Banks Have Obligation To Protect Customers, Court
Rules
The Sala Tercera de la
Corte Suprema de
Justicia (Supreme Court)
is warning the banks
that they have an
obligation to protect
its clients and assume
civil responsibility for
injury suffered inside
its installations.
That is the word of the
magistrates following a
definitive ruling on the
assault of the Banco
Nacional in Monteverde,
Puntarenas, occurred
between March 8 and 9,
2005.
The masked men intended
to rob the bank,
however, resulting in a
massacre when five
hostages, one police
official and three
assailants died in the
incident.
Twenty one year old
Erlyn Hurtado Martínez,
the brother of two of
the dead assailants, has
been tried and sentenced
to 210 years in prison
for his part, later
reduced to the maximum
sentence of 50 years,
At the Martínez, the
Tribunal exonerated the
Banco Nacional and the
security firm, Seguridad
Delta S.A., of any
responsibility.
However, the Sala
Tercera, voted to annul
part of the Puntarenas
Tribunal decision, which
leaves the bank, as well
as the security company,
responsible for
indemnization of
the victims who have
filed claims and
accepted by the court.
The magistrates, in
their definitive
decision, say that the
Banco Ncional must
accept responsibility,
although the injury was
caused by the criminal
actions of a third party
not related to the bank.
The decision was
announced by Justice
Magda Pereira
Villalobos.
The court also places
the responsibility of
Seguridad Delta who,
according to the court,
was committed to
providing the
"mechanisms" to
guarantee the security
of the employees and
customers of the bank.
The resolution is based
on a Article 35 of the
Ley de Promoción de la
Competencia y la Defensa
Efectiva del Consumidor.
The legislation says
that "the producer,
provider and commercial
enterprise must respond
together or
independently of any
guilt, if the consumer
is injured by reason of
its good and/or
service".
The court justices said
in the decision that the
customers inside the
bank expected service.
"It is indifferent if
they had already been
served, were being
served or were waiting
to be served, at the
time of the assault, or
the nature of the
transaction", the court
decision precisely
stipulates. |
|
