Accident on concessioned highway: lack of causal link and acquittal of defendantsAccidente en carretera concesionada: falta de nexo causal y absolución de demandados

******************************************************** ******************************************************** PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: Nombre147246 .- DEMANDADOS: AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ESTADO, CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD and CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES.- ********************************************************************* SENTENCIA Nº 103 - 2012 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN OCTAVA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANEXO A.- At sixteen hours on the thirtieth of November of the year two thousand twelve.- Proceso de conocimiento filed by Mr. Nombre147246 , of legal age, married, resident of Puntarenas, bearer of identity card number CED114883 – – . Acting as special judicial attorney is attorney CARLOS VARGAS MONTERO, of legal age, married, lawyer, resident of Puntarenas, bearer of identity card number CED114884 – – , bar association number CED114885 (folios 01 to 10 of the principal file) against AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED21174 – – , represented by Mr. Nombre101755 , of legal age, married, economist, Spanish citizen, passport No. Placa16655 and Nombre102684 , of legal age, married, civil engineer, Chilean citizen, passport No. 9854989 – 7, in their capacity as unlimited general attorneys-in-fact. Acting as general judicial attorney is attorney JULIO ENRIQUE ZELAYA RODRÍGUEZ, of legal age, single, lawyer, resident of Escazú, bearer of identity card CED114886 – – and bar association number CED114887 (folios 11, 12, 13, 69, 84 to 91 and 187 of the judicial file); ESTADO, represented by the Procurador of the Public Law Area, attorney OMAR RIVERA MESÉN, of legal age, married, lawyer, resident of San José, bearer of identity card number CED3622 – – and bar association number CED114888 (folios 60 of the judicial file); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, represented by its special judicial attorneys, attorney MARIO MATAMOROS ACUÑA, of legal age, divorced, lawyer, bearer of identity card number CED114889 – – , bar association number CED114890 and attorney JORGE ARTURO MADRIGAL SANCHO, of legal age, single, lawyer, resident of San José, bearer of identity card number CED114891 – – , bar association number CED114892 CED114893 (folios 200 to 205 of the judicial file) and CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, represented by its special judicial attorney, attorney OLGA MARTHA FALLAS RAMÍREZ, of legal age, divorced, lawyer, resident of San José, bearer of identity card number CED17137 – – , bar association number CED114894 (folios 209 to 222 of the judicial file).-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Supported by the facts stated and legal citations adduced, this matter was filed by Mr. Nombre147246 with the aim that it be declared in judgment: "DAMAGES: MATERIAL, MORAL, LIFE, AND LABOR DAMAGES BECAUSE THE VEHICLE –sic- SINCE THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT –sic- HAS CEASED TO GENERATE ECONOMIC INCOME –sic- FROM THE SALE OF SEAFOOD, ATTORNEY'S FEES, WE FIX ALL THESE DAMAGES IN THE GLOBAL SUM OF EIGHTY MILLION COLONES. For these purposes –sic- Your Honor, we request that an expert in the matter be appointed to carry out an exact valuation of all damages. 1.- Because the vehicle was used every day for the transport of seafood, and it has been abandoned due to the damages suffered. 2.- Moral damage, because all this has affected him –sic- psychologically and morally, and affected his family, because he could have lost his life, and that day by chance his daughter did not accompany him –sic- on that trip, because she always accompanies him to distribute seafood to Orotina and other places. 3.- Life, because his life was at stake, because as a result of the impact and the way the vehicle was left –sic-, it was, as they say, a fatal wreck. 4.- Labor, because as a result of the collision against the post, the vehicle was left –sic- unusable and since July 4, 2009, it has been stranded without working, which weekly generated an approximate income of five hundred thousand colones. 5.- For fees, the amount to be awarded, according to what is achieved –sic- in this litis, and the percentage agreed upon with the client.-" Subsequently, during the preliminary hearing, the plaintiff quantified the damages as follows: five million colones for material damage; ten million colones for moral damage; ten million colones for loss of life and six million colones for labor damage (folios 05, 06, and 232 verso of the judicial file, as well as the video of the preliminary hearing).- 2.- Once the corresponding notice was given, the defendants responded negatively to the claims raised, and filed the following defenses: ESTADO: necessary passive joinder (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) (rejected through resolution No. 3778-2010 of 11:00 hours on October 6, 2010, at folios 120 to 125 of the judicial file), LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) and LACK OF STANDING TO SUE (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) (folios 60, 62, 63 and 68 of the judicial file); AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: LACK OF JURISDICTION (FALTA DE COMPETENCIA) (rejected through decision No. 3352 of 10:00 hours on September 3, 2010, visible at folios 96 to 97 verso; 130, 137 and 138 of the judicial file), RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA) (withdrawn during the preliminary hearing), LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) (folios 84 to 86 of the judicial file); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES: LACK OF PASSIVE STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA) and LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) (folio 202 of the principal file); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD: LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) and LACK OF PASSIVE STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA) (folios 212 and 215 of the principal file) and, finally, they requested that the filed claim be declared without merit, with the imposition of costs on its promoter (folios 68, 91, 203 and 219 of the principal file).- 3.- The preliminary hearing in this matter took place on July 20, 2012, at which time the RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA) defense initially filed by AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA was withdrawn and, in turn, the plaintiff's attorney proceeded to determine the amount sought for damages (folios 233 and 233 of the judicial file, and the video of the preliminary hearing).- 4.- The oral and public trial was held on November 12, 2012 (see oral trial hearing and hearing minutes at folios 250 and 251 of the judicial file).- 5.- The terms and prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings, and no defects or omissions likely to cause nullity or defenselessness to the parties are detected. This ruling is issued UNANIMOUSLY within the period indicated in Article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, after deliberation.- Drafted by Judge Cordero Mora:

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are considered as such: a) The vehicle, make Isuzu, light load, year 1990, cream color, capacity for three people, license plate Placa29345, tax value 1,210,000.00 and contract value 500,000.00, is registered in the National Registry at Volume 0009, Entry 00077862, Sequence 001 in the name of Mr. Nombre147247 , identity card number CED114895 - - (folios 52, 53, 58 and 59 of the judicial file); b) By means of a citation ticket from the Dirección General de la Policía de Tránsito, Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 of 07:34:08 p.m. on July 4, 2009, prepared by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, it was reported that on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 highway, the pick-up vehicle, make Isuzu, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. Nombre147246 , collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post (folios 16, 48, 49, 50, of the judicial file); c) At the time of the collision, the weather and road conditions were good, as was visibility, as it was a straight stretch (folios 48 to 51, 56 and 57 of the judicial file); d) In the segment of the highway where the accident occurred, there was a demarcation in the center of the four lanes, consisting of two continuous and parallel yellow lines that divided the traffic lanes with opposite directions (two lanes towards San José and two lanes towards Dirección6627, and the demarcation was between them), lines that, when approaching the zone where the posts for installing information and lighting signs are located, open up, always continuously, to surround the terrain where the posts are located, separating it from the vehicle traffic area (folios 23 to 29 of the judicial file, as well as both witnesses examined at the oral trial hearing); e) Between both continuous yellow lines, while they remained parallel and close, there were reflective devices placed in their central area (same previous evidence); f) The information post against which the plaintiff collided was excluded from the traffic zone due to the signage that defined its perimeter (same previous evidence); g) Once the collision was heard in the Traffic jurisdictional venue, the Juzgado de Puntarenas absolved the plaintiff here of responsibility as there were no elements to resolve the matter (folios 56 and 57 of the judicial file); h) The company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is the contractor and concessionaire of the highway where the accident occurred (uncontested fact as well as folios 206 to 208 of the judicial file); i) In the public works concession contract with public service corresponding to the San José – Caldera highway, it was indicated in clause 1.11.4, that if there is any injury or damage to third parties due to the construction or operation of said road, the contractor or concessionaire, if those detriments are attributable to it, would be the sole party responsible for their satisfaction (folios 206 to 208 of the file).- II.- FACTS NOT PROVEN: Of this nature, of importance for resolving this matter, the following are considered: a.- That the vehicle with license plate Placa29345 is the property of Mr. Nombre147246 ; b.- That there was a ditch and/or an information post in the middle of the highway on the day the events that support this claim occurred; c.- That the highway at the point where the accident took place lacked adequate signage, had design defects, generated accident risks, or that other collisions had occurred in the same place; d.- That the public bodies engaged in any conduct generating liability in favor of the plaintiff; e.- That traffic accidents constantly occurred on that stretch where the collision happened.

III.- CLAIM FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND OPPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANTS: In support of his civil treasury claim, Mr. Nombre147246 alleges that on July 4, 2009, he suffered a car accident around eighteen hours thirty minutes, while driving home in his vehicle with license plate Placa29345, on the highway between Orotina and Puntarenas. He indicates that he traveled through that place daily, since he was dedicated to the transport of seafood and, that day, approximately four kilometers before reaching Caldera, he encountered " . . . a ditch in the middle of the highway and without being able to momentarily control his vehicle he keeps the steering wheel held steady, because he does not see anything ahead due to lack of lighting on the highway, and when he manages to straighten his car, it violently impacts against the post that is in the middle of the highway, suffering great harm to his health, as a result of which he had a wound on his head, face, teeth, his legs, a severe blow to his chest and other various blows, leaving the vehicle at the same time totally destroyed and unusable, and unable to work in seafood, because as a result of this, he has not been able to work to this day. . .". He argues, fundamentally, that the mentioned highway between CALDERA and OROTINA, at the time of the accident was still under construction, observing machinery and workers in the area, without negligently providing any signage that could have prevented the accident he ultimately faced. No sign, he continues explaining, warned him of the existence of a ditch " . . . in the middle of the highway . . .", a circumstance that made adequate driving impossible and, in addition to the absence of lighting on the road, caused him to collide with a post that was also " . . . in the middle of the highway . . .". He reproaches that the highway was not finished, that there was no signage and, in general, no warning about the existence of a ditch and a post. He argues that he has not been able to continue working since his vehicle was destroyed, therefore he requests recognition of labor and material damage; that he almost lost his life and likewise his daughter who ordinarily accompanies him but fortunately did not on that occasion, for which he claims what he calls life loss damage, as well as moral damage. For its part, the ESTADO alleged that the plaintiff did not stipulate in a specific section what his main claim was in terms of Article 58, subsection d) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo; what the damages he requested to be indemnified consist of, did not specify the reason that originates them, nor did he proceed to estimate each of them, as required by Article 58, subsection e) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. It also indicated that the plaintiff estimated the claim at eighty million colones but, at the same time, requested an expert to carry out an exact valuation of the damages. For all the above, it requested the correction of such defects. Subsequently, supported by numeral 12 of the cited procedural regulations, it petitioned that CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD and CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES be joined as defendants in this proceeding. The first for being the " . . . technical body in charge of the conservation, rehabilitation and construction of highways . . .", and the second, because it corresponds to a concessioned road, for which reason it filed the defense of NECESSARY PASSIVE JOINDER (LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIA). In responding to the facts, it indicated that it was not evident to it that during the construction of the highway where the accident occurred the necessary precautions were not taken to avoid accidents; that this road was in good condition and marked, therefore it was not sustainable that he encountered a ditch; that the accident occurred on a flat straight stretch; that the temporal conditions were good, among other arguments, the basis for the defenses of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) and LACK OF STANDING TO SUE (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) regarding the material damages of the vehicle as it was not the property of the plaintiff. As for both Consejos, they responded negatively to the claim, arguing that their presence in this process was unnecessary based on the alleged factual framework, for which reason they raised LACK OF PASSIVE STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN PASIVA) and LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO). The contractor and concessionaire company, AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, focuses its defense on the existence of the excellent conditions of the highway where the accident occurred and the quality of the demarcation, which in its understanding justifies rejecting the claim by upholding the filed defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO).- IV.- ON LIABILITY IN MATTERS OF THE ROAD NETWORK: To address the issue of public transit routes located in the national territory, what is established in Article 121 of the Constitution must be kept in mind, which, when specifying the powers of the Legislative Assembly, in its subsection 14), as it interests us, indicates: "To decree the alienation or application to public uses of the Nation's own property." Along the same lines, Article 261 of the Civil Code clarifies: "Public things are those that, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can take advantage of because they are delivered to public use . . .". Well, based on the interference that land communication routes have in the Costa Rican economy and, in general, the social development of the country and the exercise of fundamental rights (access to health services, exchange of goods, among many other activities and services), it becomes evident that said areas are delivered to public use (and more specifically to public service according to Article 2 of Law No. 7798 of April 30, 1998). But also the Legislator, through regulations such as the Ley de Construcciones, Law No. 833 of November 2, 1949 (articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13), the Ley de Planificación Urbana, Law No. 4240 of November 15, 1968 (articles 42, 4 and 44, among others) and the Ley General de Caminos, No. 5060 of August 22, 1972 (articles 1 and 2 mainly), to mention some regulations on the matter, expressly concretize the public domain nature of the lands destined for public highways and roads. Thus, numeral 4 of the Ley de Construcciones, when defining the term public road, states that " . . . it is any land of public domain and common use, which by provision of the administrative authority is destined for free transit in accordance with planning laws and regulations and which is in fact already destined for that public use. Depending on their class, public roads will also be destined to ensure the aeration and lighting conditions of the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to adjacent properties; to the installation of any pipeline, artifact, apparatus or accessory belonging to a public work or destined for a public service." Immediately, Article 5 of that same norm, rules out any doubt that might still remain about the nature of those lands, by stating that "Public roads are inalienable and imprescriptible and therefore, no mortgage, seizure, use, usufruct or easement (servidumbre) may be constituted on them for the benefit of a specific person, in the terms of common law. The rights of transit, lighting and aeration, view, access, overflows and other similar ones inherent to the purpose of public roads shall be governed exclusively by the laws and Administrative Regulations." So, as a general principle, in the case of public domain assets referring to land communication routes, particularly, highways, freeways, roads, streets, bridges and other integral elements of the road networks, these are entrusted, as far as their maintenance is concerned, to public bodies or entities by reason of the ownership determination that the current legal system itself defines. Thus, in general terms, national highways, to the ESTADO and, cantonal roads, to the Municipal Governments of the zone where they are located, as can be inferred from the reading of Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972. In the first numeral, a bifurcation is introduced regarding the administration of public roads, those included in the national road network (primary highways, secondary highways, tertiary highways, including restricted-access highways and freeways which correspond to restricted-access highways with four or more lanes with or without a central divider island) which are in the hands of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (ministerial organ of the ESTADO in charge according to Article 2, subsection a), of the Law that creates the Ministerio de Transportes in substitution of the current Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Law No. 3155 of August 5, 1963, amended by Law No. 4686 of July 5, 1971, of "Planning, building and improving highways and roads. Maintaining highways and collaborating with the Municipalities in the conservation of local roads. Regulating and controlling the rights of way of existing or projected highways and roads. Regulating, controlling and supervising traffic and transport on public roads.") and those forming part of the cantonal road network (local roads, local streets and unclassified roads), entrusted to the Municipalities. The second numeral proceeds to specify the holding of ownership over those assets: "All lands occupied by existing public highways and roads or those to be built in the future are property of the State. Municipalities have ownership of the streets in their jurisdiction. Public highways and roads may only be built and improved by the Minister –sic- of Obras Públicas y Transportes. However, with prior authorization from said Ministry, municipalities and decentralized State institutions that have functions related to the construction of public roads may execute them directly or through third parties. In the case of new roads or expansions, the interested parties shall request from the Ministry the rigorous technical studies and recommendations, and, in this case, must indicate the economic resources they have available to carry out . . . ". Thereby, it becomes evident that the ESTADO, or the respective MUNICIPALIDAD, as holder of the administrative real right of ownership over the areas of public highways, is responsible not only for their administration, which involves, among other aspects, ensuring that said infrastructure is functional and, in general, suitable for the development of the transport activity of human beings and goods, but also, along the same lines, the neglect of said obligations could imply for them, based on the liability regime defined in the Ley General de la Administración Pública and the Ley de Protección al Consumidor, objective tort liability. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify, in the particular case of the ESTADO, given the creation of the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, as a maximum deconcentration organ, that although it is attached to the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, it has instrumental legal personality and budget in order to administer the Fondo de Vialidad, as determined by Article 3 of Law No. 7798 of April 30, 1998, the legislator also entrusting it through that norm, specifically Article 4, with the following objectives: “a) To plan, program, administer, finance, execute and control the conservation and construction of the national road network, in accordance with the programs prepared by the Planning Directorate of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. b) To administer its assets. c) To execute, through contracts, the works, supplies and services required for the conservation and construction process of the entirety of the national road network. d) To oversee the correct execution of the works, including quality control. e) To promote research, development and technological transfer in the field of road construction and conservation. f) To enter into contracts or provide the services necessary for the fulfillment of its objectives and functions.” So, being in charge of the maintenance and preservation of the national roads (Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the cited Law), its participation in liability matters for the condition of the roads is undoubted. Likewise, as stipulated in the Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, Law No. 7762 of April 14, 1998, the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES was created, a maximum deconcentration organ with instrumental legal personality to administer the Fondo Nacional de Concesiones and carry out agreements and contracts to fulfill its functions (Articles 6 and 7 of said norm) within which it is contemplated in Article 8 of that law, to ensure compliance with the inspection and control obligations of the concessions granted by the Secretaría Técnica, an activity defined in the following numeral 9 subsection d), an organ that must participate when the road was built in execution of a concession contract, as occurs in the case at hand, where the freeway where the accident that is the basis of this process took place was awarded for its elaboration and temporary operation to the company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. But in the case of public works concessions with public service, liability regarding third parties is expressly defined by Articles 18 subsection f), 19, 37 and 38 of Law No.7762, whereby, the Administration will only incur direct liability in exceptional and subsidiary cases, when the concessionaire cannot cover the indemnity. This being so, not only must an eventual liability of the ESTADO and the cited organs be assessed for this matter, but also that of the contractor company in charge of building the road where the accident occurred.- V.- ON THE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 4, 2009, AND THE LIABILITY ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANTS: As can be inferred from the citation ticket from the Dirección General de la Policía de Tránsito, Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 of 07:34:08 p.m. on July 4, 2009, issued by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 highway, the pick-up vehicle, make Isuzu, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. Nombre147246 , collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post. At that time the continuous yellow lines whose purpose is to separate traffic circulating in the opposite direction already existed, as evidenced in the photographs provided by the plaintiff himself, even surrounding the post zone on both sides with a single uniform line. Furthermore, when that demarcation was double, it is possible to verify between the yellow lines the existence of so-called cat's eyes, or light-refracting devices. The plaintiff alleges the non-existence of signage and indicates that while driving along that route he encountered first a ditch and subsequently a post in the lane, however, from the photos in the file it is not possible to accept such an allegation, not only because the lane looks in good condition, but also because the section that was not paved and where the post against which the plaintiff collided was installed, was separated from the road surface and traffic area of the freeway by a continuous yellow line, signage that in accordance with the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Terrestres in force as of July 2009, Law No. 7331 and its amendments, stipulates in numerals 116 and 235.48, that this line is used to separate vehicles traveling in the opposite direction and, in general, refers to an indication of impediment or prohibition from crossing it, for example, as was the case at that time, due to the existence of obstacles, with these remaining outside the traffic lane. Having formulated the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the liability regarding each of the defendants.- VI.- ON THE LIABILITY OF STATE BODIES: Based on the regulation just cited in Considerando IV, the ESTADO and its competent deconcentrated organs in matters of public roads and concessions, could only be tangentially liable regarding the detriments suffered and claimed by the plaintiff, specifically, if any of them had ordered the concessionaire to carry out an action or omission that came to influence the causation of the damages and injuries complained of, or if they incurred in lack of supervision of that company's obligations and, in turn, such non-compliance by the contractor generated the detriments that are the basis of the claim. However, none of those circumstances were alleged by Mr. Nombre147246, nor were they subject to demonstration in the case and neither can their existence be concluded from the elements contained in the case file, such circumstance implying the non-existence of a causal link between that claimed and the conduct of the defendant state bodies, which becomes essential to hold the ESTADO and its instrumentally personified organs liable for the detriments argued by Mr. Nombre147246 , all of which forces upholding the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) as no causal link is detected. In any case, as was formulated in the previous Considerando, the accident that is the basis of this process cannot be attributed to any person other than the plaintiff himself.- VII.- ON THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND CONCESSIONAIRE COMPANY: The claim raised by the plaintiff seeks a foundation in what is regulated in Article 18 subsection d), in relation to articles 18 subsection f), 19, 37 and 38, all of the Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos.

