Facts
On 30 August 2003, A. and his wife were victims of a road accident. A. suffered a cervical spine distortion and was diagnosed with a somatoform pain disorder. He brought an action for damages against B. AG, the liability insurer of the accident's perpetrator, under articles 58 and 65 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA). The court of first instance condemned B. AG to pay 20,095.55 Swiss francs to A., but reduced the amount of damages by 40% due to causes unrelated to the accident. B. AG appealed and the court of appeal annulled the first-instance judgment and dismissed A.'s claim.
A. filed a civil law appeal with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the court of appeal's judgment and the remittal of the case to the court of appeal for a new decision on the amount of damages. The Federal Court dismissed A.'s appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the issue of the vehicle owner's liability for the damage suffered by the husband of the direct victim of the accident. The court considered that the husband had not been directly a victim of the accident, but had suffered indirect damage due to his relationship with the direct victim. The court applied the theory of adequate causality to determine whether the damage suffered by the husband was attributable to the perpetrator of the accident.
The court considered that adequate causality was denied, as the damage suffered by the husband was not a direct consequence of the accident, but resulted from…