Doctrine of own acts

In this case, everything starts from an accident between a car and a bicycle . The injured cyclist claimed from the insurer for the injuries and damages suffered. The company responded with a motivated offer , that is, a compensation proposal explained and justified, where it assumed the payment without saying that the cyclist was at fault (neither exclusively nor shared) nor applying cuts for that reason. The cyclist accepted the payment , but later went to trial because he believed he was entitled to a larger amount, in addition to interest.

In the judicial procedure, the insurer tried to defend itself by alleging that the cyclist had been the culprit of the accident or, alternatively, that there had been concurrence of faults (shared fault) to reduce what it had to pay. In the first instance, the judge accepted that approach, and the ruling was confirmed on appeal.

The Supreme Court (TS), however, corrects this way of acting . The doctrine of own acts must operate, which in simple terms means that if one party behaves in a clear manner and generates a reasonable expectation (for example, offering compensation without mentioning the fault of the injured party), then it cannot "go back" and maintain the contrary in the judgment to benefit. This is based on good faith and on the legal certainty , so that extrajudicial claims do not become a trap or a later surprise.

Therefore, the TS annuls the previous resolution and orders that a new ruling be issued, but without admitting that the insurer claims exclusive fault of the cyclist or concurrence of faults if that had not been expressed in the initial motivated offer.

If you feel harmed and in a position to demand responsibilities for any damage suffered due to a traffic accident, our professionals can assist you in exercising your claims.