Strict Liability of the Administration and Municipal Competence in Road SignalingResponsabilidad objetiva de la Administración y competencia municipal en señalización vial

**VII.—ON THE OBJECTIVE LIABILITY UNDER THE GENERAL LAW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.** It must be borne in mind that, since the entry into force of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), in 1978, the rules of the non-contractual civil liability regime applicable to the Public Administration were established. Rules that previously derived from the pinnacle of the legal system, in its Articles 9, 11, 41, 148, and 193. From that moment on, the application of the Civil Code's own provisions, which regulated non-contractual civil liability (Article 1045), gave way to this scheme. Thus, liability based on criteria for imputing liability, such as willful misconduct (dolo) or fault (culpa), evolved into those of "lawful, unlawful, normal, or abnormal operation" (funcionamiento lícito, ilícito, normal o anormal), characteristic of an objectification of liability. This system sets forth a series of elements and logical relationships, such that all must converge and be precisely identified. In the contentious-administrative proceeding, whoever seeks to hold a public entity liable under this scheme must demonstrate, as part of the burden of proof (onus probandi), in a precise and unequivocal manner, each of these elements. In such a way that the existence of damage (daño) (196 LGAP) must be identified, which, moreover, must be effective (efectivo), assessable (evaluable), and individualizable (individualizable), and also the causal relationship (relación de causalidad) between said damage and the public entity or official. It is necessary to demonstrate that there are no exonerating causes (causas eximentes) of liability that break the causal link (nexo de causalidad) (190 LGAP), in addition to confirming the existence of imputation criteria (criterios de imputación), meaning that the harmful conduct occurred in a lawful (lícita) or unlawful (ilícita), normal (normal) or abnormal (anormal) manner. Regarding liability for lawful (lícita) and normal (normal) conduct, due to the special nature of the damage, it requires the existence of a small proportion of affected parties (proporción de afectados) and that the intensity of said injury be exceptional (excepcional). Under this scheme, the indemnification covers the value of the damage, but not the consequential damages (perjuicios). These concepts that make up the "special damage" (daño especial) are what are known in law as indeterminate legal concepts (conceptos jurídicos indeterminados), which the Judges in each case must give content to and determine if the subjective right was denatured. On the other hand, to approach the analysis of the existence of liability for unlawful (conducta ilícita) and abnormal (anormal) conduct, it is essential to determine the existence of an action by the Administration contrary to the legal system (contraria al ordenamiento jurídico) or to the unequivocal rules of science or technique (reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica), respectively. Under this cause of imputation, the recognition of damages is full, since, unlike the former, consequential damages (perjuicios) are recognized. In this regard, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment No. 000298-F-SI-2014, of March 6, 2014, has indicated: "It is important to note that the Public Administration responds for all damages caused by its operation, legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal (canon 190 LGAP). In such a way that all damage caused to the subjective rights of others due to faults of the servants committed in the performance of the duties of their position or on the occasion thereof must be repaired (precept 191 ibidem). From the foregoing, three basic elements are derived: administrative conduct (active or by omission), effective damage, and a cause-and-effect link between the two (causal link). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be clear that not all illegitimate or irregular operation of the State generates its liability, given that the interested party must prove the effective damage and a cause-and-effect relationship between both phenomena. In other words, the declaration of liability of the Administration does not automatically generate the duty to indemnify. Therefore, it will be necessary to demonstrate the existence of personal damage and its corresponding causal link with the conduct subject to litigation, based on the fact that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming that damage has been caused to them. The judge must corroborate the existence of effective damage, which must be assessable, individualizable, and derived from conduct apt for the emergence of liability. All damage caused to the subjective rights of others due to faults of the servants, committed in the performance of the duties of their position or on occasion thereof, must be repaired (precept 191 ibidem). The legal system establishes that once liability has been determined and the damage has been taken as certain in the terms previously indicated, the recognition of material and moral damage in its different effects shall proceed. See from this Chamber vote number 783 at 14:35 on June 19, 2013." To resolve the present case, adhering to the applicable law and therefore to justice, it is essential to determine if there is a causal link between the damages alleged by the plaintiff and the administrative conduct. The causal relationship produces a link, which allows the origin of the impairment alleged to be glimpsed. Regarding the causal link, the Spanish scholar, Eduardo García De Enterría, points out that "for a fact to deserve being considered as the cause of the damage, it is necessary that it be in itself suitable for producing it according to common experience, that is, that it has a special aptitude to produce the harmful effect. Only in these cases (adequate causation) can it be said, with rigor, that the activity taken into consideration constitutes the efficient cause, the proximate cause of the damage (in iure non remota causa, sed proxima spectatur), its true cause." (Curso de Derecho Administrato II, Editorial Civitas, p. 403). Thus, the causal link is a sine qua non requirement for the emergence of patrimonial liability; it is essential to carry out the judgment of imputability, to attribute the damage to the one who caused it, based on the relationship existing between the two, for the duty to indemnify to arise, it is necessary that the damage can be attributed to a person other than the injured party. At a doctrinal and jurisprudential level, there are various theories to determine causation, which has produced different positions on the matter (equivalence of conditions and adequate cause). In relation to this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has developed the conception of efficient and adequate causation, and in that regard has resolved the following: "The causal link as a condition for liability. The diverse typology of causes. (...) In this regard, it is worth remembering that multiple factors frequently concur in the production of damage, among which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the efficient and adequate cause of the harm caused (on the proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, see the already cited judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, No. 252-F-01, at 16:15 on March 28, 2001). In that confluence of factual or legal elements surrounding the harmful situation, there will be a need to establish the apt action or omission that caused the consequence, displacing those that have had no influence on the result (extraneous causes), from those which, had they not occurred, would have avoided the impairment. It is a kind of objective analysis, through which it can be affirmed that with such action or omission it is logical or probable that the specific damage will be produced" (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment 584-05. 10:40 on August 11, 2005. See in the same sense judgments No. 308-06 at 10:30 on May 25, 2006, and No. 211-05 at 9:40 on April 7, 2005).

**VIII.—REGARDING THE CRITERION FOR OBJECTIVE LIABILITY IMPUTATION TO THE MUNICIPAL ENTITY OF ALAJUELA, AS ONE OF THE EFFECTIVE CAUSES IN THE GENERATION OF THE HARMFUL EVENT.** The Municipality of Alajuela has maintained throughout all procedural stages the non-existence of liability, considering that the signage and demarcation of public streets of the cantonal road network (red vial cantonal) are competencies that were transferred to the municipal entities only as of January 1, 2016, the date on which Law 9329 (Special Law for the Transfer of Competencies for the Full and Exclusive Attention of the Cantonal Road Network, Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal) entered into force. This same Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, in judgment No. 101-2018-V, at eight hours on December seventh, two thousand eighteen, extensively developed this topic from the legal perspective. In that sense, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with Articles 1 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) (Law number 5060, in force since August 22, 1972) and 2, section 96 of the Law of Transit on Public Land Routes and Road Safety (Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial) (Law number 9078, in force since October 26, 2012), the administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network corresponds to the Municipalities. Now, although section 14 of the same Road Administration Law (Ley de Administración Vial) (Law number 6324, in force since May 24, 1979) establishes that: "...The Traffic Engineering Directorate (Dirección de Ingeniería de Transito) shall be in charge of the study of traffic problems and their environmental and social consequences, as well as the design and execution of measures and technical regulations to control them. For such purposes, it shall be in charge of road signage and the planning of public transport services..."; said provision cannot be applied in isolation. This is because, and in accordance with the competencies of administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network granted to the Municipal Corporations, the legislator, through Law 9078 itself, reformed Article 15 of the Road Administration Law (Law number 6324, in force since May 24, 1979), in the sense that "...The Traffic Engineering Directorate shall have a Coordinating and Technical Assistance Office to advise the municipalities on aspects of engineering, planning, and traffic regulation. The programs, plans, and designs for projects related to traffic in the cantons must be reviewed and approved within a period of up to thirty business days by the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering (Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito) before being executed by the respective municipality; once this period has expired without an opinion having been issued, they shall be deemed approved. The foregoing without prejudice to projects involving the relocation or approval of public transport stops, in transit or terminals, which require the approval of the Public Transport Council (Consejo de Transporte Público), so in these cases the above period shall not apply to this institution...". In this sense, although generically section 11 of the Road Administration Law grants the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering the competence to study, design, execute measures, and issue technical regulations to regulate and control traffic problems – which includes road signage and the planning of transport services –; it is also true that prior to the entry into force of Law 9329 (Special Law for the Transfer of Competencies for the Full and Exclusive Attention of the Cantonal Road Network), the work of the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering in the case of the cantonal road network was limited to reviewing and approving, within a period of thirty business days, the programs, plans, and designs aimed at the planning and regulation of traffic on the cantonal road network, before they could be executed by the respective Municipality, without prejudice to the fact that once that period had expired without an opinion having been issued, they would be deemed approved and the proposing municipal entity was empowered to implement them. Consequently, the administration and maintenance by the Municipalities of the public streets that make up the cantonal road network not only included attending to the construction or repair needs of the road surface of the canton's streets or roads, but also the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems – which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the canton's streets or roads, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety –, which required – prior to its execution by the respective Municipality – that the Traffic Engineering Directorate give its approval within a period of thirty business days, although the municipal entity could execute them, if upon the expiration of that period the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering had not issued an opinion. Now, with the promulgation and entry into force of Law 9329 (Special Law for the Transfer of Competencies for the Full and Exclusive Attention of the Cantonal Road Network) and its Regulation (Decreto Ejecutivo 40137 of December 12, 2016), the change solely consisted in that the Municipalities must apply and guarantee the incorporation of the road safety component in all works, designs, and programs related to traffic, in coordination with the Road Safety Council (Consejo de Seguridad Vial) and the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering (Articles 2 last paragraph, 10, and Transitory I of Law 9329; 5 subsection g of Decreto Ejecutivo 40137), this latter agency being limited to supervising the matter of road safety, through the exercise of advisory, coordination, and logistical activities with local governments, in accordance with the general technical guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) as the governing and supervisory body in the matter (Articles 10 and Transitory I of Law 9329 and 38 of Decreto Ejecutivo 40137). So much so, that Article 1 of Law 9329 is clear in indicating that the purpose of that normative body is to transfer to local governments the full and exclusive attention of the cantonal road network, a transfer whose scope – for what interests this case and without prejudice to the regulations regarding the public funds they will have for such effect – is referred to the relationship that the Municipalities will maintain with the MOPT – as the governing and supervisory body in the matter –, and/or with the Road Safety Council, the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering, or the Public Transport Council – which advise, coordinate, and provide technical logistics to local governments within their field of competence –. Therefore, in section 2 of Law 9329, the legislator merely described the competencies that the administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network by the Municipalities comprises, and which were already defined – at least in what refers to planning, designing, and regulating traffic problems on the public streets and roads of the cantonal road network, which encompasses everything related to Road Safety – in Article 15 of the Road Administration Law, reformed by section 248 of the Law of Transit on Public Land Routes and Road Safety, number 9078 of October 4, 2012. Consequently, this collegiate body reiterates that prior to the entry into force of Law 9329 (Special Law for the Transfer of Competencies for the Full and Exclusive Attention of the Cantonal Road Network), the administration and maintenance in charge of the Municipalities of the public streets that make up their respective cantonal road network not only included attending to the construction or repair needs of the road surface thereof; but also, the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems – which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the canton's streets or roads, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety –, which prior to their execution by the respective Municipality, required being studied and approved by the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering, an agency that had to issue a pronouncement to this effect within a period of thirty business days, however, the municipal entities could execute the programs, plans, or designs to regulate traffic problems, if upon the expiration of that period the General Directorate of Traffic Engineering had not issued an opinion. Now, being clear that in accordance with the legal system, the entity competent to provide maintenance regarding the signage and demarcation of the streets and roads that make up the cantonal road network was the Municipality of Alajuela, it is necessary to determine if an objective liability criterion is configured against it and if there is a causal link (nexo de causalidad) with the subjective moral and material damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

**VII.-ON STRICT LIABILITY UNDER THE LEY GENERAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA.** It must be borne in mind that, since the entry into force of the Ley General de la Administración Pública in 1978, the rules of the non-contractual civil liability regime applicable to the Public Administration were established. Rules that derived, from before, from the apex of the legal system, in its articles 9, 11, 41, 148, and 193. From that moment, the application of the regulations of the Civil Code, which governed non-contractual civil liability (article 1045), gave way to this scheme. Thus, liability based on criteria of imputation of responsibility, such as willful misconduct (dolo) or fault (culpa), evolved into those of "licit, illicit, normal, or abnormal functioning," characteristic of an objectification of liability. This system raises a series of elements and logical relationships, such that all must converge and be identified with precision. In the contentious-administrative process, whoever intends to hold a public entity liable under this scheme must demonstrate, as part of the burden of proof (onus probandi), in a precise and unequivocal manner, each one of these elements. In such a way that the existence of the damage (daño) must be identified (196 LGAP), which, moreover, must be effective (efectivo), evaluable (evaluable), and individualizable (individualizable), in turn the causal relationship (relación de causalidad) between said damage and the public entity or official. It is necessary to demonstrate that there are no exonerating causes (causas eximentes) of liability that break the causal link (190 LGAP), in addition to specifying the existence of criteria of imputation (criterios de imputación), this means that the harmful conduct occurred in a licit (lícita) or illicit (ilícita) manner, normal (normal) or abnormal (anormal). With respect to liability for licit (lícita) and normal (normal) conduct, due to the special nature of the damage, it requires the existence of a small proportion of affected parties (proporción de afectados) and that the intensity of said injury be exceptional (excepcional). Under this scheme, the compensation covers the value of the damage (daño), but not the consequential damages (perjuicios). These concepts that make up the "special damage," are what are known in law as indeterminate legal concepts, which the Judges in each case must give content to and determine if the subjective right was denatured. On the other hand, to address the analysis of the existence of liability for illicit (ilícita) and abnormal (anormal) conduct, it is essential to determine the existence of an action by the Administration contrary to the legal system or to the unequivocal rules of science or technique, respectively. Under this cause of imputation, the recognition of damages is full, since unlike the previous one, consequential damages (perjuicios) are recognized. In this regard, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment no. 000298-F-SI-2014, of March 6, 2014, has indicated: "*It is important to note that the Public Administration is liable for all damages caused by its functioning, legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal (canon 190 LGAP). In such a way that all damage caused to the subjective rights of others by faults of the servants committed in the performance of the duties of the office or on occasion thereof (precept 191 ibid.) must be repaired. From the foregoing, three basic assumptions are derived: administrative conduct (active or omissive), effective damage, and between both a cause-effect link (causal link). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be clear that not all illegitimate or irregular functioning of the State generates its liability, given that the interested party must prove the effective damage and a cause-effect relationship between both phenomena. In other words, the declaration of liability of the Administration does not automatically generate the duty to compensate. Therefore, it will be necessary to demonstrate the existence of personal damage and its corresponding causal link with the conduct subject to the litigation, based on the fact that the burden of proof rests with the party who alleges they have suffered damage. The judge must corroborate the existence of effective damage, which must be evaluable, individualizable, and derived from conduct apt for the emergence of liability. All damage caused to the subjective rights of others by faults of the servants, committed in the performance of the duties of the office or on occasion thereof (precept 191 ibid.) must be repaired. The legal system establishes that once liability is determined and the damage is taken as certain in the terms indicated above, the recognition of material and moral damage in its different affectations shall proceed. See from this Chamber vote number 783 of 14 hours 35 minutes of June 19, 2013." * To resolve this case, adjusted to the applicable law and therefore to justice, it is rigorous to determine if there is a causal link between the damages alleged by the plaintiff and the administrative conduct. The causal relationship produces a link, which allows glimpsing the origin of the impairment alleged. Regarding the causal link, the Spanish treatise writer, Eduardo García De Enterría, points out that *"for an act to deserve being considered as the cause of the damage, it is necessary that it be in itself suitable for producing it according to common experience, that is, that it has a special aptitude to produce the harmful effect. Only in these cases (adequate causation) can it be said, with rigor, that the activity taken into consideration constitutes the efficient cause, the proximate cause of the damage (in iure non remota causa, sed proxima spectatur), the true cause thereof." * (Curso de Derecho Administrativo II, Editorial Civitas, p. 403). Having stated things thus, the causal link is a sine qua non requirement for the emergence of patrimonial liability, it is essential to carry out the judgment of imputability, to attribute the damage to the one who caused it, based on the existing relationship between both, for the duty to compensate to arise, it is necessary that the damage can be imputed to a person other than the injured party. At a doctrinal and jurisprudential level, there are various theories to determine causation, which has produced different positions in this regard (equivalence of conditions and adequate cause). In relation to this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has developed the conception of efficient and adequate causation, in that sense it has resolved the following: "**The causal link as a prerequisite for liability. The diverse typology of causes.** (...) In this regard, it should be recalled that in the production of damage, multiple factors frequently concur, within which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the **efficient** and **adequate** cause of the harm caused (on the proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, the aforementioned judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 252-F-01, of 16 hours 15 minutes of March 28, 2001, can be consulted). In that confluence of factual or legal elements surrounding the harmful situation, there will be a need to establish the apt action or omission that caused the consequence; displacing those that have had no influence on the result (strange causes), from those that, had they not taken place, would have avoided the impairment. It is a kind of objective analysis, through which it can be affirmed that with such action or omission it is logical or probable that the specific damage occurs" (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment 584-05. 10:40 hours of August 11, 2005. See in the same sense judgments no. 308-06 of 10:30 hours of May 25, 2006 and no. 211-05 of 9:40 hours of April 7, 2005).

**VIII.-REGARDING THE CRITERION OF IMPUTATION OF STRICT LIABILITY TO THE MUNICIPAL ENTITY OF ALAJUELA, AS ONE OF THE EFFECTIVE CAUSES IN THE GENERATION OF THE HARMFUL EVENT.** The Municipality of Alajuela has been maintaining in all procedural stages, the non-existence of liability, considering that the signage and demarcation of the public streets of the cantonal road network are competencies that were transferred to the municipal entities only as of January 1, 2016, the date on which Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal) entered into force. This same Section of the Contentious Administrative Tribunal, in judgment no. 101-2018-V, of eight hours on December seven, two thousand eighteen, extensively developed this topic from a legal perspective. In that sense, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with articles 1 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos ***(Law number 5060, in force since August 22, 1972)*** and, 2 subsection 96 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial ***(Law number 9078, in force since October 26, 2012),*** the administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network corresponds to the Municipalities. Now then, although numeral 14 of the same Ley de Administración Vial (Law number 6324, in force since May 24, 1979) establishes that: *"...The Dirección de Ingeniería de Transito shall be in charge of **the study of traffic problems*** ***and their environmental and social consequences, as well as the design and execution of measures and technical standards to control them***. *For such purposes, it shall be in charge of road signage and the planning of public transport services...";* said norm cannot be applied in isolation. This is because, and attending to the competencies of administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network granted to the Municipal Corporations, the legislator, through Law 9078 itself, reformed article 15 of the Ley de Administración Vial (Law number 6324, in force since May 24, 1979), in the sense that *"...The Dirección de Ingeniería de Tránsito shall have a Coordinating and Technical Assistance Office to advise the **municipalities in aspects of engineering, planning, and traffic regulation. The programs, plans, and designs for projects related to traffic in the cantons must be reviewed and approved within a period of up to thirty business days by the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito before being executed by the respective municipality;** once this period has expired without a criterion having been issued, they shall be deemed approved. The foregoing without prejudice to projects involving the relocation or approval of public transport stops, in transit, or terminals, which require the approval of the Consejo de Transporte Público, for which reason in these cases the previous period shall not apply with respect to this institution...".