Legislator Corpus giuridico & Giurisprudenza
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
I 2023 91 • VG SZ I 2023 91 Generato dall'IA

I 2023 91 — Industrial Accident Suit Dismissed Due to Appellant's Improper Action

Numero d'incarto I 2023 91 (SZ_VG_003_I-2023-91_2024-08-22)
Autorità giudiziaria
Data della decisione
Giurisdizione Canton Svitto — Tribunali cantonali (CH-SZ)
Apri la fonte ufficiale ↗ Archivio Entscheidsuche ↗ Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi della sentenza (Oggetto del contendere & Esito)

Generato dall'IA

An appellant, who was injured in an industrial accident involving a machine used in their work, appealed a decision that dismissed their claim for damages and pain and suffering against the machine's owner/operator, arguing that the owner failed to ensure the machine was safe. The court upheld the prior decision, reasoning that the evidence did not establish that the machine was defective or that the owner had breached any duty of care regarding maintenance or operation, as the accident's cause was determined to be the appellant's own improper actions while using the equipment.

Massima giurisprudenziale / Regesto

Generato dall'IA
An appellant, who was injured in an industrial accident involving a machine used in their work, appealed a decision that dismissed their claim for damages and pain and suffering against the machine's owner/operator, arguing that the owner failed to ensure the machine was safe. The court upheld the prior decision, reasoning that the evidence did not establish that the machine was defective or that the owner had breached any duty of care regarding maintenance or operation, as the accident's cause was determined to be the appellant's own improper actions while using the equipment.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo integrale della sentenza — I 2023 91

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2023 91 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Urteil vom 22. August 2024 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter Dr.med. Pierre Lichtenhahn, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Anna Maria Rüesch, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Kläger, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n C.________ AG \n Beklagte, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwältin D.________ |\n \n\n

\n