The driver did not notice the acoustic signals

[account_disabled]

The Provincial Court (AP) of Córdoba has shared the reasoning of the trial judge in the appealed ruling that determined the assessment of the exclusive fault of the plaintiff driver of the vehicle. In the local police report, the plaintiff acknowledged that he was playing music inside the vehicle.



"In the absence of more information about the volume of the music inside the vehicle, we find that the rest of the witnesses who have testified both at the trial and in the Local Police report, acknowledge that they heard the acoustic signals of the ambulance, a situation that does not occur with respect to the plaintiff driver, possibly due to the intentional sound isolation (in the terminology of the trial judge) that caused a situation of serious risk for traffic, since it made it impossible for him to be able to notice any type of signal. noise (horns of other vehicles, emergency vehicles, voices of pedestrians,…)”, the Court rules.



Likewise, another circumstance that Fax Lists has determined the guilt of the driver of the vehicle has also been highlighted. The police report states that the actor had two opposite signs in his path: a horizontal sign on the ground that makes it possible to turn left and right from the street he was coming towards the avenue along which the ambulance was traveling; and a double continuous line on the avenue.







In this case, there were two road markings of the same type that were contradictory , in that the first allows the second to turn from the street towards the avenue while the second prevents it as it is a double continuous line, so The solution involves the application of the most restrictive one, that is, the latter that prevents access to the avenue from the street turning to the left . "This leads us to the fact that in the presence of the double continuous line, the ambulance driver, upon invading the lane in the opposite direction, was aware that no vehicle could arrive on his right (where the car was coming), with the risk being in the vehicles." that they would come straight ahead along the lane that had been invaded, without it being required to adopt (in this emergency situation) special caution regarding an action that was not foreseeable in that it was contrary to traffic rules," states the AP ruling. .



On the other hand, the Chamber has recalled that, as the plaintiff acknowledged at the trial, he frequented the area where the accident occurred and therefore, he was aware of the existence of the double continuous line on the avenue that prevented him from entering. .



In light of the above, jointly evaluating and appreciating all the means of evidence presented, the Provincial Court has rejected the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the ruling handed down at the instance.

[TBustah!]