However, as is recorded in the evidence provided to the case file, the road was in good condition and the existing road markings (demarcación), had they been respected by the plaintiff, were clear and sufficient to avoid the accident that occurred. Indeed, as the Traffic Law (Ley de Tránsito) in force at that time, and even the current one, indicated, a solid yellow line constitutes a signal prohibiting crossing or passing over it, because on the other side, vehicles circulate in the opposite direction, or there are obstacles to free movement, or there is no surface on which to travel. For this reason, it is technically called a barrier line (línea de barrera). Even passing over it with a vehicle is punishable by a fine. Whereby, it is clear that this signage is a form of communication of the road traffic rules recognized by drivers who travel on the country's roads, and it is an obligation on their part to identify and recognize them. When the accident whose material and physical consequences are claimed in this instance occurred, not only was the road marking (demarcación) evidently in place, but the weather conditions were also favorable and the road was in excellent condition, as indicated in the report filed on that occasion and as stated by the witnesses who testified at trial. Even Mr. Nombre147248 referred to the existence of the constant yellow line and stated that it indicates one must not cross over it with the vehicle, corroborating not only that the signage had been applied and was visible, which in any case is confirmed by the elements shown in the photos submitted by the plaintiff, but also that it was perfectly interpretable. Under these circumstances, given that there is no evidence in the case file allowing us to reach the conclusion that the accident that occurred on July 4, 2009, took place due to the interference of AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, whether by act or omission, the absence of any causal link (nexo causal) between this contractor and the damages for which compensation is sought is determined, and therefore the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) raised by the concessionaire must be upheld and the lawsuit declared without merit in all its aspects. In any case, abundantly, it is worth highlighting the fact that in this matter, an aspect the claimant overlooked when filing the proceeding that is the subject of this decision, Mr. Nombre147246 did not read or appropriately interpret the existing traffic signage on the road at the moment he suffered the accident. Indeed, as determined by the Traffic Law (Ley de Tránsito) in the articles already referenced, the solid yellow line indicates the impossibility of crossing over such a road marking (demarcación) during the driving activity, meaning the area located after said line, both to the left and right of the authorized vehicular traffic zone, is excluded from transit, as it is not a running surface. In the specific case, as already indicated, according to what is recognized by the traffic officer who testified in the trial hearing, Mr. FRANCISCO NAVARRO MONGE, and the photographs provided by the plaintiff himself, they confirm the existence of the referenced road marking (demarcación) (solid yellow line), which was crossed by Mr. Nombre147246, consequently falling into what he described as a ditch and subsequently colliding with the base of an information sign post. It is alleged that the lines were not there, or had not been completed, however, from the evidence provided to the case file, this circumstance was not demonstrated, at least to a degree of relevance for the occurrence of the crash. Note that it was not proven that the tracing of the yellow line was interrupted; on the contrary, according to the demonstrative elements already cited, its existence and uniformity are verified, both before and after the post against which the motor vehicle driven by the claimant collided. Although the transverse lines within that area were not painted, the truth is that the meaning of the solid yellow line does not change due to their absence, and in any case, the functionality of these so-called islands is more for third parties (passersby or those who, while driving their motor vehicle, suffer a breakdown and must stop urgently), but the indication not to drive in that area is defined by the solid yellow line that did exist around it, determining a perimeter of inaccessibility that was not respected by the plaintiff. Hence, the allegation that the road marking (demarcación) did not exist or was insufficient to warn him that he should not drive in the area where the information post he collided with was located is not admissible for this jurisdictional body. Nor was it demonstrated that the road marking (demarcación) applied to that part of the highway led to confusion among drivers. On one hand, it is stated that Mr. Nombre147246 was shocked upon encountering a ditch and a post on the highway, when as was demonstrated, it is a highway he had used constantly for months, so it is not credible that it was only on July 4, 2009, that the signage misled him, for which, even his knowledge of the area from its constant use would have to be disregarded. Furthermore, no proof was submitted that accidents constantly occurred in that location, with these merely being simple assertions lacking the force to modify what is decided here. On the other hand, it is argued that on that same day two other vehicles were close to having an accident after the one suffered by the claimant for liability, but this in no way justifies the argument made, as the causes that may have intervened are not recorded, especially when the presence of onlookers at the place following the prior collision complicated ordinary traffic activity, which does not confirm it was a signage or highway layout error. Consequently, since Mr. Nombre147246 did not heed the prohibition against driving beyond the solid yellow line, it is not viable to attribute liability for the damages and injuries suffered to third parties, when they refer exclusively, based on the evidentiary elements presented to the case file, to the effects of his own acts, without this responsibility being transferable or transmissible to the defendants by the mere fact of traveling on a concessioned public road. Given such lack of connection, it becomes unnecessary and improper to analyze each of the items the plaintiff requests be compensated for, therefore a ruling is issued on this matter, including the non-demonstration that the vehicle was the property of Mr. Nombre147246, and on the contrary, it appears in the name of another person and the provided bill of sale lacks the respective formalities to be able to recognize the ownership right sought.- VIII.- ON THE EXCEPTIONS RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS: Having evaluated the claims and allegations of the claimant, it is appropriate to decide on the defenses formulated in this matter and, in general, the substantive requirements that must constitute a conflict of this nature. Thus, firstly, regarding the lack of standing (legitimación ad causam) invoked, it must be rejected in both of its forms. The charges argued by Mr. Nombre147246 originate from the vehicular accident he suffered on July 4, 2009, which occurred on a national highway owned by the STATE (ESTADO) which, as explained supra, entrusted the administration of this type of public domain property to the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, and being in the presence of a concessioned work, the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES is also involved, both in the capacity of bodies of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality, which must participate pursuant to article 12 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Likewise, the contractor company, as current legislation directs liability, if it exists, to it with respect to third parties. Consequently, the plaintiff has standing to sue the cited state bodies and the concessionaire, maintaining a current interest for these purposes, given that a ruling upholding his claims would imply an increase in his assets. On the other hand, as already indicated supra, in this conflict, the existence of a causal link (vínculo causal) between the conduct of the defendants and the injuries and damages for which compensation is requested was not demonstrated, reason for which the claimed LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) must be upheld, this action being declared without merit in all its aspects, omitting a ruling, as unnecessary, regarding each of the items whose payment was petitioned.- IX.- ON THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING: Regarding this item, under the protection of article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), this Court considers that we are not in the presence of any of the grounds for exemption provided in said article. Moreover, analyzing the factual picture that describes what happened on July 4, 2009, it is concluded that the plaintiff seeks to attribute to the defendants the damages and injuries suffered in an accident where only his conduct, and not that of the defendants, was the cause of the detriment suffered; even presenting allegations that are not supported by the reality that was determined in this specific case. All of which, in the understanding of this jurisdictional body, demonstrates the inexistence of good faith in this matter and justifies the imposition of the payment of both costs on the losing plaintiff here, as is indeed ordered.-

POR TANTO:

The exception of LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN) is rejected in both of its forms and the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO), raised by the defendants, is upheld. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre147246 against CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, the STATE (ESTADO), and the company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is declared without merit in all its aspects. Due to the manner in which this matter is decided, an assessment of the issue of the ACTIVE STANDING (LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) of Mr. Nombre147246 to claim damages for the vehicle with license plate number Placa29345 is omitted. Regarding the matter of costs, their payment is imposed on the losing party, Mr. Nombre147246 . NOTIFY.- Julio Alb. Cordero Mora Nombre632 Alner Palacios García 5.- Regarding fees, the sum awarded shall be according to what was achieved <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold">–</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">-sic- in this litigation, and the percentage agreed upon with the client.-" </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">Subsequently, during the preliminary hearing, the plaintiff quantified the matter of damages (daños y perjuicios) as follows: five million colones for material damage (daño material); ten million colones for moral damage (daño moral); ten million colones for loss of life (pérdida de vida) and six million colones for labor-related damage (daño laboral) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 05, 06 and 232 vuelto of the judicial file, as well as the preliminary hearing video)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">2.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> Once the formal transfer was completed, the defendants responded negatively to the claims made, and raised the following defenses (excepciones): </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">ESTADO</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(rejected through resolution Nº 3778-2010 of 11:00 hours on October 6, 2010 at folios 120 to 125 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) and LACK OF STANDING TO SUE (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 60, 62, 63 and 68 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">LACK OF JURISDICTION (FALTA DE COMPETENCIA) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(rejected by decision Nº 3352 of 10:00 hours on September 3, 2010, visible at folios 96 to 97 vuelto; 130, 137 and 138 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(abandoned during the preliminary hearing)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 84 to 86 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">PASSIVE LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">and LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folio 202 of the main file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">and PASSIVE LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 212 and 215 of the main file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> and, finally, they requested that the filed lawsuit be declared without merit, with costs imposed on its promoter </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 68, 91, 203 and 219 of the main file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">3.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The preliminary hearing in this matter took place on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">July 20, 2012</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, at which time the defense of RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA) initially raised by </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> was abandoned and, in turn, the legal representative of the plaintiff proceeded to determine the amount sought for damages (daños y perjuicios) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 233 and 233 of the judicial file, and the preliminary hearing video)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">4.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The oral and public trial was held on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">November 12, 2012</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(see trial hearing and hearing record at folios 250 and 251 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">5.</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">- In the proceedings, the legal terms and prescriptions have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are detected. This ruling is issued </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">UNANIMOUSLY</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> within the period indicated in Article 111 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">after deliberation</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.- </span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">Drafted by Judge Cordero Mora:</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO):</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">I.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS):</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are deemed as such: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">a) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">The vehicle, make Isuzu, light load, year 1990, cream color, capacity for three persons, license plate Placa29345, taxable value 1,210,000.oo and contract value 500,000.oo, is registered in the National Registry (Registro Nacional) at Volume 0009, Entry 00077862, Sequence 001 in the name of Mr. Nombre147247</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, identity card number CED114895 -</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 52, 53, 58 and 59 of the judicial file)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">b) </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">By means of citation form from the Dirección General de la Policía de tránsito, Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 of 07:34:08 pm on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">July 4, 2009</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, prepared by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, it was reported that on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 - highway, the pick-up vehicle, make Isuzu, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">Nombre147246</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">folios 16, 48, 49, 50,</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">of the judicial file</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">);</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> c)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> At the time of the collision, the weather and highway conditions were good, as was visibility since it was a straight stretch (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">folios 48 to 51, 56 and 57 of the judicial file</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">); </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">d)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> In the segment of the highway where the accident occurred, there was signage in the center of the four lanes, consisting of two continuous, parallel yellow lines dividing the traffic lanes with opposing directions </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(two lanes towards San José and two lanes towards Dirección6627, and the signage was between them)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, lines that, when approaching the area where the posts for installing information and lighting signs were located, opened up, always continuously, to surround the land where the posts are located, separating it from the vehicle circulation area </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(folios 23 to 29 of the judicial file, as well as both witnesses examined at the oral trial hearing)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">e)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> Between both continuous yellow lines, while they remained parallel and close together, reflective devices were placed in their central area </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(same previous evidence</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">); </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">f)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The information post against which the plaintiff collided was excluded from the circulation zone by reason of the signage that defined its perimeter (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">same previous evidence</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">); </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">g)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> Once the collision was heard in the jurisdictional traffic court, the Juzgado de Puntarenas acquitted the plaintiff herein of responsibility, having no elements to resolve the matter (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">folios 56 and 57 of the judicial file</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">); </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">h)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> is the contractor and concessionaire (concesionaria) of the highway where the accident occurred (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">uncontested fact as well as folios 206 to 208 of the judicial file</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">); </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">i)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> In the Concession Contract for Works with Public Service (contrato de concesión de Obra con servicio público) corresponding to the San José – Caldera highway, clause 1.11.4 stated that, should there be any injury or damage to third parties by reason of the construction or operation of said road, the contractor or concessionaire, should those damages be attributable to it, would be solely responsible for their satisfaction (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">folios 206 to 208 of the file</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">).-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">II.- UNPROVEN FACTS (HECHOS NO PROBADOS): </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">Of this nature, of importance for resolving this matter, the following are deemed as such: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">a.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> That the vehicle with license plate Placa29345 is the property of Mr. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Nombre147246</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> ; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">b.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> That there was a ditch (zanja) and/or an information post in the middle of the highway on the day the facts supporting this lawsuit occurred; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">c.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That the highway at the point where the accident took place lacked adequate signage, had design defects, generated accident risks, or that other collisions had occurred in the same place; </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">d.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> That the public bodies engaged in any conduct generating liability in favor of the plaintiff;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">e.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> That traffic accidents constantly occurred on that stretch where the collision took place.-</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">III.- CLAIM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF AND OPPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANTS: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">In support of his civil treasury lawsuit (demanda civil de hacienda), Mr. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Nombre147246</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">alleges that on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">July 4, 2009</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> he suffered a car accident around eighteen hundred thirty hours, while driving home in his vehicle with license plate Placa29345, on the highway between Orotina and Puntarenas. He indicates that he traveled through that place daily, since he was dedicated to the transport of seafood and, that day, approximately four kilometers before arriving at Caldera, he encountered "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> . . . a ditch (zanja) in the middle of the highway and, unable for the moment to control his vehicle, he keeps the steering wheel held, because he sees nothing in front due to the lack of illumination on the highway, and when he manages to straighten his car, it violently impacts against the post that is in the middle of the highway, suffering great harm to his health, as a consequence of which he had a wound to his head, face, teeth, his legs, a serious blow to his chest and other various blows, simultaneously leaving the vehicle totally destroyed and useless, and unable to work in seafood, because as a consequence thereof, to this day he has not been able to work. . .</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">". He argues, fundamentally, that the said highway between CALDERA and OROTINA, at the time of the accident, was still under construction, with machinery and workers observed in the area, without negligently providing any signage that could have prevented the accident he ultimately faced. No sign, he continues to state, warned him of the existence of a ditch "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">. . . in the middle of the highway . . .</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">", a circumstance that made adequate driving impossible for him and, in addition to the absence of illumination on the road, caused him to collide with a post that was also "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">. . . found in the middle of the highway . . .".</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> He criticizes that the highway was not finished, that there was no signage and, in general, no warning about the existence of a ditch and a post. He argues that he has not been able to continue working as his vehicle was destroyed, for which reason he requests recognition of labor-related (daño laboral) and material damage (daño material); that he nearly lost his life, as would have his daughter who ordinarily accompanies him but on that occasion fortunately did not, which is why he claims what he calls damage for loss of life (daño de pérdida de vida), as well as moral damage (daño moral). For its part, the </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">ESTADO</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> argued that the plaintiff did not stipulate in a specific section what his main claim was in terms of Article 58, subsection d) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo); what the damages (daños y perjuicios) he requested compensation for consisted of, he did not specify the reason that originated them, nor did he proceed to estimate each of them, as required by Article 58, subsection e) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Furthermore, it indicated that the plaintiff estimated the lawsuit at eighty million colones but, at the same time, requested an expert to carry out an exact valuation of the damages (daños y perjuicios). For all the above, it requested the correction of such defects. Subsequently, relying on numeral 12 of the cited procedural regulation, it petitioned that the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD and the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES be joined as defendants to this proceeding. The former because it is the "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">. . . technical body charged with the conservation, rehabilitation and construction of highways . . ."</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, and the latter, by reason of it being a concessioned road, for which it raised the defense (excepción) of NECESSARY PASSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES (LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIA). Upon responding to the facts, it stated that it could not attest that during the construction of the highway where the accident occurred, the necessary care was not taken to avoid accidents; that said road was in good condition and marked, so it was not sustainable that he encountered a ditch; that the accident occurred on a flat straight stretch; that the weather conditions were good, among other arguments, the basis for the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) and LACK OF STANDING TO SUE (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) regarding the material damage to the vehicle, as it was not the plaintiff's property. As for both Consejos, they responded negatively to the lawsuit, arguing that their presence in this proceeding was unnecessary based on the alleged factual picture, for which they raised PASSIVE LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN PASIVA) and LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO). The contracting and concessionaire company, AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, focuses its defense on the existence of the excellent conditions of the highway where the accident occurred and the quality of the signage, which in its understanding justifies dismissing the lawsuit by upholding the raised defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO).- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">IV.- ON LIABILITY IN ROAD NETWORK MATTERS:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> To address the issue of public roads located in the national territory, what is provided in Article 121 of the Magna Carta must first be borne in mind, which, when specifying the powers of the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa), in its subsection 14), regarding what interests us, states: "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">To decree the alienation or the application to public uses of the Nation's own property.</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">" Along the same lines, Article 261 of the Civil Code clarifies: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">"Public things are those that, by law, are permanently destined to any service of general utility, and those which everyone can take advantage of by being given over to public use . . .". </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">Well then, given the influence that land communication routes have on the Costa Rican economy and, in general, the social development of the country and the exercise of fundamental rights </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(access to health services, exchange of merchandise, among many other activities and services), </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">it becomes evident that said areas are given over to public use (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">and more specifically to public service according to Article 2 of Law Nº 7798 of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">April 30, 1998</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">). But also, the Legislature, through regulations such as the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), Law Nº 833 of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">November 2, 1949</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">), the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), Law Nº 4240 of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">November 15, 1968</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> (</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Articles 42, 4 and 44, among others</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">) and the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos), Nº 5060 of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">August 22, 1972</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Articles 1 and 2 mainly)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, to refer to some regulations on the matter, expressly concretize the public domain nature (naturaleza demanial) of the lands destined for public highways and roads. Thus, numeral 4 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), when defining the term public thoroughfare (vía pública), states that </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">". . . it is any land of public domain (dominio público) and of common use, that by provision of the administrative authority is destined for free transit in accordance with the planning laws and regulations and that, in fact, is already destined for that public use. According to their class, public thoroughfares shall also be destined to ensure the aeration and illumination conditions of the buildings that limit them; to facilitate access to adjoining properties; to the installation of any pipeline, artifact, apparatus or accessory belonging to a public work or destined to a public service."</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> Immediately, Article 5 of that same norm rules out any doubt that might still be held about the nature of those lands, by stating that </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">"Public thoroughfares are inalienable and imprescriptible and therefore, no mortgage, seizure, use, usufruct or easement (servidumbre) may be constituted over them for the benefit of a specific person, under the terms of common law. The rights of transit, illumination and aeration, view, access, spills and other similar ones inherent to the destiny of public thoroughfares shall be governed exclusively by the laws and Administrative Regulations."</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> So that, in principle, in the case of public domain goods (bienes de dominio público) referring to land communication routes, particularly highways, freeways, roads, streets, bridges and other integral elements of road networks, these are entrusted, regarding their maintenance, to public bodies or entities by reason of the determination of belonging that the current legal system itself defines. Thus, in general terms, national highways, to the </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">ESTADO</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> and, cantonal roads, to the Municipal Governments of the area where they are located, as can be extracted from reading Articles 1 and 2 of Law Nº 5060 of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">August 22, 1972</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">.</span> In the first point, a division is introduced regarding the administration of public roads, those included in the national road network *(carreteras primarias, carreteras secundarias, carreteras terciarias, incluidas las carreteras de acceso restringido y las autopistas que corresponden a carreteras -de acceso restringido- de cuatro o más carriles con o sin isla central divisoria)* which remain in the hands of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) *(ministerial body of the **STATE** responsible, according to Article 2, subsection a), of the Law creating the Ministry of Transport to replace the then-current Ministry of Public Works, Law No. 3155 of **05 August 1963**, amended by Law No. 4686 of **05 July 1971**, for "**Planificar, construir y mejorar las carreteras y caminos. Mantener las carreteras y colaborar con las Municipalidades en la conservación de los caminos vecinales. Regular y controlar los derechos de vía de las carreteras y caminos existentes o en proyecto. Regular, controlar y vigilar el tránsito y el transporte por los caminos públicos.**")* and those forming part of the cantonal road network ***(Caminos vecinales, calles locales y caminos no clasificados)***, entrusted to the Municipalities. The second point goes on to specify the holding of ownership over these assets: **"All lands occupied by existing public highways and roads or those to be built in the future are the property of the State. The municipalities have ownership of the streets within their jurisdiction. Public highways and roads may only be built and improved by the Minister -sic- of Public Works and Transport. However, with prior authorization from said Ministry, the municipalities and decentralized State institutions, which have functions related to the construction of public roads, may execute them directly or through third parties. In the case of new roads or expansions, interested parties shall request the Ministry to conduct the required technical studies and recommendations, and must, in this case, indicate the economic resources they have available to carry out . . . ".** With this, it becomes evident that the **STATE**, or rather, the respective **MUNICIPALITY**, as the holder of the administrative real right of ownership over the public highway areas, is responsible not only for their administration, which involves, among other aspects, ensuring that said infrastructure is functional and, in general, suitable for the development of the transportation activity of human beings and goods, but also, along the same lines, neglecting these obligations could entail, under the liability regime defined in the General Law of Public Administration and the Consumer Protection Law, strict non-contractual civil liability. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify, in the specific case of the **STATE**, given the creation of the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD**, as a body of maximum deconcentration, that although it is attached to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, it has instrumental legal personality and a budget in order to administer the Road Fund, as determined by Article 3 of Law No. 7798 of **30 April 1998**, the legislator also entrusting it through that rule, specifically Article 4, with the following objectives: "**a) Planear, programar, administrar, financiar, ejecutar y controlar la conservación y la construcción de la red vial nacional, en concordancia con los programas que elabore la Dirección de Planificación del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. b) Administrar su patrimonio. c) Ejecutar, mediante contratos, las obras, los suministros y servicios requeridos para el proceso de conservación y construcción de la totalidad de la red vial nacional. d) Fiscalizar la ejecución correcta de los trabajos, incluyendo el control de la calidad. e) Promover la investigación, el desarrollo y la transferencia tecnológica en el campo de la construcción y conservación vial. f) Celebrar contratos o prestar los servicios necesarios para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos y funciones.**" So that, being in charge of the maintenance and preservation of national roads (***Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23, and 24 of the cited Law***), its participation in matters of liability for the condition of the roads is undoubted. Likewise, as stipulated in the General Law on Concession of Public Works with Public Services, Law No. 7762 of **14 April 1998**, the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES** was created, a body of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality to administer the National Concessions Fund and enter into agreements and contracts to fulfill its functions (***Articles 6 and 7 of said norm***), among which Article 8 of that law contemplates ensuring compliance with the inspection and control obligations of concessions granted by the Technical Secretariat, an activity defined in the following Article 9, subsection d), a body that must participate when the road was built under the execution of a concession contract, as is the case here, where the highway where the accident that is the basis of this process occurred was awarded its construction and temporary operation to the company **AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**. But in the case of public works concessions with public service, liability to third parties is expressly defined by Articles 18, subsection f), 19, 37, and 38 of Law No. 7762, whereby the Administration will only incur direct liability in exceptional cases, and subsidiary liability, when the concessionaire cannot cover the compensation. Thus, for this matter, it is necessary to assess not only a potential liability of the **STATE** and the cited bodies, but also that of the contractor company responsible for building the road where the accident occurred. - **V.- REGARDING THE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON 04 JULY 2009 AND THE LIABILITY ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANTS:** As can be inferred from the citation notice of the Directorate General of the Traffic Police, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 at 07:34:08 pm on **04 July 2009**, issued by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Direction17860 road, the pick-up vehicle, Isuzu brand, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. **Nombre147246** , collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post. At that time, the continuous yellow lines whose purpose is to separate traffic traveling in the opposite direction already existed, as evidenced in the photographs provided by the plaintiff themselves, even surrounding the area with posts on both sides with a single uniform line. Furthermore, where that marking was double, it is possible to verify the existence of so-called cat's eyes, or light-refracting devices, between the yellow lines. The plaintiff alleges the absence of signage and indicates that while driving along that route they first encountered a ditch and subsequently a post in the road; however, from the photos in the case file, it is not possible to accept such an allegation, not only because the road is observed to be in good condition, but also because the section that was not paved and where the post the plaintiff collided with was installed was separated from the highway's running and traffic area by a continuous yellow line, a marking that, in accordance with the Land Transit Law in force as of July 2009, Law No. 7331 and its amendments, stipulates in Articles 116 and 235.48 that this line is used to separate vehicles traveling in the opposite direction and, in general, refers to an indication of impediment or prohibition from crossing it, for example, as was the case at that time, due to the existence of obstacles, these being outside the traffic lane. Having stated the above, it is necessary to analyze the liability of each of the defendants.- **VI.- REGARDING THE LIABILITY OF THE STATE BODIES:** Based on the regulations just cited in Considerando IV, the **STATE** and its deconcentrated bodies competent in matters of public roads and concessions could only be tangentially liable for the losses suffered and claimed by the plaintiff, specifically, if any of them had ordered the concessionaire to carry out an action or omission that influenced the causation of the damages and injuries alleged, or if they incurred a lack of supervision of that company's obligations and, in turn, such non-compliance by the contractor generated the losses that are the basis of the lawsuit. However, none of these circumstances was alleged by Mr. **Nombre147246,** nor were they demonstrated in this case, and their existence cannot be concluded from the evidence on record, this circumstance implying the nonexistence of a causal link between what is sought and the conduct of the defendant State bodies, which is essential to hold the **STATE** and its instrumentally personified bodies liable for the losses argued by Mr. **Nombre147246** , all of which requires accepting the defense of **FALTA DE DERECHO** as no causal link whatsoever is detected. In any event, as stated in the preceding Considerando, the accident that is the basis of this process cannot be attributed to any person other than the plaintiff himself.- **VII.- REGARDING THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND CONCESSIONAIRE COMPANY:** The claim brought by the plaintiff seeks support in the provisions of Article 18, subsection d), in relation to Articles 18, subsection f), 19, 37, and 38, all from the General Law on Concession of Public Works with Public Services. However, as evidenced by the proof provided to the case file, the road was in good condition and the existing road markings, had they been respected by the plaintiff, were clear and sufficient to avoid the accident that occurred. Indeed, as the Traffic Law in force at the time indicated, and even the current one, the continuous yellow line implies a signal of impediment from crossing or passing over it, since on the other side of it, vehicles travel in the opposite direction, or there are obstacles to free movement, or there is no surface upon which to travel. This is why it is technically called a barrier line. Even crossing it with the vehicle is punishable by a fine. Thus, it is clear that this signage is a form of communication of the rules of road circulation recognized by drivers who travel on the country's roads, and it is their obligation to identify and recognize them. By the time the accident occurred, the material and physical consequences of which are claimed in this instance, not only was the road marking clearly in place, but the weather conditions were also favorable, and the road was in excellent condition, as indicated in the report prepared at that time and as stated by the witnesses who testified at trial. Indeed, Mr. Nombre147248 referred to the existence of the constant yellow line and stated that it indicates it should not be crossed with the vehicle, corroborating not only that the road marking had been performed and was visible, which in any case is confirmed by the elements shown in the photos presented by the plaintiff, but also that it was perfectly interpretable. Under these circumstances, given that there is no evidence in the case file allowing the conclusion that the accident that occurred on **04 July 2009** took place due to the interference of **AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**, either by action or omission, the absence of any causal link of said contractor with the damages for which compensation is sought is determined. Therefore, the defense of FALTA DE DERECHO raised by the concessionaire must be accepted, and the lawsuit must be dismissed in all its respects. In any case, for further clarification, it is convenient to highlight the fact that in this matter, an aspect the plaintiff left aside when filing the process subject to decision, Mr. **Nombre147246** did not read or adequately interpret the traffic signs existing on the road at the time he suffered the accident. Indeed, as determined by the Traffic Law in the articles already referred to, the continuous yellow line signifies the impossibility of exceeding that road marking during driving activity; that is, the area located beyond said line, both to the left and to the right of the authorized vehicle circulation zone, is excluded from traffic, as it is not a running surface. In this case, as already indicated, as recognized by the traffic officer who testified at the trial hearing, Mr. FRANCISCO NAVARRO MONGE, and the photographs provided by the plaintiff themselves, they confirm the existence of the referred-to road marking (***continuous yellow line***), which was exceeded by Mr. **Nombre147246,** consequently falling into what he indicated was a ditch and subsequently colliding against the base of an information sign post. It is alleged that the lines were not there, or that they had not been completed; however, from the evidence provided to the case file, this circumstance was not demonstrated, at least to a degree of relevance for the occurrence of the collision. It should be noted that it was not proven that the tracing of the yellow line was interrupted; on the contrary, according to the demonstrative elements already cited, its existence and uniformity are verified, both before and after the post against which the motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff collided. While the transversal lines within that area were not painted, the truth is that the meaning of the continuous yellow line does not change due to their absence; in any case, the functionality of the so-called islands is more for third parties (*passersby or those who, while driving their vehicle, suffer a breakdown and must make an emergency stop*), but the indication not to circulate in that area is defined by the continuous yellow line that did exist around it, determining a perimeter of inaccessibility that was not respected by the plaintiff. Hence, this jurisdictional body cannot accept the allegation that the road marking did not exist or was insufficient to warn him not to drive through the area where the information post against which he collided was located. Neither was it demonstrated that the road markings made on that part of the road led drivers to confusion. On one hand, it is affirmed that Mr. **Nombre147246** was startled upon encountering a ditch and a post on the road, when as was demonstrated, it is a road he had used constantly for months, so it is not credible that it was only on **04 July 2009** that the signage misled him, which would even require ignoring his knowledge of the area from its constant use. Furthermore, no evidence was provided that accidents constantly occurred at that location, these being only simple statements lacking the force to modify what is decided here. On the other hand, it is argued that on that same day two more vehicles were close to having an accident after the one faced by the claimant for liability, but this in no way justifies the claim deduced, as the causes that may have mediated are not recorded, especially when the presence of onlookers at the site following the prior collision complicated ordinary traffic activity, which does not confirm that there was a signing or road layout error. Thus, as Mr. **Nombre147246** did not heed the prohibition from driving beyond the continuous yellow line, it is not feasible to blame third parties for the liability for the damages and injuries suffered, as they refer exclusively, based on the evidentiary elements presented in the case file, to the effects of his own acts, which cannot be transmitted or transferred to the defendants merely by the fact of traveling on a concessioned public road. Given this lack of link, it becomes unnecessary and inappropriate to analyze each of the items for which the plaintiff requests compensation; therefore, a pronouncement is issued on this matter, including the lack of demonstration that the vehicle was the property of Mr. **Nombre147246**, and conversely appears under the name of another person, and the bill of sale provided lacks the respective formalities to recognize the property right that is claimed.- **VIII.- REGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS:** Once the claims and allegations of the plaintiff have been evaluated, it is necessary to decide on the defenses raised in this matter and, in general, the substantive prerequisites that must constitute a conflict of this nature. Thus, firstly, regarding the alleged lack of standing (falta de legitimación ad causam), it must be rejected in both its modalities. The charges argued by Mr. **Nombre147246** originate from the vehicular accident he suffered on **04 July 2009**, which occurred on a national highway owned by the **STATE** which, as explained supra, entrusted the administration of this type of public domain asset to the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD**, and as this is a concessioned work, the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES** is also involved, both as bodies of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality, which must participate pursuant to Article 12 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure. Likewise, the contractor company, since the current legislation directs, where it exists, liability towards third parties. Consequently, the plaintiff has standing (legitimación) to sue the cited State bodies and the concessionaire, maintaining a current interest for those purposes, since a ruling in favor of his claims would imply an increase in his assets. On the other hand, as already indicated supra, in this conflict, the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the defendants and the injuries and damages for which compensation is requested was not demonstrated, which is why the alleged FALTA DE DERECHO must be accepted, dismissing this action in all its respects, omitting to rule, as it is unnecessary, on each of the items whose payment was requested.- **IX.- REGARDING THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING:** As to this item, under the protection of Article 193 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, this Court considers that it is not in the presence of any of the grounds for exoneration set forth in said article. Furthermore, analyzing the factual picture that describes what happened on **04 July 2009**, it is concluded that the plaintiff seeks to attribute to the defendants the damages and injuries suffered from an accident where only his conduct, and not that of the defendants, was the cause of the loss suffered; even presenting allegations that are not supported by the reality that was ultimately determined in this case. All of which, in the understanding of this jurisdictional body, demonstrates the absence of good faith in this matter and justifies the imposition of payment of both costs on the losing plaintiff here, as is hereby done.-

POR TANTO:

The exception of **FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN** is rejected in its two modalities, and the defense of **FALTA DE DERECHO,** raised by the defendants, is accepted. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by Mr. **Nombre147246** against the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD**, the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES**, the **ESTADO**, and the company **AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA** is dismissed in all its respects. Due to the manner in which this matter is decided, an assessment regarding the issue of ACTIVE STANDING (LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) of Mr. **Nombre147246** to claim damages for the vehicle with license plate number Placa29345 is omitted. As for costs, payment thereof is imposed on the losing party, Mr. **Nombre147246** .

NOTIFÍQUESE.- &nbsp; &nbsp; Julio Alb.

Cordero Mora **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **Name632** **&nbsp; ** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **&nbsp;** **Alner Palacios García **&nbsp;** &nbsp; &nbsp; **ON RESPONSIBILITY IN ROAD NETWORK MATTERS:** To address the issue of public transit roads located in the national territory, the provisions of Article 121 of the Magna Carta must first be considered, which, when specifying the powers of the Legislative Assembly, in subsection 14), as relevant here, states: "**To decree the alienation or the application to public uses of the Nation's own property.**" Along the same lines, Article 261 of the Civil Code clarifies: "**Public things are those that, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can use because they are delivered to public use . . .**" . . ." </b>Thus, given the impact that land transportation routes have on the Costa Rican economy and, in general, on the country's social development and the exercise of fundamental rights <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>(access to health services, exchange of goods, among many other activities and services), </i></b>it becomes evident that such areas are dedicated to public use (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>and more specifically to public service according to Article 2 of Law No. 7798 of <u>30 April 1998</u></i></b>). But furthermore, the Legislature, through regulations such as the Construction Law, Law No. 833 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>02 November 1949</u></b> (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13</i></b>), the Urban Planning Law, Law No. 4240 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>15 November 1968</u></b> (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Articles 42, 4 and 44, among others</i></b>) and the General Roads Law, No. 5060 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>22 August 1972</u></b> <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>(Articles 1 and 2 primarily)</i></b>, to mention some regulations on the matter, expressly establish the public domain nature (naturaleza demanial) of lands destined for public highways and roads. Thus, numeral 4 of the Construction Law, when defining the term public road, states that <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>". . . it is any land of public domain and of common use, which by provision of the administrative authority is destined for free transit in accordance with planning laws and regulations and which is in fact already destined for that public use. According to their class, public roads shall also be destined to ensure the conditions of ventilation (aereación) and lighting of the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to adjoining properties; to the installation of any pipeline, artifact, apparatus, or accessory belonging to a public work or destined for a public service."</b> Immediately, Article 5 of that same regulation dismisses any doubt that might still remain about the nature of those lands, by stating that <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>"Public roads are inalienable and imprescriptible and therefore, no mortgage, seizure, use, usufruct, or easement (servidumbre) may be constituted upon them for the benefit of a specific person, under the terms of common law. The rights of transit, lighting and ventilation (aereación), view, access, drainage, and other similar rights inherent to the purpose of public roads shall be governed exclusively by Administrative laws and Regulations."</b><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Thus, as a matter of principle, in the case of public domain assets related to land transportation routes, particularly highways, freeways, roads, streets, bridges, and other constituent elements of road networks, these are entrusted, regarding their maintenance, to public organs or entities by reason of the determination of ownership defined by the current legal system itself. Therefore, in general terms, national highways, to the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE</b> and, cantonal roads, to the Municipal Governments of the area where they are located, as can be extracted from reading Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 5060 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>22 August 1972</u></b>. In the first numeral, a bifurcation is introduced regarding the administration of public roads,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>those included in the national road network <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>(primary highways, secondary highways, tertiary highways, including restricted-access highways and freeways which correspond to highways - of restricted access - with four or more lanes with or without a central dividing island)</i></b> which remain in the hands of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) (<i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>ministerial body of the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE</b> charged according to Article 2, subsection a), of the Law creating the Ministry of Transport replacing the current Ministry of Public Works, Law No. 3155 of <u>05 August 1963</u>, amended by Law No. 4686 of <u>05 July 1971</u>, with "<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span style='color:black'>Planning, constructing, and improving the highways and roads. Maintaining the highways and collaborating with the Municipalities in the conservation of local roads. Regulating and controlling the rights of way of existing or planned highways and roads. Regulating, controlling, and monitoring transit and transport on public roads.</span></b>"</i>) <span class=GramE>and</span> those belonging to the cantonal road network <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>(Local roads, local streets, and unclassified roads)</i></b>, entrusted to the Municipalities. The second numeral goes on to specify the holding of ownership over these assets: <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>"All lands occupied by existing or future public highways and roads are property of the State. The municipalities have ownership of the streets within their jurisdiction. Public highways and roads may only be constructed and improved by the Minister -sic- of Public Works and Transport. However, with prior authorization from said Ministry, municipalities and decentralized state institutions that have functions related to the construction of public roads may execute them directly or through third parties. In the case of new roads or expansions, the interested parties shall request from the Ministry the rigorous technical studies and recommendations, and must, in this case, indicate the economic resources available to them to carry out . . . ".</b><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>With this, it becomes evident that the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE, </b>or else, the respective <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>MUNICIPALITY</b>, as holders of the administrative real right of ownership over public road areas, are responsible not only for their administration, which involves, among other aspects, ensuring that said infrastructure is functional and, in general, suitable for the development of the activity of transporting human beings and goods, but also, along the same lines, neglect of these obligations could subject them, based on the liability regime defined in the General Public Administration Law and the Consumer Protection Law, to strict extracontractual civil liability. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify, in the particular case of the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE</b>, given the creation of the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>NATIONAL ROAD COUNCIL (CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD)</b>, as a body of maximum deconcentration, that although it is attached to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, it has instrumental legal personality and budget authority in order to administer the Road Fund, as determined by Article 3 of Law No. 7798 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>30 April 1998</u></b>, the legislator also entrusts it through that regulation, specifically Article 4, with the following objectives: <span style='color:black'>“<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>a) Planning, programming, administering, financing, executing, and controlling the conservation and construction of the national road network, in accordance with the programs prepared by the Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. b) Administering its patrimony. c) Executing, through contracts, the works, supplies, and services required for the conservation and construction process of the entirety of the national road network. d) Supervising the correct execution of works, including quality control. e) Promoting research, development, and technology transfer in the field of road construction and conservation. f) Entering into contracts or providing the services necessary for the fulfillment of its objectives and functions.</b>” </span>Thus, since the maintenance and preservation of national roads is its responsibility (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23, and 24 of the cited Law</i></b>), its participation in matters of liability for the condition of the roads is undeniable. <span class=SpellE>Likewise</span>, according to the provisions of the General Law on Concession of Public Works with Public Services, Law No. 7762 of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>14 April 1998</u></b>,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CONCESSIONS (CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES)</b> was created, a body of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality to administer the National Fund for Concessions and enter into agreements and contracts to fulfill its functions (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Articles 6 and 7 of said regulation</i></b>) within which is contemplated, in Article 8 of that law, ensuring compliance with the inspection and control obligations of concessions granted by the Technical Secretariat, an activity defined in the following numeral 9 subsection d), a body that must participate when the road was constructed under a concession contract, as in the present case, where the highway where the accident that is the basis of this process occurred had its construction and temporary operation awarded to the company <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA</b><span style='color:black'>. But in the case of public works concessions with public services, liability regarding third parties is expressly defined by Articles 18 subsection f), 19, 37, and 38 of Law No. 7762, thus, the Administration shall only incur direct liability in exceptional and subsidiary cases, when the concessionaire fails to cover the compensation. This being the case, for this matter, one must assess not only the potential liability of the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE</b> and the cited bodies, but also that of the contractor company charged with constructing the road where the accident occurred. -</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:-2.75pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: 35.4pt;line-height:150%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";color:black;mso-ansi-language:ES'>V.- ON THE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON 04 JULY 2009 AND THE LIABILITY ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANTS:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:black;mso-ansi-language: ES'> As is evident from the citation notice (boleta de citación) of the General Directorate of the Transit Police, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 at 07:34:08 <span class=SpellE>pm</span> on <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight: normal'><u>04 July 2009</u></b>, issued by the Transit Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Route 27- Salinas highway, the pick-up vehicle, brand Isuzu, license plates CL 178024, driven by Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>ÁLVARO PEÑA CHAVES</b>, collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post. At that time, the continuous yellow lines whose purpose is to separate traffic circulating in the opposite direction already existed, as evidenced in the photographs provided by the plaintiff's own side, even surrounding the area of posts on both sides with a single uniform line. Furthermore, when that marking was double, it is possible to verify the existence of so-called cat's eyes, or light-refracting devices, between the yellow lines. The plaintiff alleges the non-existence of signage and indicates that while driving along that route he first encountered a ditch and subsequently a post on the roadway; however, from the photos in the case file, it is not possible to accept such a claim, not only because the roadway appears in good condition, but also because the section that was not paved and where the post against which the plaintiff collided was installed was separated from the road and traffic area of the highway by a continuous yellow line, a marking which, in accordance with the Land Transit Law (Ley de Tránsito por Vías Terrestres) in force as of July 2009, Law No. 7331 and its amendments, stipulates in numerals 116 and 235.48, that this line is used to separate vehicles circulating in the opposite direction and, in general, refers to an indication of impediment or prohibition to cross it, for example, as was the case at that time, due to the existence of obstacles, these being outside the traffic lane. Given the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the liability concerning each of the defendants.-<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt; margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span lang=ES style='font-size: 11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:black;mso-ansi-language:ES'><span style='mso-tab-count:1'> </span><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>VI.- </b></span><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>ON THE LIABILITY OF THE STATE ORGANS:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'> Based on the regulation just cited in recital (Considerando) IV, the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight: normal'>STATE</b> and its competent deconcentrated bodies in matters of public roads and concessions could only be tangentially liable regarding the losses suffered and claimed by the plaintiff, specifically, if any of them had ordered the concessionaire to perform an action or omission that came to influence the causation of the damages and injuries alleged, or else, if they incurred in a failure to supervise the obligations of that company and, in turn, such breach by the contractor generated the impairments that are the basis of the lawsuit. However, none of these circumstances were alleged by Mr. </span><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>ÁLVARO,</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: ES'> nor were they demonstrated in the present case, and their existence cannot be inferred from the elements present in the court record. This circumstance implies the non-existence of a causal link between the plaintiff's claim and the conduct of the defendant state organs, which is essential to hold the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>STATE</b> and its instrumentally personified bodies liable for the losses argued by Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>PEÑA CHAVES</b>, all of which requires granting the defense of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>LACK OF RIGHT</b> (FALTA DE DERECHO) as no causal link is detected. In any case, as formulated in the preceding recital, the accident that is the basis of this process cannot be attributed to any person other than the plaintiff himself.-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt; margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span class=SpellE><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:black;mso-ansi-language: ES'>VII</span></b></span><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:black;mso-ansi-language: ES'>.- </span></b><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>ON THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND CONCESSIONAIRE COMPANY:</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'> The claim made by the plaintiff seeks support in the provisions of Article 18 subsection d), in relation to ordinals <span style='color:black'>18 subsection f), 19, 37 and 38, all of the <span style='color:windowtext'>General Law on Concession of Public Works with Public Services. However, as evidenced in the evidence submitted to the court, the highway was in good condition, and the existing marking, had it been respected by the plaintiff, was clear and sufficient to avoid the accident that occurred. Indeed, as indicated by the Transit Law in force at the time, and even the current one, the continuous yellow line implies a signal of impediment to cross or pass it, since on the other side of it vehicles circulate in the opposite direction, or else, there are obstacles to free movement or there is no surface on which to travel. This is why it is technically called a barrier line. Even crossing it with a vehicle is punishable by a fine. Hence, it is clear, this signage is a form of communication of road traffic rules recognized by drivers traveling on the country's highways, and it was an obligation on their part to identify and recognize them. At the time when the accident whose material and physical consequences are claimed in this instance occurred, not only was the marking evidently in place, but also the weather conditions were favorable and the road was in excellent condition, as indicated in the accident report (parte) drawn up at that time and as stated by the witnesses who gave testimony at trial. Even Mr. RÓGER JIMÉNEZ AGUILAR referred to the existence of the constant yellow line and stated that it indicates one should not cross it with the vehicle, corroborating not o</span></span></span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-ansi-language:ES'>nly that the marking </span><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>had been made and was visible, which in any case is confirmed by the elements shown in the photos presented by the plaintiff, but also that it was perfectly interpretable. Under these circumstances, given that there is no evidence in the case file that allows reaching the conclusion that the accident that occurred on <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>04 July 2009</u></b> took place due to the interference of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA</b>, whether by action or omission, the absence of any causal link of said contractor to the damages for which compensation is sought is determined, so the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) formulated by the concessionaire must be granted and the lawsuit declared without merit in all its aspects. In any case, for the sake of greater completeness, it is convenient to highlight the fact that in this matter, an aspect that the plaintiff (accionante) set aside when filing the process that is the object of this decision, Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>ALVARO PEÑA CHAVES</b> did not properly read or interpret the existing traffic marking on the road at the moment he suffered the accident. Indeed, as determined by the Transit Law in the numerals already referred to, the continuous yellow line signifies the impossibility of crossing such marking during driving activity, that is, the area located after said line, both to the left and to the right of the authorized vehicular traffic zone, is excluded from transit, as it is not a driving surface. In the present case, as already indicated, as acknowledged by the transit officer who testified at the trial hearing, Mr. FRANCISCO NAVARRO MONGE, and the photographs provided by the plaintiff's own side, confirms the existence of the mentioned marking (<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>continuous yellow line</i></b>), which was crossed by Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>ÁLVARO,</b> consequently falling into what he indicated as a ditch and subsequently colliding with the base of an information sign post. It is alleged that the lines were not there, or rather, had not been completed; however, from the evidence submitted to the court, this circumstance was not demonstrated, at least to a degree of impact on the occurrence of the collision. Note that it was not proven that the layout of the yellow line was interrupted; on the contrary, according to the demonstrative elements already cited, its existence and uniformity are verified, both before and after the post against which the motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff collided. Although the transverse lines within that area were not painted, the truth is that the significance of the continuous yellow line does not vary due to the absence of these, which, in any case, the functionality of the so-called islands is more for third persons (<i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>passersby or those who, driving their motor vehicle, suffer a breakdown and must stop urgently</i>), but the indication not to drive in that area is defined by the continuous yellow line that did exist around it, determining a perimeter of inaccessibility that was not respected by the plaintiff. Hence, the allegation that the marking did not exist or was insufficient to warn him not to drive through the area where the information post against which he collided was located is not admissible for this jurisdictional body. Nor was it demonstrated that the marking made on that part of the road led to confusion for drivers. On one hand, it is claimed that Mr. </span><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>Á</span></b><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'>LVARO</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family: Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:ES'> was shocked upon encountering a ditch and a post on the road, when as was demonstrated, it is a road he had used constantly for months, so it is not credible that it was not until <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>04 July 2009</u></b> that the signage misled him, for which it would even be necessary to disregard his knowledge of the area from his constant use. Furthermore, no evidence was provided that accidents constantly occurred in that place, these being merely simple assertions lacking the force to modify what is decided herein.

On the other hand, it is argued that on that same day two other vehicles were close to having an accident after the one faced by the liability claimant, but this in no way justifies the claim put forward, since the causes that might have been involved are not on record, especially when the presence of onlookers at the scene from the previous collision complicated ordinary traffic activity, which does not confirm that it was a signaling or road layout error. Therefore, since Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>PEÑA CHAVES</b> did not heed the prohibition against driving after the continuous yellow line, it is not feasible to attribute responsibility to third parties for the damages and injuries suffered, when they relate exclusively, based on the evidentiary elements presented to the case file, to the effects of his own actions, and this cannot be transmitted or transferred to the defendants simply because he was travelling on a concessioned public road. In light of this lack of connection, it becomes unnecessary and improper to analyze each of the items the plaintiff petitions be indemnified; therefore, a pronouncement is issued on the matter, including the non-demonstration that the vehicle was owned by Mr. <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%; font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language: ES'>ÁLVARO</span></b><span lang=ES style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:ES'>, and on the contrary, it appears in the name of another person, and the deed of sale provided lacks the respective formalities to recognize the property right claimed." <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES style='mso-ansi-language:ES'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> </body> </html> 1,210,000.00 and contract value 500,000.00, is registered in the National Registry at Volume 0009, Entry 00077862, Sequence 001 in the name of Mr. Nombre147247, identity card number CED114895 - **(folios 52, 53, 58 and 59 of the judicial file)**; **b)** By means of a citation ticket from the General Directorate of the Traffic Police, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 at 07:34:08 pm on **04 July 2009**, prepared by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, it was reported that on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 - highway, the pick-up vehicle, Isuzu brand, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. **Nombre147246**, collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post (***folios 16, 48, 49, 50, of the judicial file***); **c)** At the time of the collision, the weather and highway conditions were good, as was visibility, as it occurred on a straight stretch (***folios 48 to 51, 56 and 57 of the judicial file***); **d)** In the segment of the highway where the accident happened, there was a demarcation in the center of the four lanes, consisting of two continuous and parallel yellow lines that divided the roadways with opposite directions of travel *(two lanes towards San José and two lanes towards Dirección6627, and the demarcation was between these)*, lines that, when approaching the location area of the posts for installing information and lighting signs, open up, always continuously, to surround the land where the posts are located, separating it from the vehicle circulation area (***folios 23 to 29 of the judicial file, as well as both witnesses heard at the oral trial hearing***); **e)** Between both continuous yellow lines, while they remained parallel and close together, in their central area there were refraction devices placed (***same prior evidence***); **f)** The information post against which the plaintiff collided was excluded from the circulation zone due to the signaling that defined its perimeter (***same prior evidence***); **g)** Once the collision was known in the Traffic jurisdictional venue, the Court of Puntarenas acquitted the plaintiff here of responsibility due to not having elements to resolve the matter (***folios 56 and 57 of the judicial file***); **h)** The company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is the contractor and concessionaire of the highway where the accident arose (***uncontested fact as well as folios 206 to 208 of the judicial file***); **i)** In the concession contract for Public Works with public service corresponding to the San José – Caldera highway, it was indicated in clause 1.11.4, that should any injury or damage exist to third parties due to the construction or operation of said road, the contractor or concessionaire, if those detriments are attributable to it, would be solely responsible for their satisfaction (***folios 206 to 208 of the file***).- **II.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of this nature, of importance for resolving this matter, are the following: **a.-** That the vehicle license plate Placa29345 is the property of Mr. **Nombre147246**; **b.-** That a ditch and/or an information post existed in the middle of the highway on the day the events supporting this lawsuit occurred; **c.-** That the highway at the point where the accident took place lacked adequate signaling, had design defects, generated accident risks, or that other collisions had occurred at the same location; **d.-** That the public bodies engaged in any conduct generating liability in favor of the plaintiff; **e.-** That in the section where the collision happened, traffic accidents constantly occurred.- **III.- CLAIM FORMULATED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND OPPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANTS:** In support of his treasury civil lawsuit, Mr. **Nombre147246** argues that on **04 July 2009** he suffered an automobile accident around six thirty in the evening, while heading home driving his vehicle license plate Placa29345, on the highway between Orotina and Puntarenas. He indicates that he traveled through that place daily, as he was dedicated to seafood transport and, that day, approximately four kilometers before arriving at Caldera, he encountered "** . . . a ditch in the middle of the highway and without being able to momentarily control his vehicle he keeps the steering wheel held steady, because he does not observe anything in front due to lack of lighting on the highway, and when he manages to straighten his car, he violently impacts the post that is in the middle of the highway, suffering great harm to his health, as a result of which he had an injury to his head, face, teeth, his legs, a serious blow to his chest and other various blows, at the same time leaving the vehicle totally destroyed and unusable, and unable to work in seafood, because as a consequence of this, to this day he has not been able to work. . .**". He argues, fundamentally, that the cited highway between CALDERA and OROTINA, at the time of the accident was still under construction, observing machinery and workers in the area, without negligently providing any signaling that could have avoided the accident he ultimately faced. No sign, he continues stating, warned him of the existence of a ditch "**. . . in the middle of the highway . . .**", a circumstance that made proper driving impossible for him and, in addition to the absence of lighting on the roadway, caused him to collide with a post that was also "**. . . located in the middle of the highway . . .**". He reproaches that the highway was not finished, that there was no signaling and, in general, no warning about the existence of a ditch and a post. He argues that he has not been able to continue working as his vehicle was destroyed, for which reason he requests recognition of labor and material damage; that he almost lost his life, as would have his daughter who ordinarily accompanies him but on that occasion fortunately did not, for which he claims what he calls damage for loss of life, as well as moral damages. For its part, the **STATE** alleged that the plaintiff did not stipulate in a concrete section what his main claim was in the terms of Article 58, subsection d) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code; the specific damages and losses he requested compensation for, he did not specify the motive originating them, nor did he proceed with the estimation of each of these, as required by Article 58, subsection e) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code. In addition, it indicated that the plaintiff estimated the lawsuit at eighty million colones but, at the same time, requested an expert to carry out an exact valuation of the damages and losses. For all the foregoing, it requested the rectification of such defects. Subsequently, supported by numeral 12 of the cited procedural regulation, it petitioned that the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD and the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES be joined as defendants to this process. The first for being the "**. . . technical body in charge of the conservation, rehabilitation and construction of highways . . .**", and the second, by reason of corresponding to a concessioned road, for which it raised the exception of NECESSARY PASSIVE JOINDER. When responding to the facts, it indicated that it was not evident to it that during the construction of the highway where the accident occurred, the necessary precautions to avoid accidents were not taken; that this road was in good condition and demarcated, for which reason it was unsustainable that he encountered a ditch; that the accident occurred on a flat straight stretch; that the temporary conditions were good, among other arguments, the basis of the defense of LACK OF RIGHT and LACK OF STANDING regarding the material damages of the vehicle as it was not the plaintiff's property. As for both Councils, they responded to the lawsuit negatively, arguing their presence in this process was unnecessary based on the alleged factual situation, for which they raised LACK OF PASSIVE STANDING and LACK OF RIGHT. The contractor and concessionaire company, AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, bases its defense on the existence of excellent highway conditions where the accident occurred and the quality of the demarcation, which in its view justifies dismissing the lawsuit upon upholding the LACK OF RIGHT raised.- **IV.- ON LIABILITY IN ROAD NETWORK MATTERS:** To address the issue of public transit roadways located in the national territory, the provisions of Article 121 of the Constitution must be kept in mind first, which, when specifying the powers of the Legislative Assembly, in its subsection 14), with respect to our interest, indicates: "**To decree the disposal or the application to public uses of the Nation's own assets.**" In that same line, Article 261 of the Civil Code clarifies: "**Things are public that, by law, are permanently destined to any service of general utility, and those of which everyone can take advantage as they are delivered to public use . . .**". Well then, given the influence that land communication routes have on the Costa Rican economy and, in general, the country's social development and the exercise of fundamental rights *(access to health services, exchange of goods, among many other activities and services)*, it becomes evident that said areas are delivered to public use *(and more specifically to public service according to Article 2 of Law No. 7798 of* *30 April 1998*). But in addition, the Legislature, through regulations such as the Construction Law, Law No. 833 of **02 November 1949** (*Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13*), the Urban Planning Law, Law No. 4240 of **15 November 1968** (*Articles 42, 4 and 44, among others*) and the General Roads Law, No. 5060 of **22 August 1972** (*Articles 1 and 2 principally*), to refer to some regulations on the matter, expressly concretize the public domain nature of the lands destined for public highways and roads. Thus, numeral 4 of the Construction Law, when defining the term public roadway, states that "**. . . it is all land in the public domain and for common use, that by provision of the administrative authority is destined for free transit in accordance with the planning laws and regulations and that in fact is already destined to that public use. According to their class, public roadways shall also be destined to ensure aeration and lighting conditions for the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to adjoining properties; to the installation of any channeling, artifact, apparatus or accessory belonging to a public work or destined to a public service.**" Immediately, Article 5 of that same regulation, dispels any doubt that might still persist about the nature of those lands, by stating that "**Public roadways are inalienable and imprescriptible and therefore, no mortgage, seizure, use, usufruct, or easement may be constituted over them for the benefit of a specific person, in the terms of common law. The rights of transit, lighting and aeration, view, access, overflows and other similar rights inherent to the purpose of public roadways shall be exclusively governed by the Administrative laws and Regulations.**" Therefore, as a matter of principle, in the case of public domain assets related to land communication routes, particularly highways, motorways, roads, streets, bridges and other integral elements of the road networks, these are entrusted, regarding their maintenance, to public bodies or entities by reason of the ownership determination defined by the current legal system itself. Thus, in general terms, national highways, to the **STATE** and, cantonal roads, to the Municipal Governments of the area where they are located, as can be gleaned from the reading of Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 5060 of **22 August 1972**. In the first numeral, a bifurcation is introduced regarding the administration of public roads, those included in the national road network *(primary roads, secondary roads, tertiary roads, including restricted-access roads and motorways which correspond to roads -of restricted access- of four or more lanes with or without a central dividing island)* that remain in the hands of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport *(ministerial body of the* ***STATE*** *responsible according to Article 2, subsection a), of the Law creating the Ministry of Transport replacing the current Ministry of Public Works, Law No. 3155 of* *05 August 1963* *, amended by Law No. 4686 of* *05 July 1971* *, to "* ***Plan, build and improve highways and roads. Maintain highways and collaborate with the Municipalities in the conservation of local roads. Regulate and control the rights of way of existing or projected highways and roads. Regulate, control and monitor traffic and transport on public roads.** *"*) and those forming part of the cantonal road network *(Local roads, local streets and unclassified roads)*, entrusted to the Municipalities. The second numeral proceeds to specify the holding of ownership over those assets: "**All lands occupied by existing public highways and roads or those built in the future are State property. The municipalities have ownership of the streets in their jurisdiction. Public highways and roads may only be built and improved by the Minister -sic- of Public Works and Transport. However, with prior authorization from said Ministry, municipalities and decentralized State institutions, that have functions related to the construction of public roads, may execute them directly or through third parties. In the case of new roads or expansions, the interested parties shall request the Ministry for the rigorous technical studies and recommendations, and must, in this case, indicate the economic resources they have available to carry out . . . ".** Thereby, it becomes evident that the **STATE**, or alternatively, the respective **MUNICIPALITY**, as holder of the administrative real right of ownership over the areas of public highways, is responsible not only for their administration, which involves, among other aspects, ensuring that said infrastructure is functional and, in general, suitable for the development of the activity of transporting human beings and goods, but also, in that same line, the neglect of said obligations, based on the liability regime defined in the General Public Administration Law and the Consumer Protection Law, could imply objective non-contractual civil liability for them. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify, in the particular case of the **STATE**, given the creation of the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD**, as an organ of maximum deconcentration, that although it is attached to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, it has instrumental and budgetary legal personality in order to administer the Road Fund, as determined by Article 3 of Law No. 7798 of **30 April 1998**, the Legislature also entrusting it through that regulation, specifically Article 4, with the following objectives: “**a) To plan, program, administer, finance, execute and control the conservation and construction of the national road network, in accordance with the programs prepared by the Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. b) To administer its assets. c) To execute, through contracts, the works, supplies and services required for the conservation and construction process of the entire national road network. d) To oversee the correct execution of the works, including quality control. e) To promote research, development and technological transfer in the field of road construction and conservation. f) To enter into contracts or provide the services necessary for the fulfillment of its objectives and functions.**” So that, its responsibility for the maintenance and preservation of national roads being its charge (*Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the cited Law*), its participation in liability matters due to the condition of the roads is beyond doubt. Likewise, according to the stipulations in the General Law on Concession of Public Works with Public Services, Law No. 7762 of **14 April 1998**, the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES** was created, an organ of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality to administer the National Concessions Fund and execute agreements and contracts to fulfill its functions (*Articles 6 and 7 of said regulation*) within which is contemplated in Article 8 of that law, ensuring compliance with the inspection and control obligations of the concessions granted by the Technical Secretariat, an activity defined in the following numeral 9 subsection d), a body that must participate when the road was built in execution of a concession contract, as occurs in the case at hand, where the motorway where the accident underlying this process took place had its construction and temporary operation awarded to the company **AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**. But in the case of public works concessions with public service, liability regarding third parties is expressly defined by Articles 18 subsection f), 19, 37 and 38 of Law No. 7762, whereby the Administration shall only incur direct liability in exceptional and subsidiary cases, when the concessionaire cannot cover the compensation. Thus, for this matter, not only must a potential liability of the **STATE** and the cited bodies be assessed, but also that of the contractor company responsible for building the road where the accident occurred.- **V.- ON THE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON 04 JULY 2009 AND THE LIABILITY ALLEGED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS:** As can be gleaned from the citation ticket from the General Directorate of the Traffic Police, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, number 2 - 2009 - 86600627 at 07:34:08 pm on **04 July 2009**, issued by Traffic Officer Mr. CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, on the Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 - highway, the pick-up vehicle, Isuzu brand, license plate Placa29345, driven by Mr. **Nombre147246**, collided with a fixed object, specifically, an information post. At that moment, the continuous yellow lines whose purpose is to separate traffic circulating in the opposite direction already existed, as evidenced in the photographs provided by the plaintiff party themselves, even surrounding the post zone on both sides with a single uniform line. In addition, when that demarcation was double, it is possible to verify between the yellow lines the existence of so-called cat's eyes, or light-refracting devices.

