The Court of First Instance No. 1 of Ourense has sentenced Carrefour and its insurer to compensate a client with more than 28,000 euros for injuries suffered after a fall in one of its supermarkets, an amount that amounts to approximately 41,000 euros when including legal interest and costs of the procedure. The court considers that there is sufficient evidence that the accident occurred because detergent was spilled on the floor without adequate signage or safety measures.
According to the ruling of October 21, 2024 (which can be consulted at this link from the Judiciary), there is responsibility of the establishment for not having adopted the necessary measures to avoid the accident. Specifically, the ruling declares the joint liability of the supermarket and its insurer for the damages caused to the customer after the fall.
It all started when the woman went shopping at a Carrefour supermarket located in the province of Ourense, on July 10, 2021. While walking through one of the establishment’s aisles, she slipped on a detergent stain that was spilled on the floor. As was proven during the procedure, the product was all over the floor and there was no type of signage at that time to warn of the danger to customers.
Caused by the supermarket’s lack of cleanliness, the victim suffered various injuries that required medical assistance and a long recovery process. In fact, the expert report included in the case indicates that the process of stabilizing the injuries lasted almost two years.
What the Court of First Instance said
During the trial, various documentary, testimonial and expert evidence was conducted to determine how the accident occurred and what its consequences were. The court gave special importance to the testimony of the victim’s husband, who confirmed that the floor was covered by a spilled product that caused the fall.
The resolution explains that the establishment’s responsibility is based on article 1902 of the Civil Code, which establishes that whoever causes damage through negligent action or omission must repair it. As the judge points out in the ruling, for non-contractual liability to exist, three elements must occur: “the culpable action of the cause of the damage, the production of actual damage and the existence of a causal relationship between the culpable action.”
In this case, the court considers that all these requirements are met. According to the ruling, the accident was proven by the tests carried out in the procedure, which showed that the client fell inside the establishment “due to the spillage of a product, without the defendant adopting the pertinent safety measures, whether cleaning the area or marking it.”
Furthermore, the court highlights that the insurer itself made a prior offer of compensation, which also evidenced recognition of the existence of the accident.
The injuries and consequences prevailed against the insurer’s report
The ruling also analyzes in detail the injuries suffered by the client and the recovery process. According to the expert report presented by the plaintiff, the healing period extended from July 2021 to April 2023.
The medical document describes several sequelae resulting from the accident, including a “myofascial syndrome of the piriformis muscle and right gluteus maximus,” accompanied by a “strong paravertebral, quadratus lumborum, gluteus and piriformis muscle contracture.”
The expert also confirmed relevant functional limitations, noting that the affected woman had “limitation in flexion-extension and rotations, as well as in lateral inclinations (…) and limitation of hip mobility,” which showed that the accident had left persistent consequences.
The court considered that this report should prevail over the valuation offered by the insurer, since the defendants did not provide a contradictory expert opinion in the procedure.
The Court rejects that the action was prescribed
One of the insurer’s main arguments to oppose the lawsuit was the prescription of the action, understanding that too much time had passed between the accident and the judicial claim.
However, the court rejected this approach, recalling that the period for claiming damages derived from non-contractual liability is one year, but that this period begins when the injured party knows the definitive extent of the consequences.
In this sense, the resolution cites jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that establishes that “in the cases of claiming compensation for injuries, the statute of limitations will begin to be counted at the moment in which the sick or injured person is discharged from the hospital due to the completion of treatment and the persistent consequences can be known with certainty.”
Given that the medical discharge occurred in April 2023 and the lawsuit was filed in October of that same year, the court concluded that the action was brought within the legal period.
The Court condemns Carrefour and its insurer to pay compensation
After analyzing all the evidence, the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Ourense fully upheld the claim and declared the responsibility of the supermarket and its insurer for the fall.
The ruling condemns both entities to jointly pay compensation of 28,286 euros for damages, an amount to which legal interest and procedural costs are added, which brings the total figure to approximately 41,000 euros.
The ruling expressly states that “the defendants are declared responsible for the accident suffered by the plaintiff and are ordered to pay the amount of 28,286.26 euros, plus legal interest and costs.”
However, the judicial resolution is not yet final. An appeal may be filed against it before the Provincial Court of Ourense within a period of twenty days.