upon discarding the presence of fault to demand strict civil liability (responsabilidad civil objetiva) from a service provider, causation obliges us to analyze what risk is generated by the activity carried out by the service provider, and what the \"normal\" condition of this risk would be (and consequently, the one that would impose the limits for which the service-providing company would answer), for which the definition of the Real Academia Española is taken into account, which indicates that \"normal\" is that which \"by its nature, form or magnitude, conforms to certain pre-established norms\" (http://dle.rae.es/?id=QcGec7P). By reason of this, to determine the normal functioning of the transport company, we must resort to the current regulations governing it to establish what the service provided by said company consists of and what should be considered within the habitual risk generated by its activity. Thus, Law number 3503 named Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores, establishes in its first article: \"The remunerated transport of persons in collective motor vehicles, except taxi service automobiles regulated in another law, which is carried out on streets, highways and roads within the national territory, is a public service regulated, controlled and supervised by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. The provision is delegated to private individuals who are expressly authorized, in accordance with the rules established herein.\" In conformity with this, numeral 17 establishes a series of obligations for the concessionaire providing the transport, indicating the following: \"a) Not to charge a price for transport different from that established in the fares approved by the Technical Transport Commission. b) To carry out the transport along the entire route specified in the concession and to make the journey according to the approved schedules and itineraries. c) To replace vehicles that are temporarily or permanently withdrawn from service with others of equal or greater capacity, identical characteristics and equal or better quality. d) To keep accounting records of operating income and expenses, in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards; to make that accounting available to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Regulatory Authority of Public Services and to provide statistical data and reports on the economic and financial results of the service operation, as well as the supporting documents that both institutions require. The concessionaire must present this information at least once a year and when ordered by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport or the Regulatory Authority of Public Services. e) Not to suspend the provision of the service during the term of the concession. (As amended by Article 64 of Law No. 7593 of August 9, 1996).\" This series of responsibilities of the concessionaire joins that contemplated in Article 20, which establishes the obligation for the entrepreneur to hire drivers who possess a special license to drive this type of vehicle; also the one that orders that the stops made to drop off or pick up passengers must be those established by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (see Article 8 of the Ley Reguladora del Transporte Remunerado de Personas en Vehículos Automotores). Added to this are the provisions contained in the Transit Law in force at the time the incident that ended the life of the injured party occurred (Law number 7331), which are aimed at establishing the normality parameters for driving vehicles in general (respect for stops established by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, circulation speed, attention to vertical and horizontal traffic signs, manner of driving, among others). Taking all the above into account, this Chamber considers that the death of Mr. [Name [Name3]] inside the bus operating under the public transport concession cannot be attributed as a risk inherent to or normal for the service being provided, thereby eliminating causation between the latter and the harmful result. In the first place, it was taken as proven in judgment number 683-2015 (final as of today) issued by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, that the transport service was being executed in a usual (normal) manner and that the subjects who threatened the passengers of said bus with firearms boarded it by posing as users, since they waited for it at one of the official stops, where they requested its service. This emphasizes that the assault was produced by agents external to the company. In the second place, the death was not the direct product of the manner in which the unit's driver was executing the driving, nor did it occur due to some type of deficiency in the service that should have been provided to the user that increased its risk. Finally, it was also not held as certain that the confrontation was produced by any employee of the company in question, meaning the result has no causal connection with the transport actions executed by the civil defendant. Based on all that has been said, it cannot be established that the aggrieved party's death was a direct consequence of the normal risk created by the service being provided to him, but rather it is categorized as an event that exceeds it, becoming an \"abnormal\" damage. If this is related to Article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, we find that this is the assumption that exempts the service-providing company from strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) when the legislator established that \"Only one who demonstrates that they were unrelated to the damage is exonerated.\" According to the proven facts, it is not possible to relate the transport company to the death caused by the accused, so it is concluded that the damage was unrelated to the civil defendant and, consequently, the dismissal of the civil action for damages issued by the Trial Court regarding Servicios de Microbuses Alajuela San José Limitada must be upheld, although for reasons different from those established in the appealed judgment. For all the foregoing, the claim made by the appellant must be declared without merit.\"" }