The plaintiff alleges the non-existence of signage and indicates that while driving along that route he first came upon a ditch and subsequently a post in the roadway; however, from the photographs contained in the case file it is not possible to accept such an allegation, not only because the roadway is seen to be in good condition, but also because the section that was not paved and where the post with which the plaintiff collided was installed was separated from the running and circulation area of the highway by a continuous yellow line, signage which in accordance with the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Terrestres in force as of July 2009, Ley Nº 7331 and its amendments, stipulates in numerals 116 and 235.48 that said line is used to separate vehicles traveling in the opposite direction and, in general, refers to an indication of impediment or prohibition against crossing it, for example, as was occurring at that moment, due to the existence of obstacles, these being located outside the circulation lane. Having stated the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the liability regarding each of the defendants.- VI.- REGARDING THE LIABILITY OF THE STATE ORGANS: Based on the regulation just cited in Considerando IV, the STATE and its deconcentrated organs competent in matters of public roads and concessions could only be liable in a tangential manner for the detriments suffered and claimed by the plaintiff, specifically, if any of them had ordered the concessionaire to carry out an action or omission that came to influence the causation of the damages and injuries alleged, or, if they incurred in a failure to supervise the obligations of that company and, in turn, such non-compliance by the contractor caused the losses underlying the lawsuit. However, none of those circumstances was alleged by Mr. Nombre147246, nor were they demonstrated in the present case, nor can their existence be inferred from the elements contained in the case record, such circumstance implying the non-existence of a causal link between what is sought and the conduct of the defendant State organs, which becomes indispensable to hold the STATE and its organs, instrumentally personified, liable for the detriments argued by Mr. Nombre147246, all of which compels upholding the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) as no causal link whatsoever is detected. In any event, as stated in the preceding Considerando, the accident underlying this proceeding cannot be attributed to any person other than the plaintiff himself.- VII.- REGARDING THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND CONCESSIONAIRE COMPANY: The claim brought by the plaintiff seeks support in what is regulated in Article 18 subsection d), in relation to ordinals 18 subsection f), 19, 37 and 38, all of the Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos. However, as evidenced by the proof submitted to the case record, the road was in good condition and the existing demarcation, had it been respected by the plaintiff, was clear and sufficient to avoid the accident that occurred. Indeed, as indicated by the Ley de Tránsito in force at the time, and even the current one, a continuous yellow line implies a signal of impediment against crossing or passing over it, because on the other side of it vehicles travel in the opposite direction, or there are obstacles to free movement or there is no surface on which to travel. That is why it is technically called a barrier line. Even crossing it with a vehicle is punishable by a fine. Whereby, it is clear that said signage is a form of communication of road circulation rules recognized by drivers traveling on the country's roads, it being an obligation on their part to identify and recognize them. At the time the accident whose material and physical consequences are claimed in this instance occurred, not only was the demarcation clearly made, but also the weather conditions were favorable and the road was in excellent condition, as indicated in the report drawn up on that occasion and as stated by the witnesses who gave testimony at trial. Even Mr. Nombre147248 referred to the existence of the constant yellow line and stated that it indicates that one should not cross it with the vehicle, corroborating not only that the signage had been made and was visible, which in any case is confirmed by the elements shown in the photographs presented by the plaintiff, but also that it was perfectly interpretable. Under these circumstances, given that there is no proof in the case file allowing the conclusion that the accident that occurred on July 4, 2009 took place due to the interference of AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, whether by action or omission, the absence of any causal link of said contractor to the damages for which compensation is sought is determined, and therefore the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) raised by the concessionaire must be upheld and the lawsuit declared without merit in all its aspects. In any event, for the sake of thoroughness, it is appropriate to highlight the fact that in this matter, an aspect that the plaintiff overlooked when filing the process that is the subject of this decision, Mr. Nombre147246 did not properly read or interpret the existing circulation signage on the road at the moment he suffered the accident. Indeed, as determined by the Ley de Tránsito in the previously referenced numerals, the continuous yellow line indicates the impossibility of crossing such demarcation during the driving activity, that is, the area located beyond said line, both to the left and to the right of the authorized vehicular circulation zone, is excluded from transit, as it is not a running surface. In the present case, as already indicated, as recognized by the traffic officer who testified at the trial hearing, Mr. FRANCISCO NAVARRO MONGE, and the photographs provided by the plaintiff himself, they confirm the existence of the referenced demarcation (continuous yellow line), which was crossed by Mr. Nombre147246, consequently falling into what he described as a ditch and subsequently colliding with the base of an informational sign post. It is alleged that the lines were not present, or that they had not been completed; however, from the proof submitted to the case record, this circumstance was not demonstrated, at least to a degree of causation for the occurrence of the collision. Note that it was not proven that the continuous yellow line was interrupted; on the contrary, according to the demonstrative elements already cited, its existence and uniformity are verified, both before and after the post against which the motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff collided. Even though the transverse lines within that zone were not painted, the fact is that the significance of the continuous yellow line does not vary due to their absence; moreover, the functionality of the so-called islands is more for third parties (pedestrians or those who, while driving their motor vehicle, suffer a breakdown and must stop in an emergency), but the indication not to drive in that zone is defined by the continuous yellow line that did exist around it, determining a perimeter of inaccessibility that was not respected by the plaintiff. Hence, this jurisdictional body does not accept the allegation that the demarcation did not exist or was insufficient to warn him that he should not drive in the zone where the informational post against which he collided was located. Neither was it demonstrated that the demarcation made in that part of the road led to confusion among drivers. On the one hand, it is affirmed that Mr. Nombre147246 was startled upon coming across a ditch and a post on the road, when, as was demonstrated, it is a road he used constantly for months, so it is not credible that it was only on July 4, 2009 that the signage led him into error, for which one would even have to disregard his knowledge of the zone from its constant use. Furthermore, no proof was provided that accidents constantly occurred at that location, these being merely simple affirmations lacking the force to modify what is decided here. On the other hand, it is argued that on that same day two other vehicles were nearly involved in an accident after the one suffered by the claimant for liability, but this in no way justifies the claim brought, since the causes that might have mediated are not evidenced, especially when the presence of onlookers at the site following the prior collision complicated ordinary traffic activity, which does not confirm that it was an error in signage or road layout. Consequently, since Mr. Nombre147246 did not heed the prohibition against driving beyond the continuous yellow line, it is not viable to attribute to third parties the liability for the damages and injuries suffered, when they refer exclusively, based on the evidentiary elements presented to the case record, to the effects of his own acts, without this being able to be transmitted or transferred to the defendants, merely because of traveling on a concessioned public road. Given such lack of connection, it becomes unnecessary and improper to analyze each of the items that the plaintiff petitions be compensated; therefore, no pronouncement is issued on this matter, including the failure to demonstrate that the vehicle was the property of Mr. Nombre147246, since on the contrary it appears in the name of another person and the bill of sale provided lacks the respective formalities to recognize the right of ownership sought.- VIII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSES RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS: Once the claims and allegations of the plaintiff have been assessed, it is appropriate to decide on the defenses raised in this matter and, in general, the substantive presuppositions that must constitute a conflict of this nature. Thus, in the first instance, regarding the lack of standing (falta de legitimación ad causam) alleged, this must be rejected in both of its modalities. The charges argued by Mr. Nombre147246 originate in the vehicular accident he suffered on July 4, 2009, which occurred on a national highway owned by the STATE which, as explained supra, entrusted the administration of that type of public domain asset to the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD and, being in the presence of a concessioned work, the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES is also involved, both in their condition as organs of maximum deconcentration with instrumental legal personality, which must participate pursuant to ordinal 12 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Likewise, the contractor company, since the legislation in force directs liability, if it exists, towards third parties to it. Consequently, the plaintiff has standing to sue the cited State organs and the concessionaire, maintaining current interest for those purposes, since a ruling granting his claims would imply an increase in his assets. On the other hand, as already indicated supra, in this conflict the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the defendants and the injuries and damages for which compensation is sought was not demonstrated, for which reason the alleged LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) must be upheld, and the present action is declared without merit in all its aspects, omitting to rule, as unnecessary, on each of the items whose payment was petitioned.- IX.- REGARDING THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING: Regarding the present item, under the protection of numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, this Court considers that it is not in the presence of any of the grounds for exoneration provided by said article. Moreover, analyzing the factual picture that describes what occurred on July 4, 2009, it is concluded that the plaintiff seeks to attribute to the defendants the damages and injuries suffered from an accident where only his conduct, and not that of the defendants, was the cause of the detriment suffered; even presenting allegations that are not supported by the reality that was ultimately determined in the case. All of which, in the understanding of this jurisdictional body, demonstrates the non-existence of good faith in this matter and justifies the imposition of the payment of both sets of costs on the plaintiff, the losing party herein, as is hereby done.-

POR TANTO:

The defense of LACK OF STANDING (FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN) in both its modalities is rejected, and the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) raised by the defendants is upheld. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre147246 against the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, the CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, the STATE, and the company AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is declared without merit in all its aspects. Due to the manner in which this matter is decided, any assessment regarding the issue of ACTIVE STANDING (LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA) of Mr. Nombre147246 to claim damages for the vehicle with license plate No. Placa29345 is omitted. Regarding the issue of costs, their payment is imposed on the losing party, Mr. Nombre147246. NOTIFÍQUESE.- Julio Alb. Cordero Mora Nombre632 Alner Palacios García

