Strict Liability for Defective Phytosanitary ProductResponsabilidad objetiva por producto fitosanitario defectuoso

V.- First of all, this Tribunal observes that the judgment developed the resolution of the specific case considering that it was dealing with a claim for damages based on subjective liability regulated in Article 1045 of the Civil Code. Under such a hypothesis, it is the injured party who must prove the causal link between the damage and the losses suffered. The foregoing is deduced from what is stated in the final paragraph of the seventh considerando of the judgment, when it literally reads: "Upon review of the evidence produced, the undersigned considers it is not pertinent to impute the germination problems in the plaintiff's nursery to the defendant. In accordance with Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, the company Agroverde Dos mil S.A. bears the burden of proof in demonstrating the damage, the causal relationship, and the authorship of the defendant. In this case, it was not demonstrated clearly and conclusively that the substrate sold by VJ-Centroamérica S.A. was the exclusive factor causing the damages and losses claimed. Consequently, it is not pertinent to impose upon the defendant the duty to indemnify the same." (bold is not from the original). This instance does not agree with what was indicated by the trial judge in her ruling, since from the review of the complaint and the specific case, it can be determined that this is an action whose claim originates in a consumer relationship and from which payment of damages and losses is claimed under strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva). In general terms, under such a supposition, the simple existence of the damage imputes liability to the harmful agent for having caused said damage, and from there arises the obligation to indemnify the damages and losses caused. The burden of proving that such damage was not caused by virtue of the good or service acquired by the consumer, and of disproving the causal relationship imputed by the plaintiff, falls on the defendant. As set forth in proven facts 1 through 5, the plaintiff is a company dedicated to the production of vegetable seedlings and, between January 2002 and March 2006, it purchased from VJ Centroamérica S.A. trays for seedling development and bags containing peat and perlite mixtures for germination, VJ brand. During the commercial relationship, the plaintiff purchased 4513 bags of peat and perlite germination mixture called V-J Plug Mix Perlite. The plaintiff blames problems in the germination of chili, tomato, and lettuce seedlings. She identifies these with the presence of radicle rot and excess water in the growing medium. She alleges in the complaint that such inconveniences arose due to deficiencies in the physical qualities of the substrate acquired for seedling production, and therefore the defendant should be ordered to pay the damages and losses caused to her company. As observed from the complaint, payment of damages and losses caused by the product sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, to be used in the seedling production process, is sought. For her part, the defendant answers (folio 174) accepting that the company Agroverde Dos mil S.A. was her client for some years and acquired, among other products, the VJ-PMP substrate, which is a germination medium sold to a large number of companies. The same consists of a mixture of sphagnum peat with perlite and other ingredients specifically designed for seed germination. As observed, a relationship exists between the contending parties, in which the plaintiff company holds the status of consumer. Regarding strict liability, this Chamber has resolved: ".. must only prove that the damage exists and that it was produced as a direct and immediate consequence of the activity carried out .. It does not require demonstration of fault or fraud (culpability in the broad sense), since the criterion of imputation is objective. It is for the judge to examine in each case whether or not there is direct and adequate causation between the damage claimed (and demonstrated) by the petitioner and the activity (active or omissive) carried out…" (Ruling no. 662-F-S1-2010, of 14 hours 20 minutes of 26 May 2010) and regarding strict liability in favor of the consumer and its extent, the First Chamber has resolved: "V.- Strict liability for risk in consumer matters. With respect to liability, two main branches can be identified, one subjective, in which the concurrence, and consequent demonstration, of fault or fraud on the part of the author of the harmful act is required (e.g., Article 1045 of the Civil Code), and another objective, which is characterized, essentially, by dispensing with said elements, the imputation of the damage being the central axis upon which the duty to repair is built. As an example of the foregoing, there is Article 35 of the Effective Consumer Defense Law, where the merchant, producer, or provider shall be liable for those damages derived from the goods traded and the services provided, even when negligence, imprudence, lack of skill, or fraud are not detected in their actions. Likewise, it is important to consider, due to its influence on the evidentiary matter, that the determining elements for the emergence of civil liability, whether subjective or objective, are: a harmful conduct (which may be active or passive, legitimate or illegitimate), the existence of damage (that is, an injury to a protected legal interest), a causal link connecting the two aforementioned, and in most cases the verification of a criterion of attribution, which will depend on the specific legal regime. Regarding causation, it is necessary to indicate that it is a case-by-case assessment made by the judge in which, based on the facts, determines the existence of a relationship between the claimed damage and the conduct displayed by the economic agent. Although there are diverse theories on the matter, the one considered most in accordance with the Costa Rican regime is that of adequate causation, according to which there is a link between damage and conduct when the former originates, if not necessarily, at least with a high probability according to the specific circumstances affecting the matter, from the latter (in this regard, see, among others, resolutions 467-F-2008 of 14 hours 25 minutes of 4 July 20085, or 1008-F-2006 of 9 hours 30 minutes of 21 December 2006). At this point, it is important to clarify that the verification of exempting causes (fault of the victim, act of a third party, or force majeure), acts upon the causal link, ruling out that the conduct attributed to the defendant was the producer of the injury suffered. With respect to the different criteria of imputation, for the purposes of the present case, the theory of created risk is of interest, which was included, expressly, in the Consumer Defense Law. The objective scheme favored by the law, as well as the application of the cited criterion of imputation, are evident from the simple reading of the norm in question, which stipulates: 'the producer, the provider, and the merchant must answer, concurrently, and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed by reason of the good or service, of inadequate or insufficient information about them, or of their use and risks. / Only one who demonstrates that they have been unrelated to the damage is released. / The legal representatives of mercantile establishments or, where appropriate, those in charge of the business are liable for their own acts or facts or for those of their dependents or auxiliaries. The technicians, those in charge of preparation and control are jointly and severally liable, when appropriate, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer.' (the bold is supplied). Carrying out a detailed analysis of the norm just transcribed, a series of conditioning elements for its application emerge. In the first place, and from the perspective of the subjects, that is, who causes the damage and who suffers it, the application of this liability regime is contingent upon certain qualifications concurring in them. Thus, regarding the former, it is required that they be a producer, provider, or merchant, whether natural or legal persons. On the other hand, regarding the latter, the injury must be caused to one who participates in a legal relationship where they are situated as a consumer, in the terms defined in the legal body of reference and developed by this Chamber. It is required, then, that both parties form part of a consumer relationship, whose object is the potential acquisition, enjoyment, or use of a good or service by the consumer. ....., given the existence of a consumer relationship, the specific case must be analyzed under the coverage scope of Article 35 under discussion. Likewise, from the precept under study it emerges, in the second place, that the legislator established a series of attribution criteria based on which the strict liability regulated by this article can be imputed, within which is found the aforementioned theory of risk. Thus, this serves as a factor to assign liability to the subjects referred to. In essence, said theory postulates that whoever creates, exercises, or takes advantage of a lawful lucrative activity that presents potentially dangerous elements for others, must also bear its inconveniences (ubi emolumentum, ubi onus, which can be translated as where there is emolument, there is burden). Two characteristics can be deduced from the previous affirmation: on one hand, that the risk comes from an exploitation activity; and on the other, being carried out by the human being, so-called acts of nature are excluded. Concomitantly, it is important to make some precisions regarding the risks apt for the generation of liability, since not every risk implies the automatic emergence thereof. At present, life in society offers countless risks, of different degrees and scopes, to the point that it can be affirmed that it is impossible to find a daily activity that is exempt from them. In this line, the interpretation of norms cannot start from an absolute and total aversion to risk, which, as indicated, forms an integral part of societal coexistence and the technological advances integrated into it. The foregoing leads to affirming that, for the emergence of the duty to repair, the risk associated with the activity must present a degree of abnormality, that is, it must exceed the margin of tolerance that is admissible according to the rules of experience, which must be analyzed, on a case-by-case basis, by the judge. The second point that requires some type of comment is regarding the subject who becomes obligated by virtue of an activity considered dangerous. As already indicated, the criterion of imputation is, precisely, the risk created, which presupposes that the person to whom the damage is imputed must be in a position of control over it, that is, they must be the one who develops the activity or assumes the possible negative consequences associated with it, receiving a benefit from it. This can be direct, which can be identified, among others, with the income or emoluments obtained by way of consideration, or indirect, when the advantage situation occurs in a reflected form, as happens with alternative mechanisms that tend to attract consumers, and consequently, result in an economic benefit for their offeror. It is important to mention that in an activity it is possible to find different degrees of risk, which must be managed by that subject who benefits from it, a circumstance that exerts a direct influence on the evidentiary duty incumbent upon them, since it is relevant for determining imputation in the sub judice. The foregoing, combined with the existence of exempting causes, demonstrates that the legislation under discussion does not constitute an automatic patrimonial transfer. VI.- In this case, the plaintiff's claims were upheld by majority by the Tribunal, which considered that the functioning of the electronic banking system presents a dangerousness such that it allows imputing the damages caused to the Bank. ......... . Just as Article 35 of the Consumer Protection Law prescribes, there has been a person harmed by reason of the service, which upon being used (and in view of its risky nature) produced a significant injury to the person appearing as plaintiff in the proceeding. Consequently, instead of an improper interpretation of the norm, the article has been given its just and correct sense..... In addition to the foregoing, it cannot be lost from view that the emergence of liability depends on the existence of unlawfulness, without objective liability being the exception, it being necessary to determine, in this case, if the affected party was under the legal obligation to bear the damage, just as is extracted from the principle of patrimonial indemnity. This basic unlawfulness is identified, in this case, with the risk existing in the functioning of the service, as is evident from the body of evidence itself whose improper assessment is being claimed. It is for the reasons indicated up to this point, that the arguments presented by the appellant in the sense that the duty of safety is of a commercial and not a legal nature are not acceptable. As already anticipated, the development of actions undertaken by a legal subject, and which foreseeably have the potential to cause damages, implicitly carries the duty to guarantee their safety. In this line, it is not a matter of the defendant demonstrating the diligence they have undertaken, since this is an aspect characteristic of a subjective liability system....... VII.- In sum to the above, in the specific case, the concurrence of an exempting cause of liability was not demonstrated, such as the fault of the victim, the act of a third party, or force majeure. Although allusion is made to the first, there do not exist, within the body of evidence, sufficient elements that permit affirming that the victim participated in the production of the damage. Had any of these circumstances been proven, it would be impossible to establish a causal link between the Bank's conduct and the injury, so no duty to repair could arise on the part of the entity. As already stated, the existence of an exempting cause implies that the cause of the harm can be linked to another subject, or what is the same, that the defendant is unrelated to the damage caused. In any case, in this specific instance, it was not possible to demonstrate the concurrence of an exempting cause or, otherwise, that the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable, so, given the existence of damage as a consequence of a risky service, in the terms of Article 35 of the cited normative body, no improper application of the legal regime by the trial judges is perceived." (First Chamber of Cassation, No. 1098-09, of 14:45 of 22 October 2009). That resolved by that high Tribunal, which is shared by this court and finds its legal basis in Article 41 of the Political Constitution and Article 35 of the Effective Consumer Law, in addition to what is specifically prescribed for the activity carried out by the defendant company in the Phytosanitary Protection Law which reads: "Article 32. 'Those who import, manufacture, formulate, repackage, redistribute, store, transport, sell, and apply chemical, biological, or related substances for agricultural use, shall be obligated to compensate for the damages and losses that, through their actions or omissions, they cause to agriculture, livestock, human health, and the environment.'" For its part, on the topic of damage and risk, this Tribunal has reviewed some doctrinal criteria of pertinence: "V. Modern doctrine, for its part, has supported the objectivization of liability, by including within the factors of imputability and legal attribution of damage, apart from fault and fraud, risk. It has even been proposed to include as other objective factors: guarantee, equity, abuse of right, and excess of normal tolerance between neighbors. Damage is seen then not from the perspective of the author's act but from the position of the injured party, in order to ensure that all damage unjustly caused is repaired. From another point of view, fault has been separated from the unlawfulness of the act, giving the latter a more important role. 'Once the equivalence between the unlawfulness of the act and fault was broken, conduct acquired an autonomous physiognomy detached from the subjective profile of the agent's will, to become a mere means, cause, or criterion of connection between a subject held responsible and a certain harmful event to be compensated.' (Franzoni (Massimo), La Actividad peligrosa, en Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.120). Thus speaks of the Theory of risk, which does not displace fault but rather complements it, and is summarized as the duty of whoever creates a risk to indemnify the damage they cause to a third party. 'Risk is a cause of imputability when, due to the performance of certain causes and determined activities, qualified as dangerous, damage is produced. Damage in these circumstances must be compensated, not because its agent has incurred in fraud or fault, but because the legal order must protect the community from the development of dangerous activities, so that whoever carries them out incurs liability if damage is caused by virtue of such performance… Liability derived from risk does not depend on the fraud or fault of the agent but originates in the mere occurrence of the damage consequent to the dangerous activity. This consideration brings with it a special evidentiary regime, according to which, by the mere exercise of the unsafe activity, the fault of the agent is presumed, exonerating the victim from the task of demonstrating improper conduct. It is up to the agent to rebut the presumption…' (Cubides Camacho Jorge, Hecho imputable dañoso en Del daño, Editora Jurídica, 1° Ed, Colombia, 2001, p.260). For other authors, 'the causal relationship is an element of the illicit act and of contractual breach that links the damage directly with the unlawful act, and indirectly with the element of subjective imputation or objective attribution. It is the agglutinating factor that causes the damage and the fault, or where appropriate the risk, to integrate into the unit of the act that is the source of the obligation to indemnify' (see Bustamante Alcina (José), El perfil de la responsabilidad civil al finalizar el siglo XX en Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.24 to 26)." ( Voto 541-F-11 Tribunal Agrario).

VI-This court considers that both the plaintiff company and the defendant contribute to the development of a strategic and fundamental activity for the Costa Rican state, as they ensure the nation's food security and bear the responsibility and duty to promote the development of agricultural activity in such a way that the phytosanitary condition of plants is protected. For this, nurseries (viveros), seed banks, seedling production facilities (almácigos), and companies of this nature are regulated and protected by the State through the provision of a specialized technical state structure, to assist and control their activities and avoid serious problems such as the propagation of pests, protecting human health and the environment. For this purpose, a series of laws and regulations have been established aimed at setting forth technical and legal provisions of mandatory observance for producers. Within that normative framework, we find the Phytosanitary Protection Law number 7664 and the repealed Nursery Regulation (Reglamento de Viveros) and the current decree number 33927-MAG Regulation for Nurseries, Seedling Production Facilities, Seedbeds, and Budwood Banks (Reglamento de Viveros, Almácigos, Semilleros y Bancos de Yemas) published in La Gaceta of 30 October 2007. Said regulation in its article four establishes the obligation for these establishments dedicated to the activities they regulate to be duly registered with the Nursery Program (Programa de Viveros) and to comply with the specific phytosanitary measures for each activity. Article 14 of this regulation establishes the power of the State Phytosanitary Service (Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado) to take samples that will be taken to the Official Laboratories for the diagnosis of the presence of pests or diseases, and for this purpose, phytosanitary inspectors are empowered. This court observes that the various grievances are related to the value given to the elements of evidence by the trial judge, who did not consider it accredited that the blamed damage of the problems in the germination of the seedlings were caused exclusively by the use of the substrate sold by the company VJ Centroamericana S.A. The appellant's disagreement lies in the fact that the a quo did not consider the scientific, technical, and expert evidence to have it accredited that the substrate caused the damages to the plants of the plaintiff's nursery during the period from January 2002 to 2006, as well as the value given to the testimonies and documentary evidence. As was explained in the preceding considerando, the exempting causes of liability for the defendant company would be force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party, which must be studied to determine if they are present and manage to break the causal link between the conduct and the damage claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant has alleged in her favor fault of the victim and act of a third party, since despite having accepted that the substrate sold had problems in its physical composition, she argues that the germination problems cannot be blamed solely on the substrate. They bring up that the plaintiff in her production process received seeds from her various clients, had irrigation problems, and did not comply with her technical provisions in the use of the product and developed poor agricultural practices in their nurseries. Grievances. Regarding the lack of assessment of the scientific and technical evidence and having the causal link accredited thereby. The appellant objects that the a quo indicated she lacked sufficient evidence to have the facts accredited. In the sixth considerando of the judgment, it was reasoned that by virtue of the confessionary evidence, it was accredited that the plaintiff company was supplied seeds by its clients. It also considered the commercial relationship between the parties from January 2002 to March 2006 as proven, in which, the sale, among other products, of the substrate used in the plaintiff's production process occurred. In the ruling, said conclusions are obtained from the documentary evidence of invoices and confessionary evidence. It was admitted by the defendant that 4513 bags of said product were purchased. It is described that problems with the substrate occurred that affected germination. In this aspect, it is indicated in the judgment that the specific dates on which such inconveniences occurred, as well as the quantity of seeds and seedlings that suffered those circumstances, were not demonstrated. The lack of clarity regarding the specific date on which this problem began in the seedlings of Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. is recorded. The a quo bases this conclusion on the testimony of Miguel Ángel Obregón Gómez, who indicated that such problems of moisture saturation in the roots had been occurring since the year 1999. The a quo also points out that for the year 1999, the defendant was not selling the substrate to the plaintiff. She also relies on the testimony of Ronald Castro Rodríguez, who testified that the major problem arose from late 2004 to early 2005, which is when the problem occurred. The appellant objects that the date indicated by the witness Obregón Loría was due to a lapse (lapsus), since in 1999 there was still no commercial relationship with the substrate seller, and the defendant herself indicates the dates on which the sales occurred. This court considers that such a grievance cannot be accepted, as it was thus recorded in the corresponding record and cannot be varied, because such statements were known by all parties to the proceeding and the date mentioned by such witness was never objected to or requested to be corrected. What has been recorded is the existence of the commercial relationship between the contending parties and that at the end of the commercial relationship the defendant company sold to the plaintiff the substrate blamed for the germination problems, just as was recorded in the appealed ruling. The judgment indicates that it was also not accredited that the alleged damages to the plants were due exclusively to the substrate. Additionally, it was noted that it was accepted that the technical recommendations given for the use of the substrate by the manager (regente) of the selling company were not followed. The appellant complained in that regard, that in the judgment, importance was given to the lack of demonstration of the dates of the damages, when what was important was to determine that the deficiencies in the physical characteristics of the substrate caused the problems of moisture retention, and an inadequate drainage and aeration caused damages to the seedlings. She pointed out the lack of assessment of evidence "D" Physical Analysis of the substrate, the expert evidence, and confessionary evidence. In this aspect, the appellant is not correct. To grant this complaint, the causal link between the conduct and the damage caused must be clear. From the assessment of the evidence of the physical analysis of the substrate and the expert evidence presented in this matter, it has been demonstrated that the analyzed substrate had deficient physical qualities and that these could cause damages in the germination of the plants. The a quo is correct when she reasons in the judgment that the evidence was not sufficient for her to accredit that the damage was caused solely by said substrate and that it is not clear that the procedure applied by the plaintiff to the substrate at her facilities coincided with that developed by the State in its study. The foregoing, given that it was accepted by the plaintiff in her complaint that the seeds used were provided by various clients and that the recommendations in the process of modifying agricultural practices by the manager were not accepted, as they did not agree with them. On the other hand, as indicated in the judgment, the samples analyzed were taken after the period claimed by the plaintiff, because the problems began in the year 2002, and the physical analysis evidence identified as D is from the year 2006. Added to this, the expert evidence is from March 2009. Although it can be determined that the product sampled by the State was deficient, it is not possible to deduce, for the reasons indicated, that the damages to the plants were due solely to the substrate or that situations unrelated to the product did not intervene and interfere with the germinated plant. Regarding the evidence that was not given the value it had, the following are mentioned in the appeal: Evidence A- Biological test carried out at the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, State Phytosanitary Service, Phytosanitary Diagnosis, Greenhouses of 5 June 2006. (folio 4) which reports on the result of planting Lettuce Lactuca Sativa variety Gulf Stream in substrates supplied by the company Agroverde Dos Mil S.A in five lots identified with the numbers 1975 to 1980. Said report concludes that the root damage present in the non-germinated plants "may be" as a consequence of the physical or chemical characteristics of the substrate, since no damage caused by pathogens was observed in the foliar part and recommends a physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis of the substrates. In the Microbiological Analysis. Evidence B (folio 5), it was concluded that no pathogenic fungi or bacteria (causative agents of pests and diseases in plants) were found. The Mineral Chemical Analysis of the organic substrates identifying the same described lots, Evidence C, was provided (folio 6). As relevant, the Physical Analyses. Evidence D (folio 7) determined moisture retention. At folio 234, record number 21 of 28 April 2006 of the State Phytosanitary Service is found. In it, it is recorded that the official of that dependency, Engineer Ulises Jiménez Jiménez, presented himself at Agroverde Dos mil S.A. for the taking of laboratory analysis samples already mentioned from INTA for the determination of the physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics of the sampled lot. Indicating that the sampled lots are: 1212505, 1312505, 0912505, 1001505, 11011505, 1201505 and said samples are assigned the seal from 1975 to 1980 and describing which corresponds to each lot, and the mention of remaining in the custody of the MAG and that the material sampled corresponds to the substrate produced in Canada and sold by VJ- Centroamericana S.A.

The defendant, with its answer to the complaint, provided two trials conducted in 2002 due to the problems that were arising with plant germination. Specifically, Trial 002-02: Chile Dulce (Sweet Pepper) dated November 1, 2002 (folio 135) is included. This trial report is issued by the defendant company through its manager, Agricultural Engineer Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún. It describes a cultivation trial of duly certified chile dulce seeds, in which the seeds were cultivated using the defendant company’s usual procedure. As observations and recommendations, some practices that should be avoided were described, and it noted that no problem was found with the medium that would affect the roots. It was also indicated that compaction with a roller negatively affects the plants in their germination and points out the need to pre-moisten the substrate so that it has uniform moisture before filling the trays, detailing the method to be followed. It was made known to the plaintiff that the stacking of trays affects them in terms of compaction and that 91% germination under good conditions was obtained. The observation was made that the producer uses cultivation media from various manufacturers. The recommendations lean toward indicating that crops should not be compacted with a roller and that they should be moistened prior to filling the trays with the substrate in the manner explained therein, without applying irrigation afterward, as the producer has been doing. A lettuce seed trial designated 001:02, dated November 1, 2002 (folio 146), was also provided. In it, a good germination result was obtained, and the same recommendations were noted regarding the producer’s agricultural practices.

The defendant requested that an expert opinion be rendered, which is found at folios 323 to 331, on which a hearing was held without objection from either party. From reading this expert evidence, it is evident that its objective is to determine whether the problems reported by Agroverde 2000 S.A. were caused by the characteristics of the substrate imported and sold by VJ Centroamericana S.A. or by poor handling thereof or another cause. The expert specifies that the field work was carried out between January 10, 2009, and February 13 of the same year at the plaintiff’s facilities. The expert explains that he proceeded to visit other nurseries that develop the same production process, interviewed representatives of the State Phytosanitary Service (Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado), and conducted other inquiries. He begins by indicating that the use of substrates for the production of vegetable seedlings is recent in the country but is now a widespread practice. He cites the importance of good quality seedlings (almácigos) for any agricultural project, since the success or failure of said project will depend on it, and therefore, knowledge of the chemical, physical, and microbiological characteristics of that substrate is relevant, because the development plan for the plants in the greenhouses is programmed accordingly. In the specific case, the physical characteristics of the peat (turba) (substrate) provided by the defendant are questioned. He mentions that his claim is limited to studying the physical qualities of the substrate, because from the results provided by the plaintiff, it is inferred that there are no problems with the chemical and microbiological qualities. The expert report indicates that granulometry and the type of material determine the physical characteristics of a substrate, and among those he mentions: coarseness index, apparent density, real density, and moisture retention at different suction pressures, which are factors that allow calculating the porosity and the water-to-air ratio of the substrate. The opinion provides technical explanations of concepts regarding the composition of substrates and the beneficial or negative effects they produce on crops, and at this point concludes that in order for a substrate to have good physical characteristics, it must meet appropriate and balanced conditions that allow proper plant development. The report describes that it was verified within the plaintiff’s production process that the place where the seeds are stored meets the requirements. The expert describes the production process found in the defendant’s nursery and noted that he observed the majority of the bales that supposedly caused the damage to the plants. He indicated having observed 19 sacks of the 34 that were indicated in the complaint as being held by the plaintiff. He cites that 7 are from lot V-J 1001505, 8 from lot V-J 10101505, two from lot V-J 1212505, and two from lot V-J 1201505. It is important to mention that said expert reported that he visited the facilities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería) and spoke with engineer Ulises Jiménez Vega, who was the person in charge of taking the samples at Agroverde 2000 S.A., and was able to observe the samples in custody. He subsequently went to the laboratory where the trials were conducted and found them in optimal conditions, and engineer Edgar Vega Zúñiga, who was in charge of evaluating the seedling development process, provided him with a copy of the report he prepared for this purpose. He then proceeded to visit the greenhouses of the State Phytosanitary Service and recorded that the management conditions are acceptable. The expert proceeds to answer each of the questions that the defendant company requested be addressed, and from these, aspects of fundamental consideration for the resolution of this dispute are deduced. To the first question, he answered that it could have been possible that the cause of the plaintiff’s problems was the supplied substrate. He explains that this is deduced from the result of the physical analysis of the samples conducted by the MAG, which showed that more than 80% contained particles smaller than 1 mm and excessive moisture retention at three different suction pressures. He points out that the foregoing is serious because it causes poor aeration of the plant, and consequently, poor root development (desarrollo radicular). In the second question, he states that a germination problem can occur in the same tray irregularly, in patches, or throughout it, because according to what the result of the MAG analysis showed, the samples present between 80% and 82% of very fine material and between 18% and 20% of particles larger than 1 mm, and if it is poorly distributed within the bale, the indicated germination situations can occur. The third question makes it clear that the damages occurring in the germination trays where non-uniform and patchy development occurred were not due to contamination, because the laboratory results did not show the presence of pathogens. He also pointed out that the management of fertilizers, agrochemicals, substrate preparation, and irrigation systems is done safely and in adherence to technical guidelines, and that detailed controls and logs are kept on the seeds, tracking them by number, entry dates, packaging, and their destination. The fourth question is aimed at challenging the reliability of the investigations carried out in the laboratories of the State Phytosanitary Service, which used a 98-cell tray in its studies, and whether that was not adding a new variable. In this regard, the expert answers that the number of holes contained in a tray is not decisive for obtaining the desired results in the test, because the important thing is to know whether or not the problem presented in the different lots sampled is repeated due to the alleged physical problems. Regarding seed quality, he is asked whether seed certification and quality were necessary before the tests. The expert indicates that a seed quality analysis could have been good to provide greater scientific formality to the evaluation, but that in this case, it was not decisive, because according to inquiries, the seed at that time did not report any vigor or germination problems. And he adds that when a substrate has physical problems, it is not important whether lettuce, tomato, or chile seeds are used, as the same symptoms may appear using other seeds. The expert answers the question of whether it was necessary to describe the laboratory procedure in the investigation, affirming that it was not, because professionals prepare the medium and assume the results obtained. He adds that engineer Edgar Vega stated to him that the rigorous procedure was used to prepare the medium for each of the six samples and their repetitions. In the question identified as 4-4, the expert indicates that the irrigation system used in the State Phytosanitary Service analysis did not influence the germination percentage result, because it ensures proper moistening of the plants in the trays. The expert answers the next question referring to the moment in the germination process at which the root damage in the lettuce plants was evaluated, stating that such evaluations can be done on the third or fourth day, and having performed it 6 days later, as happened, was a sufficient and adequate time to carry out such evaluation. In the last question, the expert is asked whether an investigation at the State Phytosanitary Service should have been carried out using a scientific method with certain aspects, such as the presence of a representative from the commercial sector. He answers that any investigation requires a scientific method, but not all require an experimental design and statistical analysis as an indispensable requirement. He added that this is one of those cases where it is not necessary, because two repetitions, as it seems was done, are enough to have the necessary technical certainty and analyze the results. He mentions that it would have been interesting to introduce another substrate, but that in the specific case, the analyses performed are irrefutable proof that the problem originated in the physical characteristics of the various lots of the questioned substrate, and regarding the quality of the seeds, he considers it does not influence them, because the germinations were good, and that the irrigation, fertilization, and light aspects do not detract from the fact that the analyses were adequate.

This Court considers, with respect to the expert opinion, the same as indicated in the judgment regarding the failure to prove the causal link in the case record, which would require having certainty that the problems generated in the plaintiff company’s plants during the alleged period were exclusively the result of the substrate sold. The foregoing is because the problems indicated began in 2002, and the expert provides a criterion based on what was observed in the plaintiff’s production process in 2009, and the agricultural practices from 2002 to 2006 could not be evaluated so as to determine the causal link solely with respect to the substrate in question. Similarly, it is also not possible to know the certification of all the seeds involved in the damaged plants, because in the confessionary proof of Mr. Soto Bravo, it was accepted that the seeds came from various clients and “some” were certified (questions 3 and 4, folio 384), and that the agricultural practices recommended by the defendant’s manager were not always followed, as they had a different technical criterion (fifth and sixth questions, folio 389). Regarding the practices recommended in the cultivation process, the case file contains documentary evidence from folios 135 to 139, consisting of trials prepared by the defendant company in which it was recommended that the plaintiff make a change in some aspects, such as not using roller compaction and pre-moistening the substrate, which were not permanently adopted by the plaintiff. There is no clarity from the evidence in the case file that said practices were followed and that the causal link of damages to the plants is proven solely to the substrate in question.

The appellant argues that the technical evidence proves its claim; however, this Court considers that although it can be deduced from said evidence that the substrate samples show a deficiency in their physical qualities that produce problems in the plants, the lack of knowledge of aspects such as the origin and quality of the seeds used from 2002 to 2006, or the plaintiff’s method of substrate preparation during those periods, influenced the negative germination results. The expert evidence and microbiological analyses showed that those samples did not present pathogenic elements; however, those were only samples corresponding to the last periods of the commercial relationship in 2006, without knowing the state of the previous conditions regarding seed quality and agricultural practices from 2002. The expert evidence has the value of demonstrating the conditions of the plaintiff’s nursery in 2009, the state of the State nurseries at that same time, as well as the validation of the correct agricultural practices at that moment, but it is not possible to deduce from these proofs the conditions prevailing during 2002 to 2006. The laboratory tests are irrefutable in their conclusions, but their value cannot prove that the damage to the seedlings was due solely to the conditions of the substrate supplied by the defendant company on the dates when the damages occurred. Therefore, the grievance that the technical and expert evidence in the case file is sufficient is not accepted.

Regarding the grievance concerning the confessionary proof and that the agricultural practices were correct is deduced from it, it is indicated that after reviewing the same (folio 387), it is deduced that aspects that may influence seedling (almácigos) crops are unknown, such as seed quality, water, irrigation systems, and agricultural practices, which were not studied at the time the damages occurred. The confessant accepted this in his answer to question eighteen. The appellant’s grievance when referring that such aspects are not important, but rather that the only thing to consider was whether the substrate deficiency caused the damages claimed, is not accepted. This Court considers that in order for the causal link to be deemed proven, it is necessary to verify that the indicated aspects did not also contribute to the generation of the damages found in the analyses during the 2002 to 2006 period.

Furthermore, the grievances regarding what the testimonial evidence proved are also not shared, because it is not considered that the analyses and procedures followed by officials Ulises Jiménez Jiménez and Edgar Julián Vega were invalidated, or that the conditions of the State greenhouses were not optimal; the results obtained are not questioned. What is considered is that such analyses are not sufficient to determine that the damages caused from 2002 to 2006 were solely due to the substrate, even if it had been proven that the substrate did not have an adequate physical composition. Regarding the statement of Ronald Castro Rodríguez (folio 432), although he provides a clear and forceful statement indicating that the germination problem was due to the substrate, he points out that the damages began to worsen in 2004, and that before 2005, material was purchased from CAFESA, but it was worse than the one from VJ. Although it is evident he is a person with knowledge of his work, he stated that he has not received technical training and that regarding the amount of water needed, “he does it purely by eye.” This Court finds itself in agreement with the value given to this statement. Regarding the statement of Ana Isabel Parajeles Zumbado, it is considered that her deposition in the specific case cannot influence the invalidation of the ruling, because although she declared having suffered damages with said product, there is also no certainty regarding the conditions under which the nursery she mentioned owning was managed. Her grievance is rejected.

This Court considers that the testimony of Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún, who acted as the defendant’s manager, was properly evaluated, because from it, it was deduced that there were problems with the product, but that the agricultural practices of pre-moistening and compaction were not necessarily followed, which affects the proof of the possibility that the victim’s fault intervenes in the damage caused and breaks the causal link that must be proven. As indicated in the appealed judgment, the expert evidence was based on granting validity to the analyses of the State Phytosanitary Service, but it is not possible to deduce from it that the circumstances and practices of the plaintiff’s nursery during 2002 to 2006 did not contribute to the generation of the damages caused to the germinated plants. Therefore, the appellant plaintiff’s reproach, when indicating that the evidentiary assessment made by the judge is made against the evidence of science and technique due to lack of knowledge, is also not accepted.” As already indicated, the criterion for imputation is, precisely, the risk created, which presupposes that the person to whom the damage is imputed must be in a position of control over it, that is, they must be the one carrying out the activity or assuming the associated possible negative consequences, receiving a benefit from it. This benefit may be direct, which can be identified, among others, with the income or emoluments obtained as consideration, or indirect, when the advantageous situation occurs in a reflected manner, as happens with alternative mechanisms that tend to attract consumers, and consequently, result in an economic profit for the offeror. It is important to mention that in an activity, different degrees of risk can be found, which must be managed by the subject who benefits from it, a circumstance that exerts a direct influence on the evidentiary duty incumbent upon them, since it is relevant for determining imputation in the sub judice. The foregoing, coupled with the existence of exempting causes, demonstrates that the legislation under discussion does not constitute an automatic transfer of assets. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">VI.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">In the instant case, the plaintiff's claims were upheld by majority by the Tribunal, which considered that the operation of the electronic banking system presents such a degree of dangerousness that allows the damages suffered to be imputed to the Bank. ......... . As prescribed by numeral 35 of the Consumer Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Consumidor), an individual has been harmed by reason of the service, which, when utilized (and in view of its risky nature), produced a significant injury to the person appearing as the plaintiff in the proceedings. Consequently, instead of an improper interpretation of the norm, the article has been given its correct and proper meaning..... Coupled with the above, it cannot be overlooked that the emergence of liability depends on the existence of unlawfulness, with objective liability being no exception, and it must be determined, in this case, whether the affected party was under a legal obligation to bear the damage, as is derived from the principle of patrimonial indemnity (indemnidad patrimonial). This underlying unlawfulness is identified, in the instant case, with the risk existing in the operation of the service, as is evident from the body of evidence itself, the improper assessment of which is being claimed. For the reasons stated up to this point, the arguments put forth by the appellant that the duty of safety is of a commercial and not a legal nature are not acceptable. As previously stated, the development of actions undertaken by a legal subject, which foreseeably have the potential to cause damage, implicitly carries the duty to guarantee safety against them. In this line of reasoning, it is not a matter of the defendant demonstrating the diligence it has assumed, as this is an aspect characteristic of a subjective liability system.......</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">VII.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">In summary of the foregoing, in the specific case, the concurrence of a liability exemption was not demonstrated, such as the victim's fault, the act of a third party, or force majeure. Although the first is alluded to, there do not exist, within the body of evidence, sufficient elements to affirm that the victim participated in the production of the damage. Had any of these circumstances been proven, it would be impossible to establish a causal link between the Bank's conduct and the injury, and therefore, a duty to compensate on the part of the entity could not arise. As already stated, the existence of an exemption implies that the cause of the damage can be linked to another subject, or what is the same, that the defendant is unrelated to the damage suffered. In any case, in the instant case, the concurrence of an exempting cause, or that the Consumer Protection Law is not applicable, was not successfully demonstrated; therefore, since damage exists as a consequence of a risky service, under the terms of numeral 35 of the cited regulatory body, no improper application of the legal regime by the trial court judges is observed.\" </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">(Sala Primera de Casación, No. 1098-09, of 14:45 on October 22, 2009). The decision of that high Court, which is shared by this court and finds its legal basis in Article 41 of the Political Constitution and Article 35 of the Effective Consumer Law (Ley Efectiva del Consumidor), in addition to what is specifically prescribed for the activity carried out by the defendant company in the Phytosanitary Protection Law (Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria), which states:\"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">Article 32. “Those who import, manufacture, formulate, repackage, rewrap, distribute, store, transport, sell, and apply chemical, biological, or related substances for agricultural use shall be obligated to compensate the damages and losses that, through their actions or omissions, they cause to agriculture, livestock, human health, and the environment</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">”.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Moreover, on the subject of damage and risk, this Tribunal has cited some relevant</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> doctrinal criteria: \"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">V.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> Modern doctrine, for its part, has supported the objectification of liability, by including risk, apart from fault and fraud, among the factors of imputability and legal attribution of damage.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> It has even been proposed to include as other objective factors: guarantee, equity, abuse of rights, and exceeding normal tolerance between neighbors.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> Damage is thus seen not from the perspective of the author's act but from the position of the injured party, to ensure that all damage caused unjustly is repaired. From another point of view, fault has been separated from the unlawfulness of the act, giving the latter a more important role.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> “Once the equivalence between the unlawfulness of the act and fault was broken, conduct acquired an autonomous physiognomy detached from the subjective profile of the agent's will, becoming a simple means, cause, or connection criterion between a subject held responsible and a certain harmful event to be compensated.”</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> (Franzoni (Massimo), La Actividad peligrosa, in </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio, </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires,1997, p.120).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> This refers to the Theory of Risk, which does not displace fault but complements it, and is summarized as the duty of whoever creates a risk to indemnify the damage it causes to a third party.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> “Risk is a cause of imputability when, due to the performance of certain causes and specific activities, classified as dangerous, damage is produced. Damage in these circumstances must be compensated, not because the agent incurred fraud or fault, but because the legal order must protect the community from the development of dangerous activities, so that whoever carries them out incurs liability if damage is caused by virtue of such performance… Liability derived from risk does not depend on the fraud or fault of the agent but originates from the mere occurrence of damage resulting from the dangerous activity.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> This consideration brings with it a special evidentiary regime, according to which, by the mere exercise of the unsafe activity, the agent's fault is presumed, exonerating the victim from the task of demonstrating improper conduct. It is up to the agent to rebut the presumption…” (Cubides Camacho Jorge, Hecho imputable dañoso in </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Del daño, </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">Editora Jurídica, 1st Ed, Colombia, 2001, p.260).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> For other authors, “the causal relationship is an element of the unlawful act and of contractual breach that links the damage directly with the unlawful act, and indirectly with the element of subjective imputation or objective attribution.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> It is the binding factor</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> that integrates the damage and the fault, or where appropriate </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">the risk,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> into the unity of the act that is the source of the obligation to indemnify” (see Bustamante Alcina (José), El perfil de la responsabilidad civil al finalizar el siglo XX in </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\"> Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.24 to 26).\" (Voto 541-F-11 Tribunal Agrario).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">VI-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">This court considers that both the plaintiff company and the defendant contribute to the development of a strategic and fundamental activity for the Costa Rican State, as they ensure the nation's food security and bear the responsibility of promoting</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the development of agricultural activity in such a way that the phytosanitary condition of plants is protected. For this purpose, nurseries (viveros), seed banks, seedbeds, and companies of this nature are regulated and protected by the State through the provision of a specialized technical state structure, to contribute to and control their activities and prevent serious problems such as the spread of pests, protecting human health</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and the environment. To this end, a series of laws and regulations have been established aimed at setting forth the technical and legal provisions of mandatory observance for producers. Within this regulatory framework, we find the Phytosanitary Protection Law number 7664</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and the repealed Reglamento de Viveros and the current decree</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> number 33927-MAG Reglamento de Viveros, Almácigos, Semilleros y Bancos de Yemas published in La Gaceta of October 30, 2007. Said regulation in its article four establishes the obligation of these establishments dedicated to the activities they regulate to be duly registered with the Programa de Viveros and to comply with the specific phytosanitary measures for each activity. Article 14 of this regulation establishes the power of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado to take samples that will be sent to the Official Laboratories for the diagnosis of the presence of pests or diseases, and phytosanitary inspectors are empowered for this purpose.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> This court observes that the various grievances are related to the value given to the evidentiary elements by the trial court judge, who did not consider it proven that the alleged damage of the germination problems in the seedbeds were caused exclusively by the use of the substrate sold by the company VJ Centroamericana S.A. The appellant's disagreement lies in the fact that the a quo did not consider the scientific, technical, and expert evidence to find it proven that the substrate caused the damages to the plants of the plaintiff's nursery during the period from January 2002 to 2006, nor the value given to the testimonies and documentary evidence. As explained in the preceding considerando, the exemptions from liability of the defendant company would be force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> which must be examined to determine if they are present and manage to break the causal link between the conduct and the damage claimed by the plaintiff.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The defendant has alleged in its favor the fault of the victim and the act of a third party, because despite having accepted that the substrate sold had problems in its physical composition, it argues that the germination problems cannot be attributed solely to the substrate. They bring up that the plaintiff in its production process received seeds from its various clients, had irrigation problems, and did not follow their technical instructions on the use of the product and developed poor agricultural practices in its nursery.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Grievances. Regarding the lack of assessment of the scientific and technical evidence and using it to find the causal link proven. The appellant grieves that the a quo indicated it lacked sufficient evidence to find the facts proven. In the sixth considerando of the judgment, it was reasoned that by virtue of the confessionary evidence, it was found proven that the plaintiff company was supplied seeds by its clients. The commercial relationship between the parties from January 2002 to March 2006 was also found proven, during which the sale occurred, among other products, of the substrate used in the plaintiff's production process. In the ruling, these conclusions are drawn from the documentary evidence of invoices and confessionary evidence. It was admitted by the defendant that 4513 bags of said product were purchased. It is described that problems occurred with the substrate</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> that affected germination.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">In this regard, it is indicated in the judgment that the specific dates on which such problems occurred, as well as the quantity of seeds and seedlings that suffered those circumstances, were not demonstrated. The lack of clarity of the specific date on which this problem began in the seedbeds of Agroverde</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Dos Mil S.A. is recorded. The a quo bases this conclusion on the testimony of Miguel Ángel Obregón Gómez, who indicated that such problems of moisture saturation in the roots had been occurring since the year 1999. The a quo also points out that in 1999, the defendant was not selling the substrate to the plaintiff. It also relies on the testimony of Ronald Castro Rodríguez, who testified that the biggest problem arose from late 2004 to early 2005, which is when the problem occurred.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The appellant grieves that the date indicated by the witness Obregón Loría was due to a lapse, since in 1999 there was still no commercial relationship with the substrate seller, and the defendant itself indicates the dates on which the sales occurred. This court considers that such a grievance cannot be accepted, as it was so recorded in the corresponding record and cannot be altered, since all parties to the proceedings were aware of such statements, and the date mentioned by such a witness was never objected to or requested to be corrected. What has been recorded is the existence of the commercial relationship between the contending parties and that, upon the termination of the commercial relationship, the defendant company sold the plaintiff the substrate to which the germination problems are attributed, as was recorded in the appealed decision. The judgment indicates that it was also not proven that the alleged damages to the plants were due exclusively to the substrate. Furthermore, it was noted that it was accepted that the technical recommendations given for the use of the substrate by the regent of the selling company were not followed.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">The appellant grieved in that regard that the judgment gave importance to the lack of demonstration of the dates of the damages, when what was important was to determine that the deficiencies in the physical characteristics of the substrate caused the problems of moisture retention, inadequate drainage, and aeration that provoked damage to the seedlings. It pointed out the lack of assessment of evidence \"D\" Physical Analysis of the substrate, the expert evidence, and the confessionary evidence. In this respect, the appellant is incorrect. To grant this claim, the causal link between the conduct and the damage suffered must be clear. From the assessment of the evidence of the physical analysis of the substrate and the expert evidence presented in this matter, it has been demonstrated that the analyzed substrate had deficient physical qualities and that such could cause damage to the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> germination of the plants. The a quo is correct when it reasons in the judgment that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the damage was caused solely by said substrate and that it is not clear that the procedure applied by the plaintiff to the substrate in its facilities coincided with that developed by the State in its study. The foregoing, given that the plaintiff accepted in its claim that the seeds used were provided by various clients and that the recommendations regarding modifying agricultural practices by the regent were not accepted, because they did not agree with them. On the other hand, as noted in the judgment, the analyzed samples were taken after the period claimed by the plaintiff, since the problems began in 2002, and the physical analysis evidence identified as D is from 2006. In addition to that, the expert evidence is from March 2009. While it can be determined that the product sampled by the State was deficient, it is not possible to deduce, for the reasons indicated, that the damages to the plants were due solely to the substrate or that no situations external to the product intervened that interfered with the germinated plant. Regarding the evidence that was not given value that it allegedly had, the following is mentioned in the appeal:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Evidence A- Biological test carried out at the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Phytosanitary Diagnosis, Greenhouses of June 5, 2006. (folio 4) which reports on the result of sowing Lettuce Lactuca Sativa variety Gulf Stream in substrates supplied by the company Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. in five lots identified with numbers 1975 to 1980. Said report concludes that the root damage present in the non-germinated plants \"may be\"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">a consequence of the physical or chemical characteristics of the substrate, since no damage caused by pathogens was observed in the foliar part, and recommends a physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis of the substrates.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">In the Microbiological Analysis.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Evidence B (folio 5) it was concluded that no pathogenic fungi or bacteria (causing pests and diseases in plants) were found. The Chemical Mineral Analysis of the organic substrates identifying the same lots described, Evidence C, was provided (folio 6). In what is pertinent, the Physical Analysis. Evidence D (folio 7) determined moisture retention. On folio 234, record number 21 of</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> April 28, 2006, from the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado appears. It records that the official of that agency, Ingeniero Ulises Jiménez Jiménez, appeared at Agroverde Dos mil S.A. for the taking of the aforementioned INTA laboratory analysis samples for the determination of the physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics of the sampled lot. Indicating that the sampled lots are: 1212505, 1312505, 0912505, 1001505, 11011505, 1201505 and said samples are assigned the seals from 1975 to 1980, describing which corresponds to each lot, and the mention that they remain under the custody of the MAG and that the sampled material corresponds to the substrate produced in Canada and sold by VJ- Centroamericana S.A.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The defendant contributed</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">with its response to the claim two trials that were conducted in 2002 due to the problems occurring with the germination of the plants. Namely, Trial 002-02: Sweet Chile dated November 1, 2002 (folio 135) appears. Said trial report is issued by the defendant company through the regent, Agronomist Ingeniero Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún. It describes a cultivation trial of sweet chile seeds, which are duly certified, and in it, the cultivation of the seeds was carried out using the usual procedure of the defendant company. As observations and recommendations, some practices that should be avoided were described, and it was reported that no problem was found with the medium affecting the roots. Likewise, it was indicated that compaction with a roller negatively affects plants in their germination and points out the need to pre-moisten the substrate so that it has uniform moisture before filling the trays, detailing the method to follow; it was made known that the stacking of trays affects compaction and that a germination of 91% was obtained in good conditions. The observation was made that the producer uses growing media from various manufacturers. The recommendations lean towards indicating that crops should not be compacted with a roller and they must moisten the substrate prior to filling the trays in the manner explained there</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and not apply irrigation afterwards, as the producer had been doing. Also provided was a lettuce seed trial called 001:02 of November 1, 2002</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">(folio 146). In it, a good germination result was obtained, and the same recommendations were noted regarding the producer's agricultural practices. The defendant requested that an expert opinion be rendered, which appears from folio 323 to 331, on which a hearing was held, without it being objected to by any of the parties. From reading said expert evidence, it is evident that its objective is: to determine if the problems reported by Agroverde 2000 S.A. were caused by the characteristics of the substrate imported and sold by VJ Centroamericana S.A.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> or by poor handling thereof or another cause. The expert specifies that the field work was carried out between January 10, 2009, and February 13 of the same year at the plaintiff's facilities. The expert explains that he proceeded to visit other nurseries that develop the same production process, interviewed representatives of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, and conducted other inquiries. He begins by indicating that the use of substrates for the production of vegetable seedlings is recent in the country, but is currently a generalized practice. He cites the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> importance of good quality seedbeds for</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> any agricultural project, as the success or failure of said project will depend on it,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and therefore, knowledge of the chemical, physical, and microbiological characteristics of that substrate is relevant, because the development plan for the plants in the greenhouses is programmed according to it. In the specific case, the physical characteristics of the peat (substrate) provided by the defendant are questioned. He mentions that its claim is limited to studying the physical qualities of the substrate, because from the results provided by the plaintiff, it is deduced that there are no problems with the chemical and microbiological qualities. The expertise indicates that granulometry and the type of material determine the physical characteristics of a substrate, and among them, it mentions: thickness index, bulk density, real density, and moisture retention at different suction pressures, which are factors that allow calculating porosity and the water:air ratio of the substrate. The expert opinion provides technical explanations of concepts of the composition of substrates and the beneficial or negative effects they produce on crops, and at this point, concludes that to have a substrate with good physical characteristics, it must meet appropriate and balanced conditions that allow the adequate development of plants. The report describes that it was verified within the plaintiff's production process that the place where the seeds are stored meets the requirements. The expert describes the production process found at the defendant's nursery and noted that he observed the majority of the bales that supposedly caused the damage to the plants. He indicated having observed 19 bags out of the 34 that were indicated in the claim as remaining in the plaintiff's possession. He cites 7 are from lot V-J 1001505, 8 from lot V-J 10101505, two from lot V-J 1212505, and two from lot V-J 1201505. It is important to mention that said expert reported that he visited the facilities of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería and spoke with Ingeniero Ulises Jiménez Vega, who was the person in charge of taking</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> the samples at Agroverde 2000 S.A.

and was able to observe the safeguarded samples; subsequently, he appeared at the laboratory where the tests were performed and found them in optimal condition, and he was provided, by Engineer Edgar Vega Zúñiga, who was in charge of evaluating the seedling development process, with a copy of the report he prepared for that purpose. Subsequently, he proceeded to visit the greenhouses of the State Phytosanitary Service (Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado) and recorded that the management conditions are acceptable. The expert proceeds to answer each of the questions that the defendant company requested be addressed for this purpose, and from these, aspects of fundamental consideration for the resolution of this dispute are deduced. To the first question, he answered that it could have been possible that the cause of the plaintiff's problems was the supplied substrate (sustrato). He explains that the foregoing is deduced from the result of the physical analysis of the samples conducted by the MAG, which showed that in more than 80%, particles smaller than 1 mm were present, along with excessive moisture retention at three different suction pressures. He points out that the foregoing is serious, as it causes poor aeration of the plant, and consequently, poor root development. In the second question, he affirms that a germination problem can occur in the same tray irregularly, in patches, or throughout the entire tray, because according to the results of the MAG analysis, the samples have between 80% and 82% very fine material and between 18% and 20% of particles larger than 1 mm, and if it is poorly distributed within the bale, the noted germination situations can occur. The third question makes it clear that the damages occurring in the germination trays where non-uniform, patchy development occurred were not due to contamination, as the laboratory results did not show the presence of pathogens. He also pointed out that the management of fertilizers, agrochemicals, substrate preparation, and irrigation systems is done safely and in accordance with technical guidelines, and detailed controls and logs are kept for the seeds, tracking them by number, entry dates, packaging, and destination. The fourth question is aimed at challenging the reliability of the investigations carried out in the laboratories of the State Phytosanitary Service, which used a 98-cavity tray in its studies, and whether this was adding a new variable. The expert answers in this regard that the number of cells contained in a tray is not determinative for obtaining the desired results in the test, because the important thing is to know whether or not the problem presented in the different batches sampled due to the alleged physical problems is replicated. Regarding seed quality, he is asked if seed certification and quality were necessary before the tests. The expert indicates that a seed quality analysis could have been good to give greater scientific formality to the evaluation, but that in this case it was not determinative, because according to inquiries, the seed at that time did not report vigor or germination problems. And he adds that when a substrate has physical problems, it is not important whether lettuce, tomato, or chili pepper seed is used, because the same symptoms can appear using other seeds. The expert responds to the question of whether it was necessary to describe the laboratory procedure in the investigation, affirming that it was not, because professionals prepare the medium and assume the results obtained. He adds that engineer Edgar Vega told him that the standard procedure was used to prepare the medium for each of the six samples and their replications. The expert, in the question identified as 4-4, indicates that the irrigation system used in the State Phytosanitary Service's analysis did not influence the germination percentage result, because it ensures proper moistening of the plants in the trays. The expert answers the next question, which refers to the moment in the germination process at which the root damage in the lettuce plants was evaluated, that such evaluations can be done on the third or fourth day, and having done it 6 days later, as happened, was sufficient and adequate time to carry out such an evaluation. In the last question, the expert is asked whether a procedure with the scientific method should have been followed in the State Phytosanitary Service's investigation, with certain aspects such as the presence of a representative from the commercial sector. He answers that all research requires a scientific method, but an experimental design and statistical analysis are not an indispensable requirement in every case. He added that this is one of those cases where it is not necessary, because two replications, as seems to have been done, are sufficient to have the necessary technical certainty and analyze the results. It is mentioned that it would have been interesting to introduce another substrate, but that in the specific case, the analyses performed are irrefutable proof that the problem originated in the physical characteristics of the various batches of the questioned substrate, and regarding the quality of the seeds, he believes it does not influence, because the germinations were good, and that the aspects of irrigation, fertilization, and light do not disprove that the analyses were adequate. This Court considers, with respect to the expert opinion (peritaje), the same as what is stated in the judgment regarding the lack of accreditation in the case record of the causal link (nexo causal), which would require having certainty that the problems generated in the plaintiff company's plants during the alleged period were exclusively a consequence of the substrate sold. The foregoing because the noted problems began in 2002, and the expert issues an opinion based on what was observed in the plaintiff's production process in 2009, and the agricultural practices from 2002 to 2006 could not be evaluated to determine the causal link solely with respect to the mentioned substrate. Similarly, it is also not possible to know the certification of all the seeds involved in the damaged plants, because in the confessional evidence (prueba confesional) of Mr. Soto Bravo, it was accepted that the seeds came from various clients and "some" came certified (questions 3 and 4, folio 384), and that the agricultural practices recommended by the defendant's technical manager were not always followed, as they had a different technical criterion (questions five and six, folio 389). Regarding the recommended practices in the cultivation process, the case file contains documentary evidence from folio 135 to 139, trials prepared by the defendant company in which the plaintiff was recommended to make a change in some aspects, such as not compacting with a roller and pre-wetting (pre mojado) the substrate, which were not permanently adopted by the plaintiff. There is no clarity from the evidence in the case file that such practices were followed and that the causal link of damage to the plants is proven solely to the substrate in question. The appellant argues that the technical evidence proves their claim; however, this Court considers that, although it can be deduced from it that the substrate samples show a deficiency in their physical qualities, which produces problems in the plants, the lack of knowledge of aspects such as the origin and quality of the seeds used from 2002 to 2006, or the plaintiff's method of substrate preparation in those periods, influenced the negative germination results. The expert evidence and microbiological analyses showed that those samples did not present pathogenic elements; however, those were only samples corresponding to the last periods of the commercial relationship in 2006, without knowing the state of the previous conditions regarding seed quality and agricultural practices since 2002. The expert evidence has the value of demonstrating the conditions of the plaintiff's nursery (vivero) in 2009, the state of the State nurseries at that same time, as well as the validation of the correct agricultural practices at that moment, but it is not possible to deduce from this evidence the prevailing conditions during 2002 to 2006. The laboratory tests are irrefutable in their conclusions, but their value cannot prove that the damage to the seedlings was due only to the conditions of the substrate supplied by the defendant company on the dates the damages occurred. Therefore, the grievance that the technical and expert evidence in the case record is sufficient is not admissible. Regarding the grievance concerning the confessional evidence and that from it, it is deduced that the agricultural practices were correct, it is indicated that upon reviewing it (folio 387), it is deduced that aspects that can influence seedling cultivation, such as seed quality, water, irrigation systems, and agricultural practices, are unknown, as they were not studied at the time the damages occurred. The deponent accepted this in his answer to question eighteen. The appellant's grievance, when stating that such aspects are not important, but that the only thing to consider was whether the deficiency of the substrate caused the claimed damages, is not admissible. This Court considers that to consider the causal link proven, it is required to verify that the indicated aspects did not also contribute to the generation of the damages found in the analyses during the period 2002 to 2006. For its part, the grievances regarding what the testimonial evidence (prueba testimonial) proved are also not shared, as it is not considered that the analyses and procedures followed by officials Ulises Jiménez Jimenez and Edgar Julián Vega were discredited or that the conditions of the State greenhouses were not optimal; the yielded results are not questioned. What is considered is that such analyses are not sufficient to determine that the damages caused from 2002 to 2006 were solely due to the substrate, even if it had been proven that the substrate did not have an adequate physical composition. Regarding the statement of Ronald Castro Rodríguez (folio 432), although he gives a clear and emphatic statement pointing out that the germination problem was due to the substrate, he indicates that the damages began to worsen in 2004, and that before 2005, material had been purchased from CAFESA, but it was worse than VJ's. While it is noted that he is a person with knowledge of his work, he stated that he has not received technical training and that regarding the amount of water needed, "he does it purely by eye." This Court agrees with the value given to this statement. Regarding the statement of Ana Isabel Parajeles Zumbado, it is considered that her testimony in the specific case cannot affect the overturning of the ruling, because although she declared having suffered damages with said product, there is also no certainty of the conditions under which the nursery she mentioned owning was managed. Her grievance is rejected. This Court considers that the testimony of the person who served as the defendant's technical manager, Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún, was appropriately valued, because it was deduced from it that there were problems with the product, but that the agricultural practices of pre-wetting and compaction were not necessarily followed, which affects the proof of the possibility that the victim's fault mediated in the damage caused and breaks the causal link that must remain proven. As indicated in the appealed judgment, the expert evidence was based on granting validity to the analyses of the State Phytosanitary Service, but it is not possible to deduce from it that the circumstances and practices of the plaintiff's nursery during 2002 to 2006 did not contribute to the generation of the damages caused in the germinated plants. Therefore, the appellant's reproach, when stating that the evidentiary assessment made by the judge is made against scientific and technical evidence due to ignorance, is also not admissible." In essence, that theory postulates that whoever creates, carries out, or profits from a lawful lucrative activity that presents potentially dangerous elements for others, must also bear its inconveniences (ubi emolumentum, ubi onus, which can be translated as where the emolument is, there is the burden). From the foregoing statement, two characteristics can be inferred: on one hand, that the risk comes from an exploitation activity; and on the other, since it is carried out by human beings, so-called acts of nature are excluded. Concomitantly, it is important to make some clarifications regarding the risks suitable for generating liability, since not every risk implies the automatic emergence of the latter. Currently, life in society offers a countless number of risks, of varying degrees and scopes, to the point that it can be stated that it is impossible to find a daily activity that is free of them. In this line, the interpretation of the rules cannot start from an absolute and total aversion to risk, which, as indicated, forms an integral part of societal coexistence and the technological advances integrated into it. The foregoing leads to the affirmation that, for the duty to repair to arise, the risk associated with the activity must present a degree of abnormality, that is, it must exceed the margin of tolerance that is admissible according to the rules of experience, which must be analyzed, on a case-by-case basis, by the judge. The second point that requires some commentary concerns the subject who becomes obligated by virtue of an activity considered dangerous. As already indicated, the criterion for imputation is, precisely, the risk created, which suggests that the person to whom the damage is imputed must be in a position of control over it, that is, must be the one who develops the activity or assumes the possible associated negative consequences, receiving a benefit from it. This can be direct, which can be identified, among others, with the income or emoluments obtained as consideration, or indirect, when the situation of advantage occurs in a reflected manner, as happens with alternative mechanisms that tend to attract consumers, and consequently, result in an economic benefit for its offeror. It is important to mention that in an activity, it is possible to find different degrees of risk, which must be managed by that subject who benefits from it, a circumstance that exerts a direct influence on the evidentiary duty that corresponds to them, since it is relevant for determining the imputation in the sub judice. The foregoing, coupled with the existence of exempting causes, demonstrates that the legislation under discussion does not constitute an automatic transfer of assets.

VI.- In the case at hand, the plaintiff’s claims were upheld by majority by the Tribunal, which considered that the operation of the electronic banking system presents such dangerousness that it allows the damages caused to be imputed to the Bank. ......... As prescribed by numeral 35 of the Consumer Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Consumidor), there has been a party injured by reason of the service, which upon being used (and in view of its risky nature) produced a significant injury to the party appearing in the proceeding as plaintiff. Consequently, instead of an improper interpretation of the rule, the article has been given its straight and correct meaning..... In addition to the foregoing, it cannot be lost from sight that the emergence of liability depends on the existence of unlawfulness (antijuridicidad), without the objective one being the exception, it being necessary to determine, in this case, whether the affected party was under the legal obligation to bear the damage, as extracted from the principle of patrimonial indemnity. This basic unlawfulness (antijuridicidad) is identified, in the case at hand, with the risk existing in the operation of the service, as deduced from the body of evidence itself whose improper weighing is being claimed. It is for what has been indicated up to this point, that the arguments presented by the appellant, in the sense that the duty of safety is of a commercial and not a legal nature, are not receivable. As already anticipated, the development of actions undertaken by a legal subject, and which foreseeably have the potential to cause damage, implicitly carries the duty to guarantee their safety. In this line, it is not a matter of the defendant demonstrating the diligence they have undertaken, since this is an aspect characteristic of a subjective liability system.......” VII.- In summary of what has been stated, in the specific case, the concurrence of a liability exemption was not demonstrated, such as would be the fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), the act of a third party, or force majeure. Although allusion is made to the first, there are not, within the body of evidence, sufficient elements to affirm that the victim participated in the production of the damage. Had any of these circumstances been proven, it would be impossible to establish a causal link between the Bank's conduct and the injury, and therefore, no duty to repair could arise on the part of the entity. As already stated, the existence of an exemption implies that the cause of the loss can be linked to another subject, or what is the same, that the defendant is unrelated to the damage caused. In any case, in the matter at hand, it was not possible to demonstrate the concurrence of an exempting cause or that the Consumer Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Consumidor) is not applicable, so that, given the existence of damage as a consequence of a risky service, under the terms of numeral 35 of the cited regulatory body, an improper application of the legal regime by the instance judges is not observed." (First Chamber of Cassation, No. 1098-09, at 2:45 p.m. on October 22, 2009). What was resolved by that high Court, which is shared by this venue and finds its legal basis in Article 41 of the Political Constitution and 35 of the Effective Consumer Law (Ley Efectiva del Consumidor), in addition to what is specifically precepted for the activity carried out by the defendant company in the Phytosanitary Protection Law (Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria), which states: "Article 32. 'Those who import, manufacture, formulate, repackage, redistribute, store, transport, sell, and apply chemical, biological, or related substances for agricultural use, shall be obliged to compensate for the damages and losses that, by their actions or omissions, they cause to agriculture, livestock, human health, and the environment'." For its part, on the subject of damage and risk, this Tribunal has reviewed some pertinent doctrinal criteria: "V. Modern doctrine, for its part, has supported the objectification of liability, by including within the factors of imputability and legal attribution of damage, apart from fault and intent, risk. It has even been proposed to include as other objective factors: guarantee, equity, abuse of right, and excess of normal tolerance between neighbors. Damage is seen then not from the actor's perspective but from the position of the injured party, to ensure that every unjustly caused damage is repaired. From another point of view, fault has been separated from the wrongfulness of the act, giving a more important role to the latter. 'Once the equation between the wrongfulness of the act and fault was broken, conduct acquired an autonomous physiognomy detached from the subjective profile of the agent's will, to become a simple means, cause, or criterion of connection between a subject held as liable and a certain harmful event to be compensated'. (Franzoni (Massimo), Dangerous Activity, in Liability for Damages in the Third Millennium, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.120). There is thus talk of the Theory of Risk, which does not displace fault but complements it, and is summarized as the duty of whoever creates a risk to indemnify the damage that it causes to a third party. 'Risk is a cause of imputability when, due to the performance of certain causes and specific activities, qualified as dangerous, damage is produced. Damage in these circumstances must be compensated, not because its agent has incurred in intent or fault, but because the legal order must protect the community from the development of dangerous activities, so that whoever performs them incurs liability if damage occurs by virtue of such performance… Liability derived from risk does not depend on the intent or fault of the agent but originates in the mere occurrence of damage consequent to the dangerous activity. This consideration brings with it a special evidentiary regime, according to which, by the mere exercise of the unsafe activity, the agent's fault is presumed, exonerating the victim from the task of demonstrating improper conduct. It is up to the agent to rebut the presumption…' (Cubides Camacho Jorge, Imputable Harmful Act in On Damage, Editora Jurídica, 1st Ed., Colombia, 2001, p.260). For other authors, 'the causal relationship is an element of the wrongful act and of contractual breach that links the damage directly with the unlawful act, and indirectly with the element of subjective imputation or objective attribution. It is the binding factor that makes damage and fault, or in its case the risk, integrate into the unity of the act that is the source of the obligation to indemnify' (see Bustamante Alcina (José), The Profile of Civil Liability at the End of the 20th Century in Liability for Damages in the Third Millennium, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.24 to 26)." (Voto 541-F-11 Agrarian Tribunal).

VI- This venue considers that both the plaintiff and the defendant company contribute to the development of a strategic and fundamental activity for the Costa Rican state, as they ensure the nation's food security and have under their responsibility the duty to promote the development of agricultural activity in such a way that the phytosanitary condition of plants is protected. For this purpose, nurseries (viveros), seed banks, seedbeds (almácigos), and companies of this nature are regulated and protected by the State through the provision of a specialized technical state structure, to assist in and control their activities and avoid serious problems such as the spread of pests, protecting human health and the environment. To this end, a series of laws and regulations have been established aimed at establishing the technical and legal provisions of mandatory observance for producers. Within that normative framework, we find the Phytosanitary Protection Law (Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria) number 7664 and the repealed Nursery Regulation (Reglamento de Viveros) and the current decree number 33927-MAG Regulation for Nurseries, Seedbeds, Seed and Bud Banks (Reglamento de Viveros, Almácigos, Semilleros y Bancos de Yemas) published in La Gaceta on October 30, 2007. Said regulation in its fourth article establishes the obligation of these establishments dedicated to the activities they regulate to be duly registered before the Nursery Program and to comply with the specific phytosanitary measures for each activity. Article 14 of this regulation establishes the power of the State Phytosanitary Service to take samples that will be taken to the Official Laboratories for the diagnosis of the presence of pests or diseases, and for this purpose, the phytosanitary inspectors are empowered. This venue observes that the various grievances are related to the value given to the elements of proof by the instance judge, who did not consider it accredited that the objected damage from the problems in the germination of the seedbeds (almácigos) was caused exclusively by the use of the substrate (sustrato) sold by the company VJ Centroamericana S.A. The appellant's disagreement lies in the fact that the a quo did not consider the scientific, technical, and expert evidence to deem it accredited that the substrate (sustrato) caused the damage to the plants of the plaintiff's nursery (vivero) during the period from January 2002 to 2006, as well as the value given to the testimonies and documentary evidence. As was explained in the preceding considering (considerando), the exemptions from liability of the defendant company would be force majeure, fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), or the act of a third party, which must be studied to determine if they are present and manage to break the causal link between the conduct and the damage claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant party has alleged in its favor the fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima) and the act of a third party, because despite having accepted that the substrate (sustrato) sold had problems in its physical composition, it argues that the germination problems cannot be blamed solely on the substrate (sustrato). They bring up that the plaintiff, in its production process, received seeds from its various clients, had irrigation problems, did not follow their technical provisions in the use of the product, and developed poor agricultural practices in its nurseries (viveros). Grievances. Regarding the lack of weighing of the scientific and technical evidence and having with it the causal link accredited. The party grieves that the a quo indicated lacking sufficient evidence to deem the facts accredited. In the sixth considering (considerando) of the judgment, it was reasoned that by virtue of the confessional evidence it was deemed accredited that the plaintiff company was supplied with seeds by its clients. It also deemed proven the commercial relationship between the parties from January 2002 to March 2006, in which the sale occurred, among other products, of the substrate (sustrato) used in the plaintiff's production process. In the ruling, these conclusions are obtained from the documentary evidence of invoices and confessional evidence. It was admitted by the defendant party that 4,513 bags of said product were purchased. It is described that problems arose with the substrate (sustrato) that affected germination. In this aspect, it is indicated in the judgment that the specific dates on which such inconveniences occurred were not demonstrated, nor the quantity of seeds and seedlings that suffered those circumstances. The lack of clarity regarding the specific date when that problem began in the seedbeds (almácigos) of Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. is recorded. The a quo bases this conclusion on the testimony of Miguel Ángel Obregón Gómez, who indicated that such moisture saturation problems in the roots had been occurring since the year 1999. The a quo also points out that for the year 1999, the defendant was not selling the substrate (sustrato) to the plaintiff. It also relies on the testimony of Ronald Castro Rodríguez, who testified that the major problem arose from late 2004 to early 2005, which was when the problem occurred. The appellant grieves that the date indicated by the witness Obregón Loría was due to a lapse, because in 1999 there was still no commercial relationship with the seller of the substrate (sustrato) and the defendant itself indicates the dates on which the sales occurred. This venue considers that such a grievance cannot be accepted, as it has been recorded in the corresponding minutes as such and cannot be varied, since all parties to the process became aware of such declarations and it was never objected to or requested that the date mentioned by said witness be corrected. What has been recorded is the existence of the commercial relationship between the contending parties and that at the end of the commercial relationship, the defendant company sold the plaintiff the substrate (sustrato) blamed for the germination problems, as was recorded in the appealed ruling. The judgment indicates that it was also not accredited that the alleged damages to the plants were due exclusively to the substrate (sustrato). Furthermore, it was pointed out that it was accepted that the technical recommendations given for the use of the substrate (sustrato) by the regent of the selling company were not followed. The appellant grieved in this sense, that in the judgment importance was given to the lack of demonstration of the dates of the damages, when the important thing was to determine that, due to the deficiencies in the physical characteristics of the substrate (sustrato), the problems of moisture retention, inadequate drainage, and aeration caused damage to the seedlings. It pointed out the non-weighing of evidence "D" Physical Analysis of the substrate (sustrato), the expert evidence, and the confessional evidence. In this aspect, the appellant is not correct. To grant this lawsuit, the causal link between the conduct and the damage caused must be clear. From the weighing of the evidence of the physical analysis of the substrate (sustrato) and the expert evidence presented in this matter, it has been demonstrated that the analyzed substrate (sustrato) had deficient physical qualities and that these could cause damage in the germination of the plants. The a quo is correct when reasoning in the judgment that the evidence was not sufficient to accredit that the damage was caused solely by said substrate (sustrato) and that it is not clear that the procedure applied by the plaintiff to the substrate (sustrato) in its facilities coincided with that developed by the State in its study. The foregoing, as the plaintiff party accepted in its complaint that the seeds used were provided by various clients and that the recommendations in the process of modifying agricultural practices by the regent were not accepted, because they did not agree with them. On the other hand, as noted in the judgment, the analyzed samples were taken after the period claimed by the plaintiff, as the problems begin in the year 2002, and the evidence of physical analysis identified as D is from the year 2006. In addition to this, the expert evidence is from March 2009. Although it can be determined that the product sampled by the State was deficient, it is not possible to deduce, for the reasons indicated, that the damages to the plants are due to the substrate (sustrato) alone, or that situations unrelated to the product did not intervene and interfere with the germinated plant. Regarding the evidence that was not given value that they had, the following are mentioned in the appeal: evidence A- Biological test carried out at the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, State Phytosanitary Service, Phytosanitary Diagnosis, Greenhouses of June 5, 2006. (folio 4) which reports on the result of planting Lettuce Lactuca Sativa variety Gulf Stream in substrates (sustratos) supplied by the company Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. in five lots identified with numbers 1975 to 1980. Said report concludes that the root damage present in the ungerminated plants "may be" as a consequence of the physical or chemical characteristics of the substrate (sustrato), since no damage caused by pathogens was observed in the foliar part and recommends a physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis of the substrates (sustratos). In the Microbiological Analysis. Evidence B (folio 5) it was concluded that no pathogenic fungi or bacteria (causing pests and diseases in plants) were found. The Mineral Chemical Analysis of the organic substrates (sustratos) identifying the same described lots, Evidence C was provided (folio 6). In what is pertinent, the Physical Analysis. Evidence D (folio 7) determined the moisture retention. On folio 234, there is record number 21 of the State Phytosanitary Service of April 28, 2006. It records that the official of that dependency, Engineer Ulises Jiménez Jiménez, appeared at Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. for the taking of laboratory analysis samples already mentioned from INTA for the determination of the physical, chemical, microbiological characteristics of the sampled lot. Indicating that the sampled lots are: 1212505, 1312505, 0912505, 1001505, 11011505, 1201505 and said samples are sealed with the security seals from 1975 to 1980 and describing which corresponds to each lot, and the mention of remaining in the custody of the MAG and that the sampled material corresponds to the substrate (sustrato) produced in Canada and sold by VJ- Centroamericana S.A. The defendant party provided with the answer to the complaint two trials that were carried out in the year 2002 by virtue of the problems that were occurring with the germination of the plants. Namely, there is Trial 002-02: Sweet Pepper of November 1, 2002 (folio 135). Said trial report is issued by the defendant company through the regent Agronomist Engineer Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún. It describes a culture trial of sweet pepper seeds, which are duly certified, and in it, the seed culture was carried out using the defendant company's usual procedure. As observations and recommendations, some practices that should be avoided were described and no problem was found with the medium affecting the roots. Similarly, it was indicated that compaction with a roller negatively affects plants in their germination and points out the need to pre-wet the substrate (sustrato) so that it has uniform moisture before filling the trays, detailing the method to follow, it was made known that stacking trays affects compaction and that 91% germination was obtained in good conditions. The observation was made that the producer uses growing media from various manufacturers. The recommendations lean toward indicating that crops should not be compacted with a roller and that they should be moistened prior to filling the trays with the substrate (sustrato) in the manner explained there and not applying irrigation afterwards, as the producer has been doing. A Lettuce seed trial named 001:02 of November 1, 2002 (folio 146) was also provided. In it, a good germination result was obtained and the same recommendations regarding the producer's agricultural practices were noted. An expert opinion was requested by the defendant, which appears from folio 323 to 331, regarding which a hearing was given, without it being objected to by any of the parties. From the reading of said expert evidence, it is denoted that its objective is: to determine if the problems reported by Agroverde 2000 S.A. were caused by the characteristics of the substrate (sustrato) imported and sold by VJ Centroamericana S.A. or by poor handling of the same or another cause. It is specified by the expert that the field work was carried out between January 10, 2009, and February 13 of the same year at the plaintiff's facilities. The expert explains that he proceeded to visit other nurseries (viveros) that develop the same production process, interviewed representatives of the State Phytosanitary Service, and carried out other inquiries. He begins by indicating that the use of substrates (sustratos) for the production of vegetable seedlings is recent in the country, but that it is currently a widespread practice. He cites the importance of good quality seedbeds (almácigos) for any agricultural project, since the success or failure of said project will depend on it and therefore, knowledge of the chemical, physical, and microbiological characteristics of that substrate (sustrato) is relevant, because according to that, the plants' development plan in the greenhouses is programmed. In the specific case, the physical characteristics of the peat (substrate (sustrato)) provided by the defendant are questioned. He mentions, his claim is limited to studying the physical qualities of the substrate (sustrato), as from the same results provided by the plaintiff, it is deduced that there are no problems with the chemical and microbiological qualities.

The expert report indicates that granulometry and the type of material determine the physical characteristics of a substrate, mentioning among them: thickness index, apparent density, real density, and moisture retention at different suction pressures, which are factors that allow the calculation of porosity and the water:air ratio of the substrate. The opinion provides technical explanations of concepts regarding the composition of substrates and the beneficial or negative effects they produce on crops, and at this point concludes that for a substrate to have good physical characteristics, it must meet appropriate and balanced conditions that allow for adequate plant development. The report describes that it was verified within the plaintiff’s production process that the place where the seeds are stored meets the requirements. The expert describes the production process found at the defendant’s nursery and noted that he observed the majority of the bales that supposedly caused the damage to the plants. He indicated having observed 19 of the 34 sacks that were indicated in the complaint and that the plaintiff kept in her possession. He cites 7 are from lot V-J 1001505, 8 from lot V-J 10101505, two from lot V-J 1212505, and two from lot V-J 1201505. It is important to mention that said expert reported that he visited the facilities of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería and spoke with engineer Ulises Jiménez Vega, who was the person in charge of taking the samples at Agroverde 2000 S.A., and was able to observe the safeguarded samples; subsequently, he appeared at the laboratory where the tests were conducted and found them in optimal conditions, and engineer Edgar Vega Zúñiga, who was in charge of the evaluation of the seedling development process, provided him with a copy of the report prepared for that purpose. Subsequently, he proceeded to visit the greenhouses of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado and recorded that the management conditions are acceptable. The expert proceeds to answer each of the questions that the defendant company requested be addressed, and from these, aspects of fundamental consideration for the resolution of this dispute are deduced. To the first question, he answered that it could have been possible that the cause of the plaintiff’s problems was the supplied substrate. He explains that the foregoing is deduced from the result of the physical analysis of the samples conducted by the MAG, which showed that in more than 80% there were particles smaller than 1mm and excessive moisture retention at three different suction pressures. He points out that the foregoing is serious, since it causes deficient aeration of the plant, and as a consequence, poor root development. In the second question, he affirms that a germination problem can occur in the same tray irregularly, in patches, or throughout the entire tray, since according to what the MAG’s analysis results showed, the samples present between 80% and 82% of very fine material and between 18% and 20% of particles larger than 1 mm, and if this is distributed poorly within the bale, the noted germination situations can occur. The third question makes it clear that the damages occurring in the germination trays where development was non-uniform and patchy were not due to contamination, since the laboratory results did not show the presence of pathogens. He also noted that the management of fertilizers, agrochemicals, substrate preparation, and irrigation systems is done safely and in adherence to technical guidelines, and regarding the seeds, detailed controls and logs are kept where they are tracked by number, entry dates, packaging, and destination. The fourth question is aimed at challenging the reliability of the investigations carried out in the laboratories of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, which used a 98-cavity tray in its studies, and whether that was not adding a new variable. The expert, in this regard, answers that the number of cells contained in a tray is not decisive for obtaining the desired results in the test, since the important thing is to know whether or not the problem presented in the different sampled lots is repeated due to the alleged physical problems. Regarding the quality of the seed, it is asked whether seed certification and its quality were necessary before the tests. The expert indicates that a seed quality analysis could have been good to give greater scientific formality to the evaluation, but that in this case it was not decisive, since according to inquiries, the seed at that time did not report problems of vigor or germination. And he adds that when a substrate has physical problems, it is not important whether lettuce, tomato, or chili seed is used, since the same symptoms can occur using other seeds. The expert answers the question of whether it was necessary to describe the laboratory procedure in the investigation, affirming that it was not, since the professionals who prepare the medium assume the results obtained. He adds that engineer Edgar Vega told him that the rigorous procedure was used to prepare the medium for each of the six samples and their repetitions. The expert, in the question identified as 4-4, indicates that the irrigation system used in the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado’s analysis did not influence the result of the germination percentage, since it ensures proper humidification of the plants in the trays. The expert answers the next question, which refers to the moment in the germination process at which the damage to the roots of the lettuce plants was evaluated, stating that such evaluations can be done on the third or fourth day, and having done it 6 days later, as occurred, was sufficient and adequate time to carry out such evaluation. In the last question, the expert is asked whether a procedure with a scientific method, including certain aspects such as the presence of a representative from the commercial sector, should have been carried out in the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado’s investigation. He answers that all research requires a scientific method, but not all require an indispensable requirement of an experimental design and statistical analysis. He added that this is one of those cases in which it is not necessary, since two repetitions, as seems to have been done, are enough to have the necessary technical certainty and analyze the results. It is mentioned that introducing another substrate would have been interesting, but that in this specific case, the analyses performed are irrefutable proof that the problem originated in the physical characteristics of the various lots of the questioned substrate, and regarding the quality of the seeds, he considers it does not influence, since the germinations were good, and that the aspects of irrigation, fertilization, and light do not detract from the fact that the analyses were adequate. This court considers, with respect to the expert opinion, the same as is indicated in the judgment, regarding the lack of proof in the case record of the causal nexus, which would require certainty that the problems generated in the plaintiff company’s plants during the alleged period were exclusively the consequence of the sold substrate. The foregoing because the noted problems began in the year 2002, and the expert issues an opinion based on what was observed in the plaintiff’s production process in the year 2009, and the agricultural practices from 2002 to 2006 could not be evaluated so as to determine the causal nexus solely with respect to the mentioned substrate. Likewise, it is also impossible to know the certification of all the seeds involved in the damaged plants, since in the sworn testimony of Mr. Soto Bravo, it was accepted that the seeds came from various clients and “some” came certified (question 3 and 4, folio 384), and that the agricultural practices recommended by the defendant’s regent were not always followed, since they had a different technical criterion (sixth and fifth question, folio 389). Regarding the practices recommended in the cultivation process, the case record contains documentary evidence from folio 135 to 139, tests prepared by the defendant company in which it was recommended that the plaintiff proceed to make a change in some aspects, such as no compaction with a roller and the pre-wetting of the substrate, which were not permanently adopted by the plaintiff. There is no clarity with the evidence in the case record that said practices were followed and that the causal nexus of damage to the plants is proven solely due to the substrate in question. The appellant party argues that its claim is proven by the technical evidence; however, this court considers that while it is deduced from it that the substrate samples show a deficiency in their physical qualities, which produces problems in the plants, the lack of knowledge of aspects such as the origin and quality of the seeds used from 2002 to 2006, or the plaintiff’s manner of preparing the substrate in those periods, influenced the negative germination results. The expert evidence and microbiological analyses showed that those samples did not present pathogenic elements; however, these were only some samples corresponding to the last periods of the commercial relationship in 2006, without knowing the status of previous conditions regarding seed quality and agricultural practices since the year 2002. The expert evidence has the value of demonstrating the conditions of the plaintiff’s nursery in the year 2009, the status of the State’s nurseries during that same period, as well as the validation of the correct agricultural practices for that time, but it is not possible to deduce from said evidence the prevailing conditions during the years 2002 to 2006. The laboratory tests are irrefutable in their conclusions, but their value cannot prove that the damage to the seedlings was due solely to the conditions of the substrate supplied by the defendant company on the dates when the damages occurred. Therefore, the grievance that the technical and expert evidence in the case record is sufficient is not receivable. With respect to the grievance regarding the sworn testimony and that from it, it is deduced that the agricultural practices were correct, it is indicated that upon reviewing it (folio 387), it is deduced that aspects that can influence nursery seedling crops, such as seed quality, water, irrigation systems, and agricultural practices, were unknown and were not studied at the time the damages occurred. The deponent accepted this in his answer to question eighteen. The appellant’s grievance when stating that such aspects are not important, but rather the only thing to consider was whether the substrate deficiency caused the claimed damages, is not receivable. This court considers that to have the causal nexus proven, it is necessary to verify that the indicated aspects did not also contribute to the generation of the damages found in the analyses during the 2002 to 2006 period. Regarding the grievances about what the testimonial evidence proved, these are also not shared, since it is not considered that the analyses and procedures followed by officials Ulises Jiménez Jimenez and Edgar Julián Vega were discredited, or that the conditions of the State’s greenhouses were not optimal; the results obtained are not questioned. What is considered is that such analyses are not sufficient to determine that the damages caused from 2002 to 2006 were solely due to the substrate, even if it had been possible to prove that the substrate did not have an adequate physical composition. Regarding the statement of Ronald Castro Rodríguez (folio 432), while he gives a clear and forceful statement indicating that the germination problem was due to the substrate, he points out that the damages began to worsen in 2004, and that before 2005, material had been purchased from CAFESA, but it was worse than that of VJ. Although it is evident that he is a person with knowledge of his work, he affirmed that he has not received technical training and that regarding the amount of water needed, “he does it purely by eye.” This Court finds itself in agreement with the value given to this statement. Regarding the statement of Ana Isabel Parajeles Zumbado, it is considered that her deposition in this specific case cannot influence the overturning of the decision, since even though she declared having suffered damages with said product, there is also no certainty of the conditions under which the nursery she mentioned possessing was managed. Her grievance is rejected. This court considers that the testimony of Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún, who acted as the defendant’s regent, was adequately evaluated, since it was deduced from it that problems existed with the product, but that the agricultural practices of pre-wetting and compaction were not necessarily followed, which affects the proof of the possibility of the victim’s fault in the caused damage and breaks the causal link that must be proven. As indicated in the appealed judgment, the expert evidence was based on granting validity to the analyses of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, but it is not possible to deduce from it that the circumstances and practices of the plaintiff’s nursery during 2002 to 2006 did not contribute to the generation of the damages caused to the germinated plants. Therefore, the reproach of the appellant plaintiff is also not receivable when he indicates that the evidentiary assessment carried out by the judge is done against the evidence of science and technique due to ignorance."

“V.-En primer término observa este Tribunal que en la sentencia se desarrolló la solución del caso concreto considerando se estaba ante un reclamo de daños por responsabilidad subjetiva regulada en el artículo 1045 del Código. En tal hipótesis es el damnificado el que debía probar el nexo causal entre el daño y los perjuicios sufridos. Lo anterior se deduce de lo consignado en el párrafo final del considerando sétimo de la sentencia, cuando literalmente reza: " Con la revisión de la prueba evacuada, la suscrita estima no es pertinente imputar a la demandada los problemas de germinación en el vivero de la actora. De conformidad con el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil, a la empresa Agroverde Dos mil S.A. compete la carga de la prueba en la demostración del daño, la relación de causalidad y la autoría de la demandada. En la especie no se demostró en forma clara y contundente que el sustrato vendido por VJ-Centroamérica S.A. fuera el exclusivo factor que ocasionara los daños y perjuicios reclamados. Consecuentemente, no es pertinente imponer a la demandada el deber de indemnización de los mismos." ( negrita no es del original). Esta instancia no coincide con lo indicado por la juzgadora de primera instancia en su fallo, pues de la revisión de la demanda y el caso especifico, se logra determinar se está ante una acción cuyo reclamo se origina en una relación de consumo y de la cual se reclaman pagos de daños y perjuicios por responsabilidad objetiva. En términos generales en tal supuesto, la simple existencia del daño reputa la responsabilidad en el agente dañino de haber causado dicho daño y de allí nacería la obligación de indemnizar los daños y perjuicios ocasionados. La carga de la prueba de que tal daño no fue ocasionado en virtud del bien o servicio adquirido por la persona consumidora y desvirtuar la relación de causalidad imputada por la actora, recae en la demandada. Tal y como se expone en los hechos probados 1 a 5, la actora es una empresa dedicada a la producción del almácigos de hortalizas y entre enero del 2002 a marzo del 2006 le compró a VJ Centroamérica S.A. bandejas para el desarrollo de almácigos y sacos que contenían mezclas de turba y perlita para germinación marca VJ. Durante la relación comercial compró la accionante 4513 sacos de mezcal de turba y perlita para germinación denominado V-J Plug Mix Perlite. La actora achaca problemas en la germinación de los almácigos de chile, tomate y lechuga. Los que identifica con la presencia de pudrición de la radícula, y exceso de agua en el medio de cultivo. Aduce en la demanda que tales inconvenientes se suscitaron debido a las deficiencias en las cualidades físicas del sustrato adquirido para la producción de almácigos, y por ello se condene a la demandada al pago de los daños y perjuicios ocasionados a su empresa. Como se observa de la demanda se reprocha el pago de daños y perjuicios ocasionados por el producto vendido por la demandada a la actora, a ser utilizado en el proceso de producción de almácigos. Por su parte, la demandada contesta (folio 174) aceptando que la empresa Agroverde Dos mil S.A. fue su cliente por algunos años y adquiría entre otros productos el sustrato VJ-PMP, que es un medio de germinación vendido a gran cantidad de empresas. Mismo que consiste en una mezcla de turba de esfango con perlita y otros ingredientes diseñada específicamente para la germinación de semillas. Como se observa, media una relación entre las partes en contienda, en la cual la sociedad actora ostenta la naturaleza de consumidora. Sobre la responsabilidad objetiva, la Sala ha resuelto :".. sólo debe probar que el daño existe y que se produjo como consecuencia directa e inmediata de la actividad desplegada .. No requiere demostración de la culpa o el dolo (culpabilidad en sentido lato), ya que el criterio de imputación es objetivo. Corresponde al juzgador examinar en cada caso si existe o no causalidad directa y adecuada entre el daño reclamado (y demostrado) por el petente y la actividad (activa u omisiva) desplegada.. .”(Fallo no. 662-F-S1-2010, de las 14 horas 20 minutos de 26 de mayo de 2010) y sobre la responsabilidad objetiva a favor del consumidor y su extensión, la Sala Primera ha resuelto: "V.- Responsabilidad objetiva por riesgo en materia del consumidor. En lo que se refiere a la responsabilidad, se pueden ubicar dos grandes vertientes, una subjetiva, en la cual se requiere la concurrencia, y consecuente demostración, del dolo o culpa por parte del autor del hecho dañoso (v.gr. el cardinal 1045 del Código Civil), y otra objetiva, que se caracteriza, en lo esencial, por prescindir de dichos elementos, siendo la imputación del daño el eje central sobre el cual se erige el deber de reparar. Como ejemplo de lo anterior, se encuentra el numeral 35 de la Ley de Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, en donde el comerciante, productor o proveedor, responderá por aquellos daños derivados de los bienes transados y los servicios prestados, aún y cuando en su actuar no se detecte negligencia, imprudencia, impericia o dolo. Asimismo, es importante considerar, por su influencia en el tema probatorio, que los elementos determinantes para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad civil, sea esta subjetiva u objetiva, son: una conducta lesiva (la cual puede ser activa o pasiva, legítima o ilegítima), la existencia de un daño (es decir, una lesión a un bien jurídico tutelado), un nexo de causalidad que vincule los dos anteriores, y en la mayoría de los casos la verificación de un criterio de atribución, que dependerá del régimen legal específico. En cuanto a la causalidad, es menester indicar que se trata de una valoración casuística realizada por el juzgador en la cual, con base en los hechos, determina la existencia de relación entre el daño reclamado y la conducta desplegada por el agente económico. Si bien existen diversas teorías sobre la materia, la que se ha considerado más acorde con el régimen costarricense es la de causalidad adecuada, según la cual existe una vinculación entre daño y conducta cuando el primero se origine, si no necesariamente, al menos con una alta probabilidad según las circunstancias específicas que incidan en la materia, de la segunda (en este sentido, pueden verse, entre otras, las resoluciones 467-F-2008 de las 14 horas 25 minutos del 4 de julio de 20085, o la 1008-F-2006 de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 21 de diciembre de 2006). En este punto, es importante aclarar que la comprobación de las causas eximentes (culpa de la víctima, de un hecho de tercero o la fuerza mayor), actúa sobre el nexo de causalidad, descartando que la conducta atribuida a la parte demandada fuera la productora de la lesión sufrida. En lo que se refiere a los distintos criterios de imputación, para los efectos del presente caso, interesa la teoría del riesgo creado, la cual fue incluida, en forma expresa, en la Ley de Defensa del Consumidor. El esquema objetivo por el que se decanta la ley, así como la aplicación del criterio de imputación citado, se desprenden de la simple lectura de la norma en cuestión, la cual estipula: “el productor, el proveedor y el comerciante deben responder, concurrentemente, e independientemente de la existencia de culpa, si el consumidor resulta perjudicado por razón del bien o el servicio, de informaciones inadecuadas o insuficientes sobre ellos o de su utilización y riesgos. / Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño. / Los representantes legales de los establecimientos mercantiles o, en su caso, los encargados del negocio son responsables por los actos o los hechos propios o por los de sus dependientes o auxiliares. Los técnicos, los encargados de la elaboración y el control responden solidariamente, cuando así corresponda, por las violaciones a esta Ley en perjuicio del consumidor.” (la negrita es suplida). Realizando un análisis detallado de la norma recién trascrita, se desprenden una serie de elementos condicionantes de su aplicación. En primer lugar, y desde el plano de los sujetos, esto es, quien causa el daño y quien lo sufre, la aplicación de este régimen de responsabilidad se encuentra supeditada a que en ellos concurran determinadas calificaciones. Así, en cuanto al primero, se exige que sea un productor, proveedor o comerciante, sean estos personas físicas o jurídicas. Por su parte, en cuanto al segundo, la lesión debe ser irrogada a quien participe de una relación jurídica en donde se ubique como consumidor, en los términos definidos en el cuerpo legal de referencia y desarrollados por esta Sala. Se requiere, entonces, que ambas partes integren una relación de consumo, cuyo objeto sea la potencial adquisición, disfrute o utilización de un bien o servicio por parte del consumidor. ....., al existir una relación de consumo, el caso particular debe ser analizado bajo el ámbito de cobertura del numeral 35 en comentario. Asimismo, del precepto bajo estudio se desprende, en segundo lugar, que el legislador fijó una serie de criterios de atribución con base en los cuales se puede imputar la responsabilidad objetiva que regula este cardinal, dentro de los que se encuentra la ya citada teoría del riesgo. Así, este sirve como factor para endilgarle la responsabilidad a los sujetos a que se hace referencia. En esencia, dicha teoría postula que, quien crea, ejerza o se aprovecha de una actividad lucrativa lícita que presenta elementos potencialmente peligrosos para los demás, debe también soportar sus inconvenientes (ubi emolumentum, ubi onus, el cual puede ser traducido como donde está el emolumento, está la carga). De la anterior afirmación se pueden colegir dos características: por un lado, que el riesgo proviene de una actividad de explotación; y por el otro, al ser realizada por el ser humano, se excluyen los denominados hechos de la naturaleza. Concomitantemente, importa realizar algunas precisiones en cuanto a los riesgos aptos para la generación de la responsabilidad, ya que no todo riesgo implica el surgimiento, en forma automática, de esta. En la actualidad, la vida en sociedad ofrece un sinnúmero de riesgos, de distintos grados y alcances, al punto que se puede afirmar que es imposible encontrar una actividad cotidiana que se encuentre exenta de ellos. En esta línea, la interpretación de las normas no puede partir de una aversión absoluta y total al riesgo, el cual, como se indicó, forma parte integral de la convivencia societaria y de los avances tecnológicos que se integran a esta. Lo anterior lleva a afirmar que, para el surgimiento del deber de reparación, el riesgo asociado con la actividad debe presentar un grado de anormalidad, esto es, que exceda el margen de tolerancia que resulta admisible de acuerdo a las reglas de la experiencia, lo cual debe ser analizado, de manera casuística, por el juez. El segundo punto que requiere algún tipo de comentario es en cuanto al sujeto que deviene obligado en virtud de una actividad considerada como peligrosa. Como ya se indicó, el criterio de imputación es, precisamente, el riesgo creado, lo que hace suponer que la persona a quien se le imputa el daño debe estar en una posición de dominio respecto de aquel, es decir, debe ser quien desarrolla la actividad o asume las posibles consecuencias negativas asociadas, recibiendo un beneficio de ello. Este puede ser directo, el cual se puede identificar, entre otros, con los ingresos o emolumentos obtenidos a título de contraprestación, o bien indirectos, cuando la situación de ventaja se da en forma refleja, como sucede con los mecanismos alternos que tiendan a atraer a los consumidores, y en consecuencia, deriven en un provecho económico para su oferente. Es importante mencionar que en una actividad es dable encontrar distintos grados de riesgo, los cuales deben ser administrados por aquel sujeto que se beneficia de esta, circunstancia que ejerce una influencia directa en el deber probatorio que le compete, ya que resulta relevante para determinar la imputación en el sub judice. Lo anterior, aunado a la existencia de causales eximentes demuestra que la legislación en comentario no constituye una transferencia patrimonial automática. VI.- En la especie, las pretensiones de la actora fueron acogidas por mayoría por el Tribunal, quién consideró que el funcionamiento del sistema de banca electrónica presenta una peligrosidad tal que permite imputar los daños irrogados al Banco. ......... . Tal y como lo. preceptúa el numeral 35 de la Ley de Protección al Consumidor, ha habido un perjudicado en razón del servicio, que al ser utilizado (y en vista de su carácter riesgoso) produjo una lesión importante a quien figura en el proceso como parte actora. En consecuencia, en vez de una indebida interpretación de la norma, se ha dado al artículo el recto y correcto sentido..... Aunado a lo anterior, no puede perderse de vista que el surgimiento de la responsabilidad depende de la existencia de antijuridicidad, sin que la objetiva sea la excepción, debiéndose determinar, en este caso, si el afectado se encontraba en la obligación legal de soportar el daño, tal y como se extrae del principio de indemnidad patrimonial. Esta antijuridicidad de base, se identifica, en la especie, con el riesgo existente en el funcionamiento del servicio, según se desprende del propio acervo probatorio cuya indebida valoración se reclama. Es por lo indicado hasta este punto, que no es de recibo los argumentos expuestos por el recurrente en el sentido de que la obligación de seguridad es de naturaleza comercial y no jurídica. Como ya se adelantó, el desarrollo de actuaciones asumidas por un sujeto de derecho, y que previsiblemente tengan la potencialidad de causar daños, lleva implícito el deber de garantizar la seguridad de estos. En esta línea, no se trata de que el demandado demuestre la diligencia que ha asumido, ya que este es un aspecto propio de un sistema subjetivo de responsabilidad.......VII.- En suma a lo expuesto, en el caso concreto no se demostró la concurrencia de una eximente de responsabilidad, como lo sería la culpa de la víctima, el hecho de un tercero o la fuerza mayor. Si bien se alude a la primera, no existen, dentro del acervo probatorio, elementos suficientes que permitan afirmar que la víctima tuvo participación en la producción del daño. De haberse probado alguna de estas circunstancias, sería imposible establecer un nexo de causalidad entre la conducta del Banco y la lesión, por lo que no podría surgir un deber de reparar a cargo del ente. Tal y como ya se manifestó, la existencia de una eximente implica que la causa del menoscabo puede ser vinculada a otro sujeto, o lo que es lo mismo, que el demandado resulta ajeno al daño irrogado. En todo caso, en la especie no se logró demostrar la concurrencia de una causa eximente o bien, que la Ley de Protección al Consumidor no sea aplicable, por lo que, al existir un daño como consecuencia de un servicio riesgoso, en los términos del numeral 35 del cuerpo normativo citado, no se aprecia una indebida aplicación del régimen jurídico por parte de los juzgadores de instancia." (Sala Primera de Casación, No. 1098-09, de las 14:45 del 22 de octubre del 2009). Lo resuelto por ese alto Tribunal, que es compartido por esta sede y encuentra su fundamento legal en el artículo 41 de la Constitución Política y el 35 de la Ley Efectiva del Consumidor, además de lo preceptuado en forma específica para la actividad que desarrolla la sociedad demanda en la Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria que reza:"Artículo 32. “Quienes importan, fabriquen, formulen, reenvasen, reempaquen, distribuyan, almacenen, transporten, vendan y apliquen sustancias químicas, biológicas o afines para uso agrícola, estarán obligados a resarcir los daños y perjuicios que, con sus acciones u omisiones ocasionen a la agricultura, la ganadería, la salud humana y el ambiente”. Por su parte en el tema del daño y el riesgo este Tribunal ha reseñado algunos criterios doctrinales de pertinencia: "V. La doctrina moderna por su parte, ha apoyado la objetivación de la responsabilidad, al comprender dentro de los factores de imputabilidad y atribución legal del daño, aparte de la culpa y el dolo, el riesgo. Incluso se ha propuesto incluir como otros factores objetivos: garantía, equidad, abuso del derecho y exceso de la normal tolerancia entre vecinos. Se ve el daño entonces no desde el hecho del autor sino desde la posición del perjudicado, para procurar que todo daño causado en forma injusta sea reparado. Desde otro punto de vista, se ha separado la culpa de la ilicitud del hecho, dándole un rol más importante a éste. “Una vez rota la equiparación entre la ilicitud del hecho y la culpa, la conducta adquirió una fisonomía autónoma desligada del perfil subjetivo de la voluntad del agente, para constituirse en un simple medio, causa o criterio de conexión entre un sujeto tenido por responsable y un cierto evento dañoso a resarcir”. (Franzoni (Massimo), La Actividad peligrosa, en Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires,1997, p.120). Se habla así de la Teoría del riesgo, la cual no desplaza la culpa sino que la complementa, y se resume como el deber de quien crea un riesgo de indemnizar el daño que provoque a un tercero. “El riesgo es causa de imputabilidad cuando debido a la realización de ciertas causas y determinadas actividades, calificadas como peligrosas, se produce un daño. El daño en estas circunstancias debe resarcirse, no porque su agente haya incurrido en dolo o culpa, sino porque el orden jurídico debe proteger a la comunidad por el desarrollo de actividades peligrosas, de forma que quien las realiza incurre en responsabilidad si se ocasiona un daño en virtud de tal realización… La responsabilidad derivada del riesgo no depende del dolo o la culpa del agente sino que se origina en la mera ocurrencia del daño consecuente de la actividad peligrosa. Esta consideración trae consigo un régimen especial de la prueba, según la cual, por el solo ejercicio de la actividad insegura se presume la culpa del agente, exonerándose la víctima de la tarea de demostrar una conducta indebida. Al agente le corresponde desvirtuar la presunción…” (Cubides Camacho Jorge, Hecho imputable dañoso en Del daño, Editora Jurídica, 1° Ed,Colombia,2001, p.260). Para otros autores, “la relación causal es un elemento del acto ilícito y del incumplimiento contractual que vincula el daño directamente con el hecho antijurídico, e indirectamente con el elemento de imputación subjetiva o atribución objetiva. Es el factor aglutinante que hace que el daño y la culpa, o en su caso el riesgo, se integren en la unidad del acto que es fuente de la obligación de indemnizar” (ver Bustamante Alcina (José), El perfil de la responsabilidad civil al finalizar el siglo XX en Responsabilidad por daños en el tercer milenio, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 1997, p.24 a 26)." ( Voto 541-F-11 Tribunal Agrario).

VI-Estima esta sede, que tanto la sociedad actora como la demandada, contribuyen al desarrollo de una actividad estratégica y fundamental para el estado costarricense, pues aseguran la seguridad alimentaria de la nación y tienen bajo su responsabilidad el deber de promover el desarrollo de la actividad agrícola de tal forma que se proteja la condición fitosanitaria de las plantas. Para ello los viveros, bancos de semillas, almácigos y empresas de esta naturaleza, son reguladas y protegidas por el Estado mediante la dotación de una estructura estatal técnico especializada, para coadyuvar y controlar sus actividades y evitar problemas graves como la propagación de plagas, protegiendo la salud humana y el ambiente. Para ello se han instaurado una serie de leyes y reglamentos dirigidos a establecer las disposiciones técnicas y legales de observancia obligatoria para los productores. Dentro de ese marco normativo encontramos la Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria número 7664 y el derogado Reglamento de Viveros y el decreto vigente número 33927-MAG Reglamento de Viveros, Almácigos, Semilleros y Bancos de Yemas publicado en La Gaceta del 30 de octubre del 2007. Dicho reglamento en su artículo cuarto establece la obligatoriedad de estos establecimientos dedicados a las actividades que regulan a estar debidamente registrados ante el Programa de Viveros y cumplir con las medidas fitosanitarias específicas para cada actividad. El artículo 14 de este reglamento establece la potestad del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado de tomar muestras que serán llevadas a los Laboratorios Oficiales para el diagnóstico de presencia de plagas o enfermedades y para ello se encuentran facultados los inspectores fitosanitarios. Observa esta sede, que los diversos agravios están relacionados con el valor dado a los elementos de prueba por parte de la juzgadora de instancia, que no tuvo por acreditado que el daño reprochado de los problemas en la germinación de los almácigos fueran ocasionados exclusivamente por el uso del sustrato vendido por la sociedad VJ Centroamericana S.A. La inconformidad del recurrente radica en que la a quo no consideró la prueba científica, técnica y pericial para tener por acreditado que el sustrato ocasionó los daños a las plantas del vivero de la actora durante el periodo que va desde del enero de le 2002 a 2006, así como el valor dado a los testimonios y prueba documental. Tal y como fue explicado en el considerando anterior, los eximentes de responsabilidad de la sociedad accionada sería la fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de un tercero, que deben estudiarse para determinar si se encuentran presentes y logran romper el nexo causal entre la conducta y el daño reclamado por la actora. La parte demandada ha alegado a su favor culpa de la víctima y hecho de un tercero, pues a pesar de haber aceptado que el sustrato vendido tenía problemas en su composición física, arguye que los problemas de germinación no pueden endilgársele solamente al sustrato. Traen a colación que la actora en su proceso de producción recibía semillas de sus diversos clientes, tenían problemas de riego, y no acataron sus disposiciones técnicas en el uso del producto y desarrollaban malas prácticas agrícolas en sus viveros. Agravios. Sobre la falta de valoración de la prueba científica y técnica y tener con ella acreditado el nexo causal. La parte agravia que la a quo indicó carecer de suficiente evidencia para tener por acreditados los hechos. En el considerando sexto de la sentencia, se motivó que en virtud de la prueba confesional se tuvo por acreditado que a la empresa actora le suministraban las semillas sus clientes. También tuvo por probada la relación comercial entre las partes de enero del 2002 a marzo del 2006 en la cual, se produjo la venta entre otros productos, del sustrato utilizado en el proceso productivo de la accionante. En el fallo se obtienen dichas conclusiones de las pruebas documentales de facturas y prueba confesional. Se admitió por parte de la demandada que se compraron 4513 sacos de dicho producto. Se describe se presentaron problemas con el sustrato que afectaron la germinación. En este aspecto se indica en la sentencia, que no se demostraron las fechas específicas en que se produjeron tales inconvenientes, así como la cantidad de semillas y plántulas que sufrieron esas circunstancias. Se consigna la falta de claridad de la fecha concreta en que inició ese problema en los almácigos de Agroverde Dos Mil S.A. La a quo fundamenta esta conclusión en el testimonio de Miguel Ángel Obregón Gómez, mismo que indicó que tales problemas de saturación de humedad en las raíces venían presentándose desde el año 1999. La a quo señala también que para el año 1999 la demandada no le vendía el sustrato a la actora. También se apoya en el testimonio de Ronald Castro Rodríguez, que depuso que el mayor problema se suscitó desde finales del 2004 a principios del 2005, que fue donde se produjo el problema. La parte recurrente agravia que la fecha indicada por el testigo Obregón Loría se debió a un lapsus, pues en 1999 no había relación comercial aún con la vendedora del sustrato y la misma demandada indica las fechas en que ocurrieron las ventas. Estima esta sede, que no puede ser aceptado tal agravio, pues así se ha consignado en el acta al efecto y no puede variarse, pues de tales declaraciones se tuvo conocimiento por todas las partes del proceso y nunca fue objetada o solicitada fuera corregida la fecha mencionada por tal testigo. Lo que sí ha quedado consignado es la existencia de la relación comercial entre las partes en contienda y que al finalizar la relación comercial la sociedad demandada le vendió a la accionante el sustrato al que se le achacan los problemas de germinación, tal y como se consignó en el fallo apelado. La sentencia indica que tampoco quedó acreditado que los daños alegados en las plantas se debían exclusivamente al sustrato. Además se señaló que fue aceptado que no se siguieron las recomendaciones técnicas dadas para el uso del sustrato por parte del regente de la empresa vendedora. La parte recurrente agravió en tal sentido, que en la sentencia se le dio importancia a la falta de demostración de las fechas de los daños, cuando lo importante era llegar a determinar que por las deficiencias en las características físicas del sustrato se ocasionaron los problemas de retención de humedad, un inadecuado drenaje y aireación provocaban daños a las plántulas. Señaló la no valoración de la prueba "D" Análisis Físico del sustrato, la prueba pericial y confesional. En este aspecto no lleva razón la apelante. Para declarar con lugar esta demanda, debe quedar claro el nexo de causalidad entre la conducta y el daño irrogando. De la valoración de la prueba del análisis físico del sustrato y la prueba pericial vertida en este asunto, ha quedado demostrado que el sustrato analizado tenía deficientes cualidades físicas y que tales podían provocar daños en la germinación de las plantas. Lleva razón la a quo cuando motiva en la sentencia que las probanzas no le resultaban suficientes para acreditar que el daño fuera ocasionado únicamente por dicho sustrato y que no queda claro que el procedimiento aplicado por la actora en el sustrato en sus instalaciones, fuera coincidente con el desarrollado por el Estado en su estudio. Lo anterior al ser aceptado por la parte actora en su demanda, que las semillas utilizadas eran dadas por diversos clientes y que no fueron aceptadas las recomendaciones en el proceso de modificar las prácticas agrícolas por parte del regente, pues no se encontraron de acuerdo con las mismas. Por otra parte, tal y como se señala en la sentencia, las muestras analizadas lo fueron con posterioridad al periodo reclamado por la actora, pues los problemas inician en el año 2002, y la prueba de análisis físico identificada D es del año 2006. Aunado a ello la prueba pericial es de marzo del 2009. Si bien logra determinarse que el producto muestreado por el Estado era deficiente, no es posible deducir por los motivos indicados, que los daños en las plantas sean por el sustrato únicamente o que no mediaran situaciones ajenas al producto que interfirieran en la planta germinada. Sobre las pruebas a las que no se les otorgó valor que tenían se menciona en la apelación las siguientes: prueba A- Prueba biológica realizada en el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Diagnóstico Fitosanitario, Invernaderos del 5 de junio del 2006. (folio 4) que informa sobre el resultado de la siembra de Lechuga Lactuca Sativa variedad Gulf Stream en sustratos suministrados por la empresa Agroverde Dos Mil S.A en cinco lotes identificados con los números de 1975 a 1980. Dicho informe concluye que el daño radicular presente en las plantas no germinadas "puede ser" como consecuencia de las características físicas o químicas del sustrato, pues en la parte foliar no se observaron daños causados por patógenos y recomienda un análisis físico, químico y microbiológico de los sustratos. En el Análisis Microbiológico. Prueba B (folio 5) se concluyó que no se encontraron hongos ni bacterias patogénicas (causantes de plagas y enfermedades en las plantas). El Análisis Químico Mineral de los sustratos orgánicos identificando los mismos lotes descritos Prueba C fue aportado (folio 6). En lo que resulta pertinente el Análisis Físicos. Prueba D (folio 7) se determinó la retención de humedad. A folio 234 consta acta número 21 del 28 de abril del 2006 del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado. En ella se consigna que el funcionario de esa dependencia Ingeniero Ulises Jiménez Jiménez, se presenta a Agroverde Dos mil S.A. para las tomas de muestras de análisis de laboratorio ya mencionadas del INTA para la determinación de las características físicas, químicas, microbiológicas del lote muestreado. Indicando que los lotes muestreados son: 1212505, 1312505, 0912505, 1001505, 11011505, 1201505 y dichas muestras se les coloca el marchamo de 1975 a 1980 y describiendo cual corresponde a cada lote, y la mención de quedar bajo custodia del MAG y que el material muestreado corresponde al sustrato producido en Canadá y vendido por VJ- Centroamericana S.A. La parte demandada aportó con la contestación de la demanda dos ensayos que se realizaron en el año 2002 en virtud de los problemas que se presentaban con la germinación de las plantas. A saber consta Ensayo 002-02: Chile Dulce del 1 de noviembre del 2002 (folio 135). Dicho informe de ensayo es emitido por la empresa demandada mediante el regente Ingeniero Agrónomo Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún. Describe un ensayo de cultivo de semillas de chile dulce, las cuales están debidamente certificadas y en el mismo se procedió a realizar el cultivo de las semillas utilizando el procedimiento usual de la sociedad demandada. Como observaciones y recomendaciones, se describieron algunas prácticas que debían ser evitadas y no haber encontrado ningún problema con el medio que afecte las raíces. De igual forma se indicó que la compactación con rodillo, afecta las plantas en forma negativa en su germinación y señala la necesidad de pre mojar el sustrato con la finalidad que tenga presente humedad uniforme antes de llenar las bandejas, detallando el método a seguir, se le hizo saber que la estibación de bandejas les afecta en la compactación y que se obtuvo una germinación en un 91% en buenas condiciones. Se hizo la observación que el productor utiliza medios de cultivo de diversos fabricantes. Las recomendaciones se inclinan a indicar que no debe compactarse con rodillo los cultivos y deben humedecer en forma previa al llenado de las bandejas con el sustrato en la forma allí explicada y no aplicar riego después, como lo viene haciendo el productor. También se aportó un ensayo de semilla de Lechuga denominado 001:02 del 1 de noviembre del 2002 (folio 146). En el mismo se obtuvo un buen resultado de germinación y se anotaron las mismas recomendaciones con respecto a las prácticas agrícolas del productor. Se solicitó por la accionada se rindiera dictamen pericial, que consta de folio 323 a 331, del cual se dio audiencia, sin que fuera objetado por ninguna de las partes. De la lectura de dicha prueba pericial, se denota que su objetivo es: determinar si lo problemas denunciados por Agroverde 2000 S.A. fueron causados por las características del sustrato importado y vendido por VJ Centroamericana S.A. o por un mal manejo del mismo u otra causa. Se especifica por el perito que el trabajo de campo se realiza entre el 10 de enero del 2009 y 13 de febrero del mismo año en las instalaciones de la actora. Explica el perito que procedió a visitar otros viveros que desarrollan el mismo proceso productivo, se entrevistó con personeros del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado y realizó otras averiguaciones. Inicia indicando que el uso de sustratos para la producción de plántulas de hortalizas es reciente en el país, pero que actualmente es una práctica generalizada. Cita la importancia de una buena calidad de almácigos para todo proyecto agrícola, pues de ello dependerá el éxito o fracaso de dicho proyecto y por ello resulta relevante el conocimiento de las características químicas, físicas y microbiológicas de ese sustrato, pues acorde con eso se programa el plan de desarrollo de las plantas en los invernaderos. En el caso en concreto se cuestionan las características físicas de la turba (sustrato) proporcionado por la demandada. Menciona, su reclamo se limita estudiar las cualidades físicas del sustrato, por cuanto de los mismos resultados aportados por la actora, se deduce no existen problemas con las cualidades químicas y microbiológicas. La pericia indica que la granulometría y el tipo de material determinan las características físicas de un sustrato y entre las que menciona: índice de grosor, densidad aparente, densidad real y retención de humedad a diferentes presiones de succión, que son factores que permiten calcular la porosidad y la relación agua: aire del sustrato. El dictamen hace explicaciones técnicas de conceptos de la composición de los sustratos y los efectos beneficios o negativos que producen en los cultivos y en este punto concluye que para tener un sustrato en buenas características físicas, el mismo debe reunir condiciones apropiadas y balanceadas que permitan el desarrollo adecuado de las plantas. El informe describe que se comprobó dentro del proceso productivo de la actora que el lugar donde se almacenan las semillas, cumple con los requisitos. El perito describe el proceso de producción encontrado en el vivero de la demandada y apuntó que observó la mayoría de las pacas que supuestamente causaron el daño a las plantas. Señaló haber observado 19 sacos de los 34 que se indicaron en la demanda que mantenía en su poder la actora. Cita 7 son del lote V-J 1001505,8 del lote V-J 10101505 , dos del lote V-J 1212505 y dos del lote V-J 1201505. Resulta de importancia mencionar que dicho perito informó que visitó las instalaciones del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería y conversó con el ingeniero Ulises Jiménez Vega , que fue el encargado de tomar las muestras en Agroverde 2000 S.A. y pudo observar las muestras custodiadas, posteriormente se apersonó al laboratorio en donde se realizaron los ensayos y los encontró en óptimas condiciones y se le facilitó por parte del Ingeniero Edgar Vega Zúñiga, quien tuvo a cargo la evaluación del proceso de desarrollo de las plántulas, le remitió copia del informe que levantó al efecto. Posteriormente se dispuso a visitar los invernaderos del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado y dejó constancia de que las condiciones de manejo son aceptables. El perito procede a contestar cada una de las preguntas que al efecto la sociedad demandada solicitó evacuara y de las mismas se deducen aspectos de fundamental consideración para la resolución de esta litis. A la pregunta primera respondió que pudo ser posible que el causante de los problemas de la actora se produjera por el sustrato suministrado. Explica que lo anterior se deduce del resultado del análisis físico de las muestras que hizo el MAG, que mostraron que en más del 80% se presentaban partículas menores a 1mm y una excesiva retención de humedad a tres diferentes presiones de succión. Apunta, lo anterior es grave, pues ello provoca deficiente aireación de la planta, y como consecuencia un mal desarrollo radicular. En la pregunta segunda asegura que puede darse un problema de germinación en una misma bandeja de forma irregular, por parches o en toda ella, pues acorde con lo que arrojó el resultado del análisis del MAG, la muestras presentan entre un 80% a 82% de material muy fino y entre un 18% y 20% de particular mayores a 1 mm y si se encuentra distribuido en forma deficiente dentro de la paca, pueden darse los situaciones apuntadas de la germinación. El cuestionamiento tercero deja claro que los daños ocurridos en las bandejas de germinación en donde se dio un desarrollo no uniforme y por parches no fueron por contaminación, pues los resultados del laboratorio no mostraron presencia de patógenos. También apuntó que el manejo de los fertilizantes, agroquímicos, preparación del sustrato y sistemas de riego se hace de forma segura y apegados a los lineamientos técnicos y sobre las semillas se llevan controles y bitácoras detalladas donde se rastrean por número, fechas de ingreso, empaques y su destino. La cuarta pregunta se dirige a combatir la confiabilidad de las investigaciones realizadas en los laboratorios del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, que utilizó una bandeja de 98 cavidades en sus estudios y si eso no era agregar una nueva variable. El perito al respecto contesta que el número de huecos contenidos en una bandeja, no es determinante para obtener los resultados deseados en la prueba, pues lo importante es conocer si se repite o no el problema presentado en los diferentes lotes muestreados por los supuestos problemas físicos. Sobre la calidad de semilla, se pregunta si era necesaria la certificación de semillas y su calidad antes de las pruebas. El perito indica que pudo ser bueno un análisis de calidad de la semilla para dar mayor formalidad científica a la evaluación, pero que en el caso no era determinante, pues según averiguaciones la semilla en dicha época, no reportó problemas ni de vigor ni de germinación. Y agrega que cuando un sustrato tiene problemas físicos, no es importante si se utiliza semilla de lechuga, tomate o chile, pues los mismos síntomas pueden presentarse utilizando otras semillas. El perito responde ante la pregunta si era necesario describir el procedimiento del laboratorio en la investigación, afirmando que no lo era, pues son profesionales los que preparan el medio y asumen los resultados obtenidos. Agrega que el ingeniero Edgar Vega le manifestó que se utilizó el procedimiento de rigor para preparar el medio para cada una de las seis muestras y sus repeticiones. El perito en la pregunta identificada como 4-4 indica que el sistema de riego utilizado en el análisis del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado no influyó en el resultado del porcentaje de germinación, pues el mismo asegura la debida humedización de las plantas en las bandejas. El perito responde a la pregunta siguiente que se refiere al momento del proceso de germinación en que se evaluó el daño en la raíz de las plantas de lechuga, que tales evaluaciones se pueden hacer al tercero o cuarto día y haberlo realizado a los 6 días posteriores como sucedió, fue un tiempo suficiente y adecuado para llevar a cabo tal evaluación. En la última pregunta se le cuestiona al perito si debió haberse llevado a cabo un procedimiento en la investigación del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado con método científico con algunos aspectos, tales como la presencia de un representante del sector comercial. Se responde que toda investigación requiere un método científico, pero no en toda es requisito indispensable llevar un diseñó experimental y un análisis estadístico. Agregó, éste es uno de esos casos en que no es necesario, pues bastan dos repeticiones, como parece se hizo, para tener la certeza técnica necesaria y analizar los resultados. Se menciona que hubiera sido interesante introducir otro sustrato, pero que en el caso concreto los análisis realizados son prueba irrefutable que el problema se originó en las características físicas de los diversos lotes del sustrato cuestionado y con respecto a la calidad de las semillas estima no influye, pues las germinaciones fueron buenas, y que los aspectos de riego, fertilización y luz no desvirtúan que los análisis fueron adecuados. Estima esta sede, con respecto al peritaje, lo mismo que se señala en la sentencia, respecto a la falta de acreditación en autos del nexo causal, que requeriría tener la certeza de que los problemas generados en las plantas de la sociedad actora durante el periodo alegado, fueron consecuencia del sustrato vendido en forma exclusiva. Lo anterior por cuanto los problemas apuntados iniciaron en el año 2002 y el perito emite criterio de lo observado en el proceso productivo de la actora en el año 2009, y las prácticas agrícolas del año 2002 a 2006 no pudieron ser evaluadas como para determinar el nexo causal solamente con respecto del sustrato en mención. De igual forma, tampoco es posible conocer de la certificación de todas las semillas involucradas en las plantas dañadas, pues en la prueba confesional del señor Soto Bravo se aceptó que las semillas provenían de diversos clientes y “algunas” venían certificadas (pregunta 3 y 4 folio 384), y que las prácticas agrícolas recomendadas por el regente de la demandada no fueron seguidas siempre, pues contaban con un criterio técnico diverso. (pregunta sexta y quinta folio 389). Sobre las prácticas recomendadas en el proceso del cultivo, consta en autos prueba documental de folio 135 a 139 ensayos elaborados por la empresa demandada en donde se le recomendó a la actora procediera a realizar un cambio en algunos aspectos, tales como no compactación con rodillo, el pre mojado del sustrato, que no fueron acogidos de forma permanente por la actora. No hay claridad con las pruebas que constan en autos, que dicha prácticas fueran acatadas y que el nexo causal de daños a las plantas se acredite solo al sustrato en cuestión. La parte recurrente aduce que con la prueba técnica se demuestra su reclamo, no obstante esta sede considera, que si bien de la misma se deduce que las muestras del sustrato arrojan una deficiencia en sus cualidades físicas, que producen problemas en las plantas, la falta de conocimiento de aspectos tales como el origen y calidad de las semillas utilizadas del año 2002 a 2006, o la forma de preparación del sustrato de la actora en esos periodos influyó en los resultados negativos de germinación. La prueba pericial y análisis microbiológicos arrojaron que esas muestras no presentaban elementos patógenos, sin embargo esas solo fueron unas muestras correspondientes a los últimos periodos de la relación comercial en el 2006, si saber el estado de las condiciones anteriores en cuanto la calidad de semillas y las prácticas agrícolas desde el año 2002. La prueba pericial tiene el valor de demostrar las condiciones del vivero de la actora en el año 2009, el estado de los viveros del Estado para esa misma época, así como la validación de las correctas prácticas agrícolas para ese momento, pero no es posible deducir de dichas probanzas las condiciones imperantes durante el año 2002 a 2006. Las pruebas de laboratorio resultan irrefutables en sus conclusiones, pero su valor no puede acreditar que el daño a las plántulas se deba solamente a las condiciones del sustrato suministrado por la empresa demandada en las fechas en que ocurrieron los daños. Por ello no resulta de recibo el agravio de que es suficiente con las pruebas técnicas y periciales que constan en autos. Con respecto al agravio de la prueba confesional y que de ella se deduce las prácticas agrícolas fueron correctas, se indica que revisada la misma (folio 387) se deduce que se desconocen aspectos que pueden influir en los cultivos de almácigos tales como calidad de semillas, agua, sistemas de riego, prácticas agrícolas, que no fueron estudiadas al momento en que se presentaron los daños. Así lo aceptó el confesante en su contestación a la pregunta dieciocho. No resulta de recibo el agravio del apelante cuando se refiere que tales aspectos no son importantes, sino que lo único a considerar era si la deficiencia del sustrato causaba los daños reclamados. Estima esta sede que para tener por comprobado el nexo causal, se requiere constatar que los aspectos señalados no contribuyeron también a la generación de los daños encontrados en los análisis durante el periodo 2002 a 2006. Por su parte los agravios de lo que acreditaba la prueba testimonial, tampoco se comparte, pues no se considera que los análisis y procedimientos seguidos por los funcionarios Ulises Jiménez Jimenez y Edgar Julián Vega, hubieran sido desvirtuados o que las condiciones de los invernaderos del Estado no eran óptimas, los resultados arrojados no se cuestionan. LO que se estima es que tales análisis no son suficientes para determinar que los daños ocasionados desde 2002 a 2006 sean solamente por el sustrato, aún y cuando se hubiera logrado acreditar que el sustrato no contaban con una adecuada composición física. Sobre la declaración de Ronald Castro Rodríguez (folio 432) si bien rinde una declaración clara y contundente en señalar que el problema de germinación se debía al sustrato, señala que los daños empiezan a gravarse en 2004, y que antes del 2005 se había comprado material a CAFESA pero era más malo que el de VJ. Si bien se denota es una persona con conocimiento de su labor, aseguró que no ha recibido capacitación técnica y que con respecto a la cantidad de agua que se necesita “lo hace a puro ojo”. Se encuentra conforme esta Tribunal con el valor dado a esta declaración. Sobre la declaración de Ana Isabel Parajeles Zumbado, se estima que su deposición en el caso concreto, no puede incidir en desvirtuar lo fallado, pues si bien declaró haber sufrido daños con dicho producto, tampoco se tiene certeza de las condiciones en las cuales se daba el manejo del vivero que mencionó poseer. Se rechaza su agravio. Estima esta sede que el testimonio de quien fungió como regente de la demandada Manuel Antonio Salas Ajún, fue valorado adecuadamente, pues del mismo se dedujo que existían problemas con el producto, pero que las prácticas agrícolas de pre mojado y compactación no fueron necesariamente acatadas, lo cual incide en la acreditación de la posibilidad de que medie culpa de la víctima en el daño causado y se rompa el daño causal que debe quedar comprobado. Tal y como se indicó en la sentencia apelada, la prueba pericial se fundamentó en otorgarle validez a los análisis del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, pero no es posible deducir de ella que las circunstancias y prácticas del vivero del actor durante 2002 a 2006 no contribuyeron a la generación de los daños causados en las plantas germinadas. Por ello tampoco resulta de recibo el reproche del actor recurrente, cuando indica que la valoración probatoria realizada por la juzgadora se hace en contra de las pruebas de la ciencia y la técnica por desconocimiento.”