* In that sense, although **generically** numeral 11 of the Ley de Administración Vial grants the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito the competence to study, design, execute measures, and issue technical standards to regulate and control traffic problems *–which includes road signage and the planning of transport services–;* it is also true that, prior to the entry into force of Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal), the work of the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito in the case of the cantonal road network was limited to reviewing and approving, within a period of thirty business days, the programs, plans, and designs aimed at the planning and regulation of traffic on the cantonal road network, before they could be executed by the respective Municipality, without prejudice to the fact that once this period expired without a criterion having been issued, they would be deemed approved and the proposing municipal entity was empowered to implement them. Consequently, **the administration and maintenance by the Municipalities of the public streets that make up the cantonal road network,** not only comprised attending to the construction or repair needs of the rolling surface of the streets or roads of the canton, **but also the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems** *–which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the streets or roads of the canton, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety–*, which required *–prior to its execution by the respective Municipality–* that the Dirección de Ingeniería de Tránsito give its approval within a period of thirty business days, although the municipal entity could execute them, if once that period expired the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito had not issued a criterion. Now then, with the promulgation and entry into force of Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal) and its Regulation (Decreto Ejecutivo 40137 of December 12, 2016), the change only consisted in that the Municipalities must apply and guarantee the incorporation of the road safety component in all works, designs, and programs related to traffic, **in coordination with the Consejo de Seguridad Vial and the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito** *(articles 2 last paragraph, 10 and Transitorio I of Law 9329; 5 subsection g of Decree 40137),* **the latter agency, which will be limited to supervising road safety matters, through the exercise of advisory, coordination, and logistical activities with local governments, in accordance with the general technical guidelines promulgated by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) as the governing and supervising body in the matter** *(articles 10 and Transitorio I of Law 9329 and 38 of Decree 40137)*. So much so, that article 1 of Law 9329 is clear in indicating that the purpose of that regulatory body is to transfer to local governments **the full and exclusive attention of the cantonal road network**, **a transfer whose scope** *–in what concerns this case and without prejudice to the regulations regarding the public funds that they will have for this purpose–* **is referred to the relationship that the Municipalities will maintain with the MOPT** *–as the governing and supervising body in the matter–,* **and/or with the Consejo de Seguridad Vial, the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, or the Consejo de Transporte Público** *–which advise, coordinate, and provide technical logistics to local governments within the scope of their competence–*. Therefore, in numeral 2 of Law 9329, the legislator limited itself to describing the competencies that comprise the administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network by the Municipalities, and which were already defined ***–at least with regard to planning, designing, and regulating traffic problems on the public streets and roads of the cantonal road network, which encompasses everything related to Road Safety–*** in article 15 of the Ley de Administración Vial, reformed by numeral 248 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial, number 9078 of October 4, 2012. Consequently, this collegiate body reiterates that prior to the entry into force of Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal), **the administration and maintenance by the Municipalities of the public streets that make up their respective cantonal road network,** not only comprised attending to the construction or repair needs of their rolling surface; **but also the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems** *–which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the streets or roads of the canton, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety–*, **which, prior to their execution by the respective Municipality, required being studied and approved by the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, an agency that had to issue a ruling on the matter within a period of thirty business days,** however, the municipal entities could execute the programs, plans, or designs to regulate traffic problems, if once that period expired the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito had not issued a criterion. Now then, having it clear that according to the legal system, the competent entity for maintaining the signage and demarcation of the streets and roads that make up the cantonal road network was the Municipality of Alajuela, it is necessary to determine if a criterion of strict liability is configured against it and if a causal link exists with the subjective moral and material damages suffered by the plaintiffs." Consequently, **the administration and maintenance by the Municipalities of the public streets that make up the cantonal road network** not only included attending to the construction or repair needs of the running surface of the streets or roads of the canton, **but also the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems** *—which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the streets or roads of the canton, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety—*, which required *—prior to its execution by the respective Municipality—* that the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito give its approval within a period of thirty business days, although the municipal entity could execute them if, after that period had expired, the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito had not issued an opinion. Now, with the promulgation and entry into force of Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal) and its Reglamento (Decreto Ejecutivo 40137 of December 12, 2016), *the change only consisted in that the Municipalities must apply and guarantee the incorporation of the road safety component in all works, designs, and programs related to traffic*, **in coordination with the Consejo de Seguridad Vial and the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito** *(articles 2 last paragraph, 10, and Transitorio I of Law 9329; 5 subsection g of Decreto Ejecutivo 40137),* **the latter agency being limited to supervising the matter of road safety, through the exercise of advisory, coordination, and logistics activities with local governments, in accordance with** the general technical guidelines promulgated by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) as the governing and supervisory body in the matter *(articles 10 and Transitorio I of Law 9329 and 38 of Decreto Ejecutivo 40137)*. So much so, that article 1 of Law 9329 is clear in indicating that the purpose of that normative body is to transfer to local governments *the full and exclusive attention of the cantonal road network*, **a transfer whose scope** *—in what is relevant to this case and without prejudice to the regulations regarding the public funds with which they will count for such purpose—* **is referred to the relationship that the Municipalities will maintain with the MOPT** *—as the governing and supervisory body in the matter—,* **and/or with the Consejo de Seguridad Vial, the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, or the Consejo de Transporte Público** *—which advise, coordinate, and provide technical logistics to local governments within their scope of competence—*. Therefore, in numeral 2 of Law 9329, the legislator limited itself to describing the competencies that comprise the administration and maintenance of the cantonal road network by the Municipalities, and which were already defined ***—at least regarding planning, designing, and regulating traffic problems on the public streets and roads of the cantonal road network, which encompasses everything related to Road Safety—*** in article 15 of the Ley de Administración Vial, amended by numeral 248 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial, number 9078 of October 4, 2012. Consequently, this collegiate body reiterates that prior to the entry into force of Law 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal), **the administration and maintenance by the Municipalities of the public streets that make up their respective cantonal road network** not only included attending to the construction or repair needs of their running surface; **but also the planning, design, and regulation of traffic problems** *—which includes horizontal or vertical road signage on the streets or roads of the canton, as one of the manifestations of Road Safety—*, **which, prior to their execution by** **the respective Municipality, required being studied and approved by the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, an agency that had to issue a pronouncement to that effect within a period of thirty business days,** however, the municipal entities could execute the programs, plans, or designs to regulate traffic problems if, after that period had expired, the Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito had not issued an opinion. Now, having clear that according to the legal system the competent entity to provide maintenance regarding the signage and marking of the streets and roads that make up the cantonal road network was the Municipalidad de Alajuela, it is necessary to determine whether a criterion of strict liability is configured against it and whether there is a causal link with the subjective moral and material damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

“VII.-SOBRE LA RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA DE LA LEY GENERAL DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA. Se debe tener presente, que desde la entrada en vigencia la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en el año 1978, quedaron sentadas las reglas del régimen de responsabilidad civil extracontractual, aplicable a la Administración Pública. Reglas que derivaban desde antes, de la cúspide del ordenamiento jurídico, en sus artículos 9,11, 41, 148 y 193. Desde ese momento la aplicación de la normativa propia del Código Civil, que regulaba la responsabilidad civil extracontractual (artículo 1045), cedió su paso a este esquema. De ese modo, la responsabilidad basada en criterios de imputación de responsabilidad, como lo son el dolo o la culpa, evolucionaron a los de "funcionamiento lícito, ilícito, normal o anormal", propios de una objetivación de la responsabilidad. Dicho sistema, plantea una serie de elementos y relaciones lógicas, de manera tal que todos deben confluir y estar identificados con precisión. En el proceso contencioso administrativo, quien pretenda responsabilizar a un ente público bajo este esquema, ha de demostrar, como parte del onus probandi, de forma precisa e inequívoca, cada uno de estos elementos. De manera tal que debe identificarse la existencia del daño (196 LGAP), que, además, debe ser efectivo, evaluable e individualizable , a su vez la relación de causalidad entre dicho daño y el ente público o funcionario. Es necesario demostrar que no existan causas eximentes de responsabilidad que rompan el nexo de causalidad (190 LGAP), además de concretar la existencia de criterios de imputación, esto quiere decir que la conducta dañosa se produjo de forma lícita o ilícita, normal o anormal. En lo que respecta a la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y normal, por la especialidad del daño, requiere la existencia de una pequeña proporción de afectados y que la intensidad de dicha lesión sea excepcional. Bajo este esquema, la indemnización cubre el valor del daño, mas no los perjuicios. Estos conceptos que componen el "daño especial", son los que se conocen en derecho como los conceptos jurídicos indeterminados, que serán los Juzgadores en cada caso que deberá darles contenido y determinar si el derecho subjetivo se desnaturalizó. Por otro lado, para abordar el análisis de la existencia de responsabilidad por conducta ilícita y anormal, resulta medular determinar la existencia de una actuación de la Administración contraria al ordenamiento jurídico o a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica , respectivamente. Bajo esta causa de imputación el reconocimiento de los daños es pleno, ya que a diferencia de la anterior se reconocen los perjuicios. A ese respecto la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en la sentencia n.° 000298-F-SI-2014, del 6 de marzo del 2014, ha indicado: "Es importante acotar que la Administración Pública responde por todos los daños que cause su funcionamiento, legítimo o ilegítimo, normal o anormal (canon 190 LGAP). De tal manera que debe repararse todo daño que se cause a los derechos subjetivos ajenos por faltas de los servidores cometidas en el desempeño de los deberes del cargo o en ocasión de este (precepto 191 ibídem). De lo anterior, se derivan tres presupuestos básicos: conducta administrativa (activa u omisiva), daño efectivo y entre ambos un vínculo de causa-efecto (nexo de causalidad). No obstante lo anterior, ha de tenerse claro que no todo funcionamiento ilegítimo o irregular del Estado genera su responsabilidad, dado que el interesado ha de acreditar el daño efectivo y una relación de causa-efecto entre ambos fenómenos. Dicho de otro modo, la declaratoria de responsabilidad de la Administración no genera automáticamente el deber de indemnizar. Por ende, resultará necesario demostrar la existencia de un daño personal y de su correspondiente nexo causal con la conducta objeto del litigio, partiendo del hecho que la carga probatoria le asiste a la parte que alegue se le ha ocasionado un daño. El juzgador ha de corroborar la existencia de un daño efectivo, el cual debe ser evaluable, individualizable, y derivado de una conducta apta para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad. Se debe reparar todo daño que se cause a los derechos subjetivos ajenos por faltas de los servidores, cometidas en el desempeño de los deberes del cargo o con ocasión de este (precepto 191 ibídem). El ordenamiento jurídico establece que una vez determinada la responsabilidad y tenido por cierto el daño en los términos antes señalados, se procederá al reconocimiento del daño material y moral en sus diferentes afectaciones. Puede verse de esta Sala el voto número 783 de las 14 horas 35 minutos del 19 de junio de 2013." Para resolver el presente caso, ajustados al derecho aplicable y por ende a la justicia, es de rigor, determinar si existe un nexo causal entre los daños un lazo, que permite vislumbrar el origen del menoscabo que se alega. En lo que respecta al nexo causal, el tratadista español, Eduardo García De Enterría, apunta que "para que un hecho merezca ser considerado como causa del daño es preciso que sea en sí mismo idóneo para producirlo según la experiencia común, es decir, que tenga una especial aptitud para producir el efecto lesivo. Sólo en estos casos (causalidad adecuada) puede decirse, con rigor, que la actividad tomada en consideración constituye la causa eficiente, la causa próxima del daño (in iure non remota causa, sed proxima spectatur), la causa verdadera del mismo." (Curso de Derecho Administrato II, Editorial Civitas, pág. 403). Planteadas así las cosas, el nexo causal es un requisito sine qua non para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad patrimonial, resulta imprescindible para efectuar el juicio de imputabilidad, para atribuir el daño a quien lo causó, con base en la relación existente entre ambos, para que surja el deber de indemnizar, es necesario que el daño pueda ser imputado a una persona distinta del damnificado. A nivel doctrinal y jurisprudencial, existen diversas teorías para determinar la causalidad, lo que ha producido distintas posiciones al respecto (equivalencia de condiciones y causa adecuada). En relación con este aspecto, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, ha desarrollado la concepción de la causalidad eficiente y adecuada, en ese sentido ha resuelto lo siguiente: "El nexo causal como presupuesto de responsabilidad. La diversa tipología de las causas. (...) Al respecto cabe recordar que en la producción del daño, suelen concurrir con frecuencia múltiples factores, dentro de los cuales es preciso determinar aquellos que directa o indirectamente son causa eficiente y adecuada del mal causado (sobre la causa próxima, adecuada y eficiente, puede consultarse la sentencia ya citada de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. N° 252-F-01, de las 16 horas 15 minutos del 28 de marzo del 2001). En esa confluencia de elementos fácticos o jurídicos que rodean la situación dañosa, habrá necesidad de establecer la acción u omisión apta que provocó la consecuencia; desplazando aquéllas que no han tenido ninguna influencia en el resultado (causas extrañas), de las que, de no haber tenido lugar, hubiesen evitado el menoscabo. Se trata de una especie de análisis objetivo, a través de la cual se pueda afirmar que con tal acción u omisión es lógico o probable que se produzca el daño específico" (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sentencia 584-05. 10:40 horas del 11 de agosto del 2005. Véanse en igual sentido las sentencias n.º 308-06 de las 10:30 horas del 25 de mayo del 2006 y la n.º 211-05 de las 9:40 horas del 7 de abril del 2005).

VIII.-EN CUANTO AL CRITERIO DE IMPUTACIÓN DE RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA AL ENTE MUNICIPAL DE ALAJUELA, COMO UNA DE LAS CAUSAS EFECTIVAS EN LA GENERACIÓN DEL HECHO DAÑOSO. La Municipalidad de Alajuela ha venido sosteniendo en todas las etapas procesales, la inexistencia de responsabilidad, al considerar que la señalización y demarcación de las calles públicas de la red vial cantonal, son competencias que les fueron transferidas a los entes municipales hasta el 01 de enero del 2016, fecha en que entró en vigencia la Ley 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal). Ya esta misma Sección del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, en sentencia n.° 101-2018-V, de las ocho horas del siete de diciembre del dos mil dieciocho, desarrolló, ampliamente este tema, desde la perspectiva jurídica. En ese sentido, es menester indicar que de conformidad con los artículos 1 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos (Ley número 5060, vigente desde el 22 de agosto de 1972) y, 2 apartado 96 de la Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial (Ley número 9078, vigente desde el 26 de octubre del 2012), la administración y mantenimiento de la red vial cantonal corresponde a las Municipalidades. Ahora bien, aunque el numeral 14 de la misma Ley de Administración Vial (Ley número 6324, vigente desde el 24 de mayo de 1979) establece que: “…La Dirección de Ingeniería de Transito tendrá a su cargo el estudio de los problemas de tránsito y de sus consecuencias ambientales y sociales, así como el diseño y la ejecución de medidas y norma técnicas para controlarlas. Para tales fines tendrá a su cargo el señalamiento vial y la planificación de servicios de transporte público…”; dicha norma no puede aplicarse de manera aislada. Ello por cuanto y atendiendo a las competencias de administración y mantenimiento de la red vial cantonal otorgadas las Corporaciones Municipales, el legislador mediante la propia Ley 9078 reformó el artículo 15 de la Ley de Administración Vial (Ley número 6324, vigente desde el 24 de mayo de 1979), en el sentido de que “…La Dirección de Ingeniería de Tránsito tendrá una Oficina Coordinadora y de Asistencia Técnica para asesorar a las municipalidades en los aspectos de ingeniería, planificación y regulación del tránsito. Los programas, planes y diseños para proyectos relacionados con el tránsito en los cantones deberán ser revisados y aprobados en un plazo hasta de treinta días hábiles por la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito antes de ser ejecutados por la respectiva municipalidad; vencido este plazo sin haberse emitido un criterio, se tendrán por aprobados. Lo anterior sin perjuicio de los proyectos que involucren el traslado o aprobación de paradas de transporte público, en tránsito o terminales, que requieren la aprobación del Consejo de Transporte Público, por lo que en estos casos el plazo anterior no aplicará respecto de esta institución…”. En ese sentido, si bien de manera genérica el numeral 11 de la Ley de Administración Vial, le otorga a la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, la competencia de estudiar, diseñar, ejecutar medidas y emitir normas técnicas para regular y controlar los problemas de tránsito –lo que incluye el señalamiento vial y la planificación de servicios de transporte-; también lo es, que con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal), la labor de la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito en el caso de la red vial cantonal, se limitaba a revisar y aprobar en un plazo de treinta días hábiles, los programas, planes y diseños tendentes a la planificación y regulación del tránsito en la red vial cantonal, antes de que pudieran ser ejecutados por la respectiva Municipalidad, sin perjuicio de que vencido ese plazo sin haberse emitido un criterio, se tendrían por aprobados y el ente municipal proponente estaba facultado para implementarlos. En consecuencia, la administración y mantenimiento por parte de las Municipalidades de las calles públicas que conforman la red vial cantonal, no sólo comprendía atender las necesidades de construcción o reparación de la superficie de rodamiento de las calles o caminos del cantón, sino también, la planificación, el diseño y la regulación los problemas del tránsito -que incluye el señalamiento vial horizontal o vertical en las calles o caminos del cantón, como una de las manifestaciones de la Seguridad Vial-, que requería -previo a su ejecución por parte de la Municipalidad respectiva- que la Dirección de Ingeniería de Tránsito diera su aprobación en un plazo de treinta días hábiles, aunque el ente municipal podía ejecutarlos, si vencido ese plazo la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito no hubiera emitido criterio. Ahora bien, con la promulgación y entrada en vigencia de la Ley 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal) y de su Reglamento (Decreto Ejecutivo 40137 de 12 de diciembre del 2016), el cambio únicamente consistió en que las Municipalidades deben aplicar y garantizar la incorporación del componente de seguridad vial en todas las obras, diseños y programas relacionados con el tránsito, en coordinación con el Consejo de Seguridad Vial y la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito (artículos 2 párrafo último, 10 y Transitorio I de la Ley 9329; 5 inciso g del Decreto Ejecutivo 40137), dependencia ésta última, que se limitará a fiscalizar la materia de seguridad vial, mediante el ejercicio de actividades de asesoría, coordinación y logística con los gobiernos locales, conforme a los lineamientos técnicos generales que promulgue el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) como ente rector y fiscalizador en la materia (artículos 10 y Transitorio I de la Ley 9329 y 38 del Decreto Ejecutivo 40137). Tan es así, que el artículo 1 de la Ley 9329 es claro al indicar que el fin de ese cuerpo normativo es transferir a los gobiernos locales la atención plena y exclusiva de la red vial cantonal, transferencia cuyos alcances –en lo que interesa a este caso y sin perjuicio de las regulaciones en cuanto a los fondos públicos con los que contarán para tal efecto- están referidos a la relación que las Municipalidades mantendrán con el MOPT –como órgano rector y fiscalizador en la materia-, y/o con el Consejo de Seguridad Vial, la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito o el Consejo de Transporte Público –que asesoran, coordinan y dan logística técnica a los gobiernos locales en el ámbito de su competencia-. Por ende, en el numeral 2 de la Ley 9329, el legislador se limitó a describir las competencias que comprende la administración y mantenimiento de la red vial cantonal por parte de las Municipalidades, y que ya estaban definidas –al menos en lo que se refiere a planificar, diseñar y regular los problemas de tránsito en las calles y caminos públicos de la red vial cantonal, que comprende todo lo relativo a la Seguridad Vial- en el artículo 15 de la Ley de Administración Vial, reformado por el numeral 248 de la Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial, número 9078 del 4 de octubre del 2012. En consecuencia, este órgano colegiado reitera que con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 9329 (Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias para la Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal), la administración y mantenimiento a cargo de las Municipalidades de las calles públicas que conforman su respectiva red vial cantonal, no sólo comprendía atender las necesidades de construcción o reparación de la superficie de rodamiento de las mismas; sino también, la planificación, el diseño y la regulación de los problemas del tránsito -que incluye el señalamiento vial horizontal o vertical en las calles o caminos del cantón, como una de las manifestaciones de la Seguridad Vial-, las que de previo a su ejecución por la Municipalidad respectiva, requerían ser estudiadas y aprobadas por la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito, dependencia que debía pronunciarse al efecto en un plazo de treinta días hábiles, no obstante, los entes municipales podían ejecutar los programas, planes o diseños para regular los problemas de tránsito, si vencido ese plazo la Dirección General de Ingeniería de Tránsito no hubiera emitido criterio. Ahora bien, teniendo claro que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico la competente para dar mantenimiento en cuanto a la señalización y demarcación de las calles y caminos que conforman la red vial cantonal, era la Municipalidad de Alajuela, es menester determinar si se configura un criterio de responsabilidad objetiva en su contra y si existe un nexo de causalidad con los daños morales subjetivos y materiales sufridos por los demandantes.”