******************************************************** ******************************************************** PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: Nombre147246 .- DEMANDADOS: AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ESTADO, CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD y CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES.- ********************************************************************* SENTENCIA Nº 103 - 2012 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN OCTAVA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANEXO A.- A las dieciséis horas del treinta de noviembre del año dos mil doce.- Proceso de conocimiento incoado por el señor Nombre147246 , mayor de edad, casado, vecino de Puntarenas, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED114883 – – . Funge como apoderado especial judicial el licenciado CARLOS VARGAS MONTERO, mayor de edad, casado, abogado, vecino de Puntarenas, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED114884 – – , carné de colegiado número CED114885 (folios 01 a 10 del expediente principal) contra AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula de persona jurídica número CED21174 – – , representado por el señor Nombre101755 , mayor de edad, casado, economista, ciudadano español, pasaporte Nº Placa16655 y Nombre102684 , mayor de edad, casado, ingeniero civil, ciudadano chileno, pasaporte Nº 9854989 – 7, en su condición de apoderados generalísimos sin límites de suma. Funge como apoderado general judicial el licenciado JULIO ENRIQUE ZELAYA RODRÍGUEZ, mayor de edad, soltero, abogado, vecino de Escazú, portador de la cédula de identidad CED114886 – – y del carné de colegiado número CED114887 (folios 11, 12, 13, 69, 84 a 91 y 187 del expediente judicial); ESTADO, representado por el señor Procurador del Área de Derecho Público, licenciado OMAR RIVERA MESÉN, mayor de edad, casado, abogado, vecino de San José, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED3622 – – y del carné de colegiado número CED114888 (folios 60 del expediente judicial); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, representado por sus apoderados especiales judiciales licenciado MARIO MATAMOROS ACUÑA, mayor de edad, divorciado, abogado, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED114889 – – , carné de colegiado número CED114890 y licenciado JORGE ARTURO MADRIGAL SANCHO, mayor de edad, soltero, abogado, vecino de San José, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED114891 – – , carné de colegiado número CED114892 CED114893 (folios 200 a 205 del expediente judicial) y el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, representado por su apoderada especial judicial, licenciada OLGA MARTHA FALLAS RAMÍREZ, mayor de edad, divorciada, abogada, vecina de San José, portadora de la cédula de identidad número CED17137 – – , carné de colegiada número CED114894 (folios 209 a 222 del expediente judicial).-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Sustentado en los hechos expuestos y citas legales aducidas, este asunto fue interpuesto por el señor Nombre147246 con la finalidad de que se declare en sentencia: “DAÑOS y PERJUICIOS: EN DAÑOS MATERIALES, MORALES, DE VIDA, LABORALES PORQUE EL VEHICULO –sic- DESDE EL DÍA DEL PERCANSE -sic- HA DEJADO DE PERCIBIR ENTRADA ECONOMICA –sic- POR LA VENTA DE MARISCOS, HONORARIOS DE ABOGADO, FIJAMOS TODOS ESTOS DAÑOS EN LA SUMA GLOBAL DE OCHENTA MILLONES DE COLONES. Para este efectos –sic- señor Juez solicitamos se nombre perito en la materia para que realice una valoración exacta de todos daños y perjuicios. 1.- Porque el vehículo se dedicaba todos los días al transporte de mariscos, y el mismo ha estado abandonado por los daños sufridos. 2.- Daño moral, porque todo esto lo afectado –sic- psicológicamente y moralmente, y afectado a su familia, porque pudo haber perdido la vida, y ese día por cuestiones de la vida su hija no lo acompaño –sic- a ese viaje, porque siempre lo acompaña a repartir los mariscos a Orotina y otros lugares. 3.- La Vida, porque estuvo de por medio su vida, porque a consecuencia del impacto y a como quedo –sic- el vehículo, era como dicen para matarse. 4.- Laboral, porque a consecuencia de la colisión contra el poste, el vehículo quedo –sic- inservible y desde el 4 de julio del 2009, ha estado varado sin trabajar, el cual a la semana devengaba un entrada aproximada de quinientos mil colones. 5.- Por honorarios la suma que se de, de acuerdo a los logrado –sic- en esta litis, y el porcentaje pactado con el cliente.-" Posteriormente, durante la audiencia preliminar, el actor cuantificó el tema de daños y perjuicios de la siguiente manera: cinco millones de colones por daño material; diez millones de colones por daño moral; diez millones de colones por pérdida de vida y seis millones de colones por daño laboral (folios 05, 06 y 232 vuelto del expediente judicial, así como video de audiencia preliminar).- 2.- Corrido el traslado de rigor, los demandados respondieron en forma negativa las pretensiones planteadas, opusieron las excepciones: ESTADO: litis consorcio pasivo necesario (rechazada a través de resolución Nº 3778-2010 de 11:00 horas de 06 de octubre del 2010 a folios 120 a 125 del expediente judicial), FALTA DE DERECHO y FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA (folios 60, 62, 63 y 68 del expediente judicial); AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: FALTA DE COMPETENCIA (rechazada mediante decisión Nº 3352 de 10:00 horas de 03 de septiembre del 2010 visible a folios 96 a 97 vuelto; 130, 137 y 138 del expediente judicial), COSA JUZGADA (desistida durante la audiencia preliminar), FALTA DE DERECHO (folios 84 a 86 del expediente judicial); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES: FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA y FALTA DE DERECHO (folio 202 del expediente principal); CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD: FALTA DE DERECHO y FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN AD CAUSAM PASIVA (folios 212 y 215 del expediente principal) y, finalmente, solicitaron declarar sin lugar la demanda formulada con imposición de costas a su promovente (folios 68, 91, 203 y 219 del principal).- 3.- La audiencia preliminar en este asunto tuvo lugar el día 20 de julio del 2012, oportunidad ésta última en la que fue desistida la DEFENSA DE COSA JUZGADA interpuesta inicialmente por AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA y, a su vez, el apoderado de la parte actora procedió a determinar el monto que pretende por concepto de daños y perjuicios (folios 233 y 233 del expediente judicial, y el video de la audiencia preliminar).- 4.- El juicio oral y público fue realizado el día 12 de noviembre del año 2012 (ver audiencia de juicio oral y acta de la audiencia a folios 250 y 251 del expediente judicial).- 5.- En los procedimientos se han observado los términos y prescripciones de ley, y no se detectan vicios u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se emite este fallo POR UNANIMIDAD dentro del plazo indicado en el artículo 111 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, previa deliberación.- Redacta el Juez Cordero Mora:

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto se tienen como de esta naturaleza los siguientes: a) El vehículo marca Isuzu, carga liviana, año 1990, color crema, capacidad para tres personas, placas Placa29345, valor Trib. 1.210.000,oo y valor contrato 500.000,oo, aparece inscrito en el Registro Nacional al Tomo 0009, Asiento 00077862, Secuencia 001 a nombre del señor Nombre147247 , cédula de identidad número CED114895 - - (folios 52, 53, 58 y 59 del expediente judicial); b) Mediante boleta de citación de la Dirección General de la Policía de tránsito, Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte, número 2 - 2009 - 86600627 de 07:34:08 pm de 04 de julio del 2009, confeccionada por el Oficial de Tránsito señor CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, se reportó que en la carretera Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 - , el vehículo pick up, marca Isuzu, placas Placa29345, conducido por el señor Nombre147246 , colisionó contra un objeto fijo, en particular, un poste de información (folios 16, 48, 49, 50, del expediente judicial); c) Al momento de ocurrida la colisión, el estado del tiempo y de la carretera eran buenas, así como la visibilidad al corresponder a una recta (folios 48 a 51, 56 y 57 del expediente judicial); d) En el segmento de la autopista donde sucedió el accidente, existía una demarcación en el centro de los cuatro carriles, constituida por dos líneas amarillas continuas y paralelas que dividían las vías de circulación con direcciones contrarias (dos carriles hacia San José y dos carriles hacia Dirección6627, y entre éstas estaba la demarcación), líneas que al acercarse a la zona de ubicación de los postes para instalar letreros de información e iluminación, se abren, siempre en forma continua, para rodear el terreno donde se localizan los postes, separándolo del área de circulación de automóviles (folios 23 a 29 del expediente judicial, así como ambos testigos evacuados en la audiencia de juicio oral); e) Entre ambas rayas amarillas continuas, mientras se mantenían paralelas y cercanas, en su área central había colocados dispositivos de refracción (misma prueba anterior ); f) El poste de información contra el cual colisionó el actor se encontraba excluido de la zona de circulación en razón de la señalización que definía su perímetro (misma prueba anterior); g) Conocida la colisión en sede jurisdiccional de Tránsito, el Juzgado de Puntarenas absolvió al aquí actor de responsabilidad al no tener elementos para resolver el asunto (folios 56 y 57 del expediente judicial ); h) La empresa AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA es la contratista y concesionaria de la carretera donde se suscitó el accidente (hecho no controvertido así como folios 206 a 208 del expediente judicial); i) En el contrato de concesión de Obra con servicio público correspondiente a la carretera San José – Caldera, se indicó en la cláusula 1.11.4, que de existir lesión o daño alguno a terceros en razón de la construcción o explotación de dicha vía, la contratista o concesionaria, de serle imputable esos detrimentos, sería la única responsable por su satisfacción (folios 206 a 208 del expediente ).- II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: De esta naturaleza, de importancia para resolver este asunto, se tienen los siguientes: a.- Que el vehículo placas Placa29345 sea propiedad del señor Nombre147246 ; b.- Que existiera una zanja y/o un poste de información en medio de la carretera el día que ocurrieron los hechos que sustenta esta demanda; c.- Que la carretera en el punto que tuvo lugar el accidente careciera de señalización adecuada, tuviera defectos de diseño, generara riesgos de accidentes o se hubieren producido otras colisiones en el mismo lugar; d.- Que los órganos públicos incurrieran en alguna conducta generadora de responsabilidad a favor del actor; e.- Que en ese tramo donde sucedió la colisión, constantemente ocurrieran accidente de tránsito.- III.- RECLAMO FORMULADO POR EL ACCIONANTE Y OPOSICIÓN DE LOS DEMANDADOS: En sustento de su demanda civil de hacienda, el señor Nombre147246 aduce que el día 04 de julio del 2009 sufrió un accidente automovilístico alrededor de las dieciocho horas treinta minutos, cuando se dirigía a su casa conduciendo su vehículo placas Placa29345, sobre la carretera entre Orotina y Puntarenas. Indica que diariamente transitaba por ese lugar, dado que se dedicaba al transporte de mariscos y, ese día, aproximadamente cuatro kilómetros antes de llegar a Caldera, se topó con " . . . una zanja en medio de la carretera y sin poder de momento controlar su vehículo mantiene sostenida la manivela, porque no observa nada de frente por falta de iluminación en la carretera, y cuando logra enderezar su carro, impacta de forma violenta contra el poste que se encuentra en medio de la carretera, sufriendo un gran perjuicio en su salud, el cual a consecuencia tuvo una herida en su cabeza, rostro, dentadura, sus piernas, golpe grave en su pecho y otros golpes varios, dejando a la vez el vehículo totalmente destruido e inservible, y sin poder trabajar en mariscos, porque a consecuencia de ello, hasta el día de hoy no ha podido laborar. . .". Argumenta, en lo fundamental, que la citada carretera entre CALDERA y OROTINA, al momento del accidente aún se encontraba en construcción, observándose maquinaria y trabajadores en la zona, sin prever, de manera negligente, ninguna señalización que pudiera evitar el accidente que finalmente enfrentó. Ninguna señal, sigue exponiendo, le advirtió de la existencia de una zanja ". . . en medio de la carretera . . .", circunstancia que le imposibilitó una conducción adecuada y, en adición a la ausencia de iluminación en la vía, causó que colisionara con un poste que también ". . . se encontraba en medio de la carretera . . .". Reprocha que la carretera no estaba terminada, que no había señalización y, en general, ninguna advertencia sobre la existencia de una zanja y un poste. Argumenta que no ha podido seguir trabajando al destruirse su vehículo, por lo que pide reconocimiento de daño laboral y material; que casi pierde la vida y al igual que su hija que ordinariamente le acompaña pero en esa oportunidad por dicha no fue, por lo que reclama lo que denomina daño de pérdida de vida, así como daño moral. Por su parte, el ESTADO alegó que el actor no estipuló en un apartado concreto cuál era su pretensión principal en los términos del artículo 58, inciso d) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo; en qué consisten los daños y perjuicios que solicitó indemnizar, no concretó el motivo que los origina, ni procedió a la estimación de cada uno de estos, como lo requiere el artículo 58, inciso e) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Además indicó que el accionante estimó la demanda en ochenta millones de colones pero, al mismo tiempo, solicitó un perito para que llevara a cabo una valoración exacta de los daños y perjuicios. Por todo lo anterior, solicitó la subsanación de tales defectos. Posteriormente, apoyado en el numeral 12 de la normativa procesal citada, peticionó se integrara como demandados a este proceso el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD y el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES. El primero por ser el ". . . órgano técnico encargado de la conservación, rehabilitación y construcción de las carreteras . . .", y el segundo, en razón de corresponder a una vía concesionada, por lo que interpuso la excepción de LITIS CONSORCIO PASIVO NECESARIA. Al responder los hechos, indicó que no le constaba que durante la construcción de la carretera en que ocurrió el accidente no se tomaran los cuidados necesarios para evitar accidentes; que esa vía estaba en buen estado y demarcada, por lo que no resultaba sustentable que se topara con una zanja; que el accidente se presentó en una recta plana; que las condiciones temporales eran buenas, entre otros argumentos, base de la defensa de FALTA DE DERECHO y FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA respecto de los daños materiales del vehículo al no ser propiedad del actor. En cuanto a ambos Consejos, respondieron en forma negativa la demanda, argumentando ser innecesaria su presencia en este proceso a partir del cuadro fáctico aducido, por lo que plantearon FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN PASIVA y FALTA DE DERECHO. La empresa contratista y concesionaria, AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, puntualiza su defensa en la existencia de las excelentes condiciones de la autopista donde ocurrió el accidente y la calidad de la demarcación, lo que a su entender justifica rechazar la demanda al acoger la FALTA DE DERECHO interpuesta.- IV.- SOBRE LA RESPONSABILIDAD EN MATERIA DE RED VIAL: Para abordar el tema de las vías públicas de tránsito localizadas en el territorio nacional, debe tenerse presente en primer término lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 de la Carta Magna que, al puntualizar las atribuciones de la Asamblea Legislativa, en su inciso 14), en lo que nos interesa, indica: "Decretar la enajenación o la aplicación a usos públicos de los bienes propios de la Nación." En esa misma línea, el artículo 261 del Código Civil aclara: "Son cosas públicas las que, por ley, están destinadas de un modo permanente a cualquier servicio de utilidad general, y aquellas de que todos pueden aprovecharse por estar entregadas al uso público . . .". Pues bien, a partir de la injerencia que tienen las vías de comunicación terrestre en la economía costarricense y, en general el desarrollo social del país y el ejercicio de derechos fundamentales (acceso a servicios de salud, intercambio de mercaderías, entre muchos otras actividades y servicios), deviene evidente que dichas áreas se encuentran entregadas al uso público (y más puntualmente al servicio público según el artículo 2 de la Ley Nº 7798 de 30 de abril de 1998). Pero además el Legislador, a través de regulaciones como la Ley de Construcciones, Ley Nº 833 de 02 de noviembre de 1949 (artículos 4, 5, 6, 7 y 13), Ley de Planificación Urbana, Ley Nº 4240 de 15 de noviembre de 1968 (artículos 42, 4 y 44, entre otros) y la Ley General de Caminos, Nº 5060 de 22 de agosto de 1972 (artículos 1 y 2 principalmente), por referir alguna normativa sobre el particular, concretan expresamente la naturaleza demanial de los terrenos destinados a carreteras y caminos públicos. Así, el numeral 4 de la Ley de Construcciones, al definir el término vía pública, expone que ". . . es todo terreno de dominio público y de uso común, que por disposición de la autoridad administrativa se destinare al libre tránsito de conformidad con las leyes y reglamentos de planificación y que de hecho esté destinado ya, a ese uso público. Según su clase, las vías públicas se destinarán además, a asegurar las condiciones de aereación e iluminación de los edificios que las limitan; a facilitar el acceso a los predios colindantes; a la instalación de cualquier canalización, artefacto, aparato o accesorio perteneciente a una obra pública o destinados a un servicio público." De inmediato, el artículo 5 de esa misma norma, descarta cualquier duda que aún pudiera mantenerse sobre la naturaleza de esos terrenos, al plantear que "Las vías públicas son inalienables e imprescriptibles y por lo tanto, no podrá constituirse sobre ellas hipoteca, embargo, uso, usufructo ni servidumbre en beneficio de una persona determinada, en los términos del derecho común. Los derechos de tránsito, iluminación y aereación, vista, acceso, derrames y otros semejantes inherentes al destino de las vías públicas se regirán exclusivamente por las leyes y Reglamentos Administrativos." De modo que, en tesis de principio, tratándose de los bienes de dominio público referidos a las vías de comunicación terrestre, en particular, las carreteras, autopistas, caminos, calles, puentes y demás elementos integrantes de las redes viales, éstos se encuentran encargados en lo que a su mantenimiento respecta, a órganos o entes públicos en razón de la determinación de pertenencia que define el propio ordenamiento jurídico vigente. Así, en términos generales, las carreteras nacionales, al ESTADO y, las cantonales, a los Gobiernos Municipales de la zona donde se localicen, según se logra extraer de la lectura de los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley Nº 5060 de 22 de agosto de 1972. En el primer numeral, se introduce una bifurcación en torno a la administración de los caminos públicos, los incluidos en la red vial nacional (carreteras primarias, carreteras secundarias, carreteras terciarias, incluidas las carreteras de acceso restringido y las autopistas que corresponden a carreteras -de acceso restringido- de cuatro o más carriles con o sin isla central divisoria) que quedan en manos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (órgano ministerial del ESTADO encargado según el artículo 2, inciso a), de la Ley que crea el Ministerio de Transportes en sustitución del actual Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Ley Nº 3155 de 05 de agosto de 1963, reformada mediante Ley Nº 4686 de 05 de julio de 1971, de "Planificar, construir y mejorar las carreteras y caminos. Mantener las carreteras y colaborar con las Municipalidades en la conservación de los caminos vecinales. Regular y controlar los derechos de vía de las carreteras y caminos existentes o en proyecto. Regular, controlar y vigilar el tránsito y el transporte por los caminos públicos.") y los integrantes de la red vial cantonal (Caminos vecinales, calles locales y caminos no clasificados), encargados a las Municipalidades. El segundo numeral, procede a puntualizar la detentación del dominio sobre esos bienes: "Son propiedad del Estado todos los terrenos ocupados por carreteras y caminos públicos existentes o que se construyan en el futuro. Las municipalidades tienen la propiedad de las calles de su jurisdicción. Las carreteras y caminos públicos únicamente podrán ser construidos y mejorados por el Ministro -sic- de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Sin embargo, con previa autorización de dicho Ministerio, las municipalidades y las instituciones descentralizadas del Estado, que tengan funciones relacionadas con la construcción de vías públicas, podrán ejecutarlas directamente o a través de terceros. Tratándose de caminos nuevos o ampliaciones, las partes interesadas solicitarán al Ministerio los estudios y recomendaciones técnicas de rigor, debiendo, en este caso, indicar los recursos económicos de que disponen para realizar . . . ". Con ello, deviene evidente que el ESTADO, o bien, la MUNICIPALIDAD respectiva, como titular del derecho real administrativo de dominio sobre las áreas de carreteras públicas, les corresponde no sólo su administración que involucra, entre otros aspectos, velar por que dicha infraestructura sea funcional y, en general, apta para el desarrollo de la actividad de transportación de seres humanos y mercaderías, sino que, en esa misma línea, la desatención a dichas obligaciones, les podría implicar, a partir del régimen de responsabilidad definido en la Ley General de la Administración Pública y la Ley de Protección al Consumidor, responsabilidad civil extracontractual objetiva. En relación, se impone aclarar, en el caso particular del ESTADO, dada la creación del CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, como órgano de desconcentración máxima, que si bien está adscrito al Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, cuenta con personalidad jurídica instrumental y presupuestaria a fin de administrar el Fondo de Vialidad, según lo determina el artículo 3 de la Ley Nº 7798 de 30 de abril de 1998, encargándole además el legislador a través de esa norma, en concreto el artículo 4, los siguientes objetivos: “a) Planear, programar, administrar, financiar, ejecutar y controlar la conservación y la construcción de la red vial nacional, en concordancia con los programas que elabore la Dirección de Planificación del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. b) Administrar su patrimonio. c) Ejecutar, mediante contratos, las obras, los suministros y servicios requeridos para el proceso de conservación y construcción de la totalidad de la red vial nacional. d) Fiscalizar la ejecución correcta de los trabajos, incluyendo el control de la calidad. e) Promover la investigación, el desarrollo y la transferencia tecnológica en el campo de la construcción y conservación vial. f) Celebrar contratos o prestar los servicios necesarios para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos y funciones.” De forma que, estando a su cargo el mantenimiento y preservación de las vías nacionales (artículos 1, 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23 y 24 de la citada Ley), su participación en asuntos de responsabilidad por la condición de las vías es indudable. Asímismo, según lo estipulado en la Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, Ley Nº 7762 de 14 de abril de 1998, se creó el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, órgano de desconcentración máxima con personalidad jurídica instrumental para administrar el Fondo Nacional de Concesiones y realizar convenios y contratos para cumplir sus funciones (artículos 6 y 7 de dicha norma) dentro de las cuales se contempla en el artículo 8 de esa ley, velar por el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de inspección y control de las concesiones otorgadas por parte de la Secretaría Técnica, actividad definida en el numeral 9 inciso d) siguiente, órgano que debe participar cuando la vía se construyó en ejecución de un contrato de concesión, tal como ocurre en la especie, donde la autopista donde tuvo lugar el accidente base de este proceso fue adjudicada su elaboración y explotación temporal a la empresa AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. Pero tratándose de concesiones de obra pública con servicio público, la responsabilidad respecto de terceros se encuentra expresamente definida por los artículos 18 inciso f), 19, 37 y 38 de la Ley Nº7762, con lo cual, la Administración sólo incurrirá en responsabilidad directa en casos excepcionales y subsidiaria, cuando el concesionario no pueda cubrir la indemnización. Así las cosas, no sólo debe valorarse para este asunto una eventual responsabilidad del ESTADO y los órganos citados, sino además de la empresa contratista encargada de construir la vía donde acaeció el accidente. - V.- SOBRE EL ACCIDENTE ACAECIDO EL DÍA 04 DE JULIO DEL 2009 Y LA RESPONSABILIDAD REPROCHADA A LOS DEMANDADOS: Tal y como se desprende de la boleta de citación de la Dirección General de la Policía de Tránsito, Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte, número 2 - 2009 - 86600627 de 07:34:08 pm de 04 de julio del 2009, levantada por el Oficial de Tránsito señor CARLOS ARRIETA ARGUEDAS, en la carretera Puntarenas-Esparza- San Juan Grande- Dirección17860 - , el vehículo pick up, marca Isuzu, placas Placa29345, conducido por el señor Nombre147246 , colisionó contra un objeto fijo, en específico, un poste de información. A ese momento las líneas amarillas continuas que tienen como finalidad separar el tránsito que circula en sentido contrario, ya existían, como consta en las fotografías aportadas por la propia parte actora, incluso rodeando por ambos lados la zona de postes con una raya uniforme única. Además, cuando esa demarcación era doble, es posible constatar entre las líneas amarillas la existencia de los denominados ojos de gatos, o dispositivos refractarios de luz. La parte actora alega la inexistencia de señalización e indica que mientras iba conduciendo por esa ruta se topó primero con una zanja y posteriormente con un poste en la carrera, empero, de las fotos que obran en el expediente no es posible aceptar tal alegato, no sólo porque la carrera se observa en buen estado, sino también porque la sección que no se encontraba pavimentada y donde fue instalado el poste contra el cual colisionó el actor, estaba separado del área de rodamiento y circulación de la autopista por una raya amarilla continua, señalización que de conformidad con la Ley de Tránsito por Vías Terrestres vigente a julio del año 2009, Ley Nº 7331 y sus reformas, estipula en los numerales 116 y 235.48, que esa línea se utiliza para separar los vehículos que circulan en dirección contraria y, en general, refiere a una indicación de impedimento o prohibición para sobrepasarla, por ejemplo, como ocurría en ese momento, por la existencia de obstáculos, quedando éstos fuera de la vía de circulación. Formulado lo anterior, corresponde analizar la responsabilidad en torno a cada uno de los demandados.- VI.- SOBRE LA RESPONSABILIDAD DE LOS ÓRGANOS ESTATALES: A partir de la regulación recién citada en el considerando IV, el ESTADO y sus órganos desconcentrados competentes en materia de vías públicas y de concesiones, sólo podrían ser responsables de manera tangencial respecto de los detrimentos sufridos y reclamados por el actor, en específico, si alguno de ellos hubiere ordenado a la concesionaria la realización de una acción u omisión que llegare a influir en la causación de los daños y lesiones reprochadas, o bien, incurrieran en falta de supervisión de las obligaciones de esa empresa y, a su vez, tal incumplimiento de la contratista generare los menoscabos base de la demanda. Empero, ninguna de esas circunstancias fue alegada por don Nombre147246, ni fueron objeto de demostración en la especie y tampoco puede arribarse a su existencia a partir de los elementos obrantes en los autos, implicando tal circunstancia la inexistencia de nexo causal entre lo pretendido y la conducta de los órganos estatales demandados, lo que deviene imprescindible para responsabilizar al ESTADO y sus órganos personificados instrumentalmente por los detrimentos argüidos por el señor Nombre147246 , todo lo cual impone acoger la defensa de FALTA DE DERECHO por no detectarse vínculo causal alguno. En todo caso, como se formuló en el considerando anterior, el accidente base de este proceso no resulta posible atribuirlo a persona alguna diferente al propio actor.- VII.- SOBRE LA RESPONSABILIDAD DE LA EMPRESA CONTRATISTA Y CONCESIONARIA: El reclamo planteado por el actor busca asidero en lo regulado en el artículo 18 inciso d), en relación con los ordinales 18 inciso f), 19, 37 y 38, todos de la Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos. Empero, como consta en la prueba aportada a los autos, la carretera se encontraba en buen estado y la demarcación existente, de haber sido respetada por el actor, era clara y suficiente para evitar el accidente ocurrido. En efecto, como lo indicaba la Ley de Tránsito vigente a la sazón, e incluso, la actual, la línea amarilla continua implica una señal de impedimento para cruzarla o traspasarla, pues al otro lado de ésta los vehículos circulan en dirección contraria, o bien, se encuentran obstáculos para rodar libremente o no existe superficie sobre la cual transportarse. Por eso se le denomina técnicamente línea de barrera. Incluso, su traspaso con el vehículo, es sancionado con multa. Con lo cual, queda claro, esa señalización es una forma de comunicación de las reglas de circulación vial reconocidas por los conductores que transitan por las carreteras del país, correspondiendo a una obligación de su parte el identificarlas y reconocerlas. Para cuando ocurrió el accidente cuyas consecuencias materiales y físicas se reclaman en esta instancia, no sólo la demarcación se encontraba realizada en forma evidente, sino que además las condiciones del tiempo eran favorables y la vía se encontraba en excelente estado, tal y como se indicó en el parte levantado en esa oportunidad y lo manifestaron los testigos que rindieron declaración en juicio. Inclusive el señor Nombre147248 , refirió a la existencia de la raya amarilla constante y manifestó que indica que no se debe traspasar con el vehículo, corroborando no sólo que la señalización había sido realizada y era visible, lo que en todo caso es confirmado por los elementos que muestran las fotos presentadas por el actor, sino que además era perfectamente interpretable. Bajo esas circunstancias, dado que no obra prueba en el expediente que permita arribar a la conclusión que el accidente ocurrido el día 04 de julio del 2009, tuviera lugar por injerencia de AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, ya sea por acción o por omisión, se determina la no presencia de nexo causal alguno de dicha contratista con los daños que se pretenden obtener indemnización, por lo que debe acogerse la defensa de FALTA DE DERECHO formulada por la concesionaria y declarar sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos. En todo caso, a mayor abundamiento, resulta conveniente resaltar el hecho de que en este asunto, aspecto que dejó de lado el accionante al interponer el proceso que es objeto de decisión, el señor Nombre147246 no leyó ni interpretó en forma adecuada la señalización de circulación existente sobre la vía al momento en que sufrió el accidente. En efecto, tal y como lo determina la Ley de Tránsito en los numerales ya referidos, la línea amarilla continua dice de la imposibilidad de sobrepasar tal demarcación durante la actividad de conducción, es decir, el área que se localiza después de dicho trazado, tanto a la izquierda cuanto a la derecha de la zona de circulación vehicular autorizada, está excluida del tránsito, pues no es superficie de ruedo. En la especie, como ya se indicó, según se reconoce por el oficial de tránsito que declaró en la audiencia de juicio, señor FRANCISCO NAVARRO MONGE y las fotografías aportadas por la propia parte actora, confirman la existencia de la demarcación referida (línea amarilla continua), la cual fue sobrepasada por don Nombre147246, cayendo en consecuencia en lo que él indicó como una zanja y colisionando posteriormente contra la base de un poste de señales de información. Se alega que las líneas no estaban, o bien, no se habían concluido, empero, de la prueba aportada a los autos, esa circunstancia no fue demostrada, al menos en un grado de afectación para la ocurrencia del choque. Véase que no se probó que el trazado de la línea amarilla fuera interrumpido, por el contrario, según los elementos demostrativos ya citados, se verifica su existencia y uniformidad, tanto previo cuanto posterior al poste contra el que colisionó el automotor que conducía el accionante. Si bien las líneas transversales dentro de esa zona no estaban pintadas, es lo cierto que la significación de la línea continua amarilla no varía por la ausencia de éstas que, en todo caso, la funcionalidad de las denominadas islas es más para terceras personas (transeúntes o quienes conduciendo su automotor sufren un desperfecto y deben detenerse de urgencia), pero la indicación de no circular por esa zona está definida por la línea amarilla continua que sí existía alrededor determinando un perímetro de inaccesibilidad que no fue respetado por el actor. De allí que no sea de recibo para este órgano jurisdiccional el alegato de que la demarcación no existiera o fuera suficiente para advertirle que no debía circular por la zona donde estaba el poste de información contra el que colisionó. Tampoco se demostró que la demarcación realizada en esa parte de la carretera llevara a confusión a los conductores. Por una parte se afirma que don Nombre147246 se impresionó al toparse una zanja y un poste sobre la carretera, cuando según quedó demostrado, es una carretera que utilizaba en forma constante desde hacía meses, por lo que no resulta creíble que fue hasta el día 04 de julio de 2009, que la señalización le llevó a error, para lo cual incluso habría que dejar de lado el conocimiento de la zona a partir de su uso constante. Además, no se aportó prueba de que en ese lugar ocurrían constantemente accidentes, correspondiendo únicamente a simples afirmaciones carentes de fuerza para modificar lo aquí decidido. Por otra parte, se argumenta que ese mismo día dos vehículos más estuvieron cerca de tener un accidente después del afrontado por el reclamante de responsabilidad, pero ello en nada justifica el planteamiento deducido, pues no constan las causas que pudieron haber mediado, máxime cuando la existencia de curiosos en el lugar a partir de la colisión previa, complicaba la actividad ordinaria de tránsito, lo que no confirma que fuera un error de señalización o trazado de la carretera. De modo que, al no atender el señor Nombre147246 la prohibición de circular después de la raya amarilla continua, no resulta viable endilgar a terceras personas la responsabilidad de los daños y lesiones sufridas, cuando refieren exclusivamente, a partir de los elementos probatorios presentados a los autos, a efectos de sus propios actos, sin que pueda transmitirse o trasladarse a los demandados, por el sólo hecho de transitar en una vía pública concesionada. Ante tal falta de vinculación, deviene innecesario e improcedente analizar cada uno de los rubros que peticiona el actor le sean indemnizados, por ello se emite pronunciamiento sobre el particular, incluida la no demostración de que el vehículo era propiedad de don Nombre147246, y por el contrario aparece a nombre de otra persona y la carta venta aportada carece de las formalidades respectivas para poder