Sentencia de Tribunal Apelativo de 31 de Mayo de 2013, número de resolución KLAN201101947
| Emisor | Tribunal Apelativo |
| Número de resolución | KLAN201101947 |
| Tipo de recurso | Apelación |
| Fecha de Resolución | 31 de Mayo de 2013 |
| | | APELACIÓN procedente del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala de San Juan SOBRE: ACCIÓN CIVIL, COBRO DE DINERO, INCUMPLIMIENTO DE CONTRATO, DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS Caso Núm. K AC2010-1333 (503) |
Panel integrado por su presidenta, la Jueza Fraticelli Torres, el Juez Hernández Sánchez y el Juez Ramos Torres.
Hernández Sánchez, Juez Ponente
En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 31 de mayo de 2013.
La parte demandante, aquí apelante, Marine World Distributors, Inc. (Marine World), nos solicita que revisemos la sentencia sumaria emitida por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de San Juan (TPI), que declaró Ha Lugar la solicitud de sentencia sumaria de la parte demandada apelada, Mapfre Praico Insurance Company (Mapfre) para que se declararan sin lugar las causas de acción presentadas por Marine World en la demanda KAC2010-1333. En la referida demanda Marine World alegó que Mapfre se había negado a proveerle defensa legal en una demanda presentada en su contra por Richard Fairest Knight, su esposa, Valerie, su sociedad de gananciales y sus dos hijos menores de edad, Alexander y Michael, en adelante Fairest et als. Señala Marine World que incidió el TPI al adjudicar la demanda mediante sentencia sumaria en vez de atender en primer lugar una solicitud de sentencia declaratoria presentada por Marine World. Señala, además, que incidió al concluir que bajo los términos de la póliza de seguros emitida por Mapfre dicha compañía aseguradora no venía obligada a proveerle representación legal ya que lo alegado por Fairest et als.
contra Marine World no estaba incluido en la cubierta de la póliza de seguros expedida por Mapfre. Examinadas las alegaciones de Fairest et als. contra Marine World y la naturaleza de los riesgos cubiertos por la póliza de seguros emitida por Mapfre, a la luz de la jurisprudencia pertinente, confirmamos la sentencia apelada.
El 7 de agosto de 2007 Fairest et als. radicó una demanda contra Marine World ante la Corte de Distrito Federal para el Distrito de Puerto Rico (Corte de Distrito Federal) en la cual presentó un reclamo bajo las normas del derecho de almirantazgo y bajo el Artículo 1802 del Código Civil de Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. sec. 5141, caso "Civil No. 07-1708(CVR)". Adujeron Fairest et als. que Marine World le había vendido una lancha usada, la cual sufrió múltiples desperfectos luego que se compró. Por ello tuvo que ser llevada para reparación a Marine World un gran número de veces, acumulando estas reparaciones una alta suma de dinero y, además, conllevando la pérdida del disfrute de la lancha por extensos períodos de tiempo. La demanda incluyó, además, un reclamó específico respecto al siguiente incidente. Véanse las páginas 4 a 7 del apéndice del recurso, en adelante (Ap. págs. 4-7).
16. On April 14, 2007, the engine shut off 45 minutes into a trip to Culebra. After waiting 5 or 10 minutes, the engine was restarted and at a snail pace of 5 knots, the voyage was continued, eventually reaching the town of Dewey in Culebra. There the engine remained shut down for 30 minutes and was restarted to go to Ensenada Honda but after 15 minutes smoke began to come out of the engine compartment. The engine was immediately shut off and Mr. Fairest instructed his family to put on their life vests and prepare to abandon the vessel.
17. With the possibility that the boat may burn and sink or explode at any moment, the plaintiffs all feared for their lives and those of the other members of the family on board: Mr. Fairest, Valerie, Alexander and Michael. (Énfasis suplido.)
18. With the extinguisher at hand, Mr. Fairest opened the engine compartment and the smoke began to dissipate. Another vessel then towed the boat to the Costa Bonita dock.
.
19. The boat has been in dry stack there to this day. On the same April 14, Mr. Fairest informed the service department of Marine World of the incident by telephone. He followed-up by e-mail on May 1 and by fax on May 9 and to date three months later, no answer has been received.
20. In summary, ... far from being the pleasure boat that it was intended to be, it has been just the opposite for the plaintiffs: a cause of fear for the loss of their own lives and that of their loved ones, trepidation, anger, disillusion and frustration, only compensable in an amount of not less than $250,000 for each of Mr. Fairest and Valerie as well as $150,000 for each of Alexander and Michael. (Énfasis suplido.)
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ADMIRALTY)
21. ...
22. As a result of Marine World inability to repair the boat the plaintiffs have suffered damages1 ; plus emotional distress caused by the fear of imminent loss of their own life or limb and those of their loved ones on the part of Mr. Fairest and Valerie compensable in not less than the amount of $250,000 each and on the part of Alexander and Michael not less than in the amount of $150,000 each. (Énfasis suplido.)
SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF
(Article 1802 OF P.R. Civil Code)
25. As a result of Marine World's aforementioned acts and omissions it has directly and intentionally caused damages to the plaintiffs2 plus emotional distress arising out of the fear of imminent loss of life or limb, their own or that of their loved ones compensable to Mr. Fairest and Valerie in an amount of not less than $250,000 each and on the part of Alexander and Michael in an amount not less than $150,000 each. (Énfasis suplido.)
26 ...
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that judgment be entered against defendant ordering it to pay to:
-
...
-
Mr. Fairest and Valerie, $250,000 each for the pain and anguish Marine World has made them suffer and $150,000 each to Alexander and Michael for the pain and anguish Marine World has made them suffer. (Énfasis suplido.)
Es importante aclarar que la lista de daños por los cuales se reclama resarcimiento no incluye mención de ningún padecimiento o daño físico de los tripulantes, tales como quemaduras, heridas, contusiones, hematomas, daños a las coyunturas, huesos fracturados o cualquier otro padecimiento de naturaleza física.
Luego de una vista evidenciaria de cuatro (4) días, la Corte de Distrito Federal emitió su sentencia el 11 de diciembre de 2009. A las páginas 17 a 19 de la misma (Ap. págs. 196-198) la sentencia discute los reclamos de angustias y sufrimientos emocionales, exponiendo en parte como sigue:
III.
Emotional Distress and Damages.
Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to recover emotional damages under negligent infliction of emotional distress and for pain and suffering under Commonwealth's tort statute, Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. We agree.
In Peermoller Sultan v.
Pleasure Craft Contender 25, 139 F. Supp. 2nd 230, 235 (District Puerto Rico 2001), citing with approval the case Chan v. Society Expeditions, 39 F3d. 1938 (9th Cir. 1997), this Court stated that, in maritime law, there are three main alternative standards governing liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
[1] Under the "physical injury or impact" test, the plaintiff may recover damages only if he or she experiences physical contact or injury in addition to emotional distress, Id. [2] under the "zone of danger" standard, a plaintiff need not experience physical injury or impact to recover damages so long as the plaintiff witnesses the endangerment of another and is also placed at risk of physical injury due to the defendants negligence. Id. [3] under the "bystander proximity" theory, a plaintiff may recover for emotional damages if he or she: (1) is physically close to the scene of the accident; (2) directly witnesses the incident and (3) is a close relation to the victim. (Énfasis suplido.)
In this case the "physical injury or impact" test is no[t] applicable. But, either under the "zone of danger" or the "bystander proximity" theory, we find that plaintiffs met the criteria. Taking into account the evidence presented at trial, we find the emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs was directly caused by the negligent faulty repairs by Marine World and its failure to identify the cause of the engine's problem even though plaintiffs were told the boat was fit for use. (Énfasis suplido.)
Basado en la evidencia desfilada la Corte de Distrito Federal le impuso a Marine World el costo total de las reparaciones, los costos relacionados al remolque de la lancha y los costos de almacenaje y seguro de la lancha. Además impuso a favor de Fairest et als.
la suma de cincuenta y cinco mil dólares ($55,000.00) "for the negligent infliction of emotional distress and for pain and suffering under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code".
Marine World apeló la sentencia al United States Court Appeals For the First Circuit (Corte del Circuito). Dicho Foro emitió sentencia el 15 de julio de 2011. (Ap. págs. 11-29) En la sentencia, luego de examinar la evidencia presentada en los cuatro días de vista evidenciaria, la Corte del Circuito concluyó:
In short, absent sufficient proof of causation, the troubles experienced by Fairest-Knight with his boat -- while undeniably frustrating -- do not make out a viable breach of warranty claim. We, therefore hold that the district court clearly erred in finding otherwise, and reverse its finding that appellant[, Marine World,] breached the implied warranty of workmanlike service.
En cuanto a la relación del derecho de almirantazgo al Artículo 1802 de Código Civil, supra, la Corte del Circuito expone como sigue en la nota al calce número 7, págs. 17-18 de la sentencia (Ap. Págs. 27 28).
It is possible that federal maritime law would preclude the appellees' state law cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba