CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Hernán Fleischmann, Paulo Román, Benjamín Jordán and Juan Zulic, Fleischmann & Román Abogados
Chilean legal system (for example, to execute contracts in good faith in accordance with Article 1546 of the Civil Code), it will give rise to the obli- gation to return what was unlawfully acquired or to compensate for the impoverishment of others. Res Judicata On 7 June 2024, the Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in case No 141.758-2023 whereby it ruled that the exception of res judicata arising from a previous trial is not an impediment in a subsequent trial if in this trial compensation is claimed for damages that did not exist at the time of the first trial, even if both cases involve the same facts. Summary of the case In 2022, an individual affected by an occupa- tional disease that caused them bodily injury brought an action for damages against their employer. The claim was accepted by the Court and the defendant was ordered to compensate for the damages caused. Subsequently, after their condition worsened (resulting in an increase in their physical disabil- ity), they filed a new claim for damages based on the new injuries caused as a result of the same facts that had already been discussed in the first lawsuit. In this respect, the court of first instance decided to accept this new claim, awarding the individ- ual USD25,000 in compensation. However, the Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, accepting an appeal filed by the defendant, reversed the first instance judgment and accepted the exception of res judicata, rejecting the claim.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court, on 7 June 2024, upon hearing an appeal filed by the plain- tiff, overturned the judgment issued by the Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, stating that, as a result of the new injuries suffered, compensation for damages is payable. Taking the existence of a previous trial (which supported the exception of res judicata) into account, the Supreme Court pointed out that the original action for damages could only address the payment of the damage that existed at that time and was known by the parties, being the only one on which the evi- dence presented could be based, in accordance with the principle of full payment of damages enshrined in Article 2329 of the Civil Code. Analysis of the case This case is interesting because it ratifies anoth- er fundamental principle of the Chilean legal system, namely the principle of full payment of damages. In this regard, under Chilean law, the purpose of the principle of full payment of damages is to compensate a person to put them in a posi- tion equal or equivalent to that which would have occurred if the act causing the damage had not occurred. Pursuant to the principle of full payment of damages, the Supreme Court understands that the fact that there is a previous trial (which has declared the liability of a subject and has obliged them to compensate damages) is not an impedi- ment for that same person to be obliged to com- pensate additional damages in a subsequent and different trial, if such damages did not exist at the time of the first trial (and even if they have arisen from the same facts).
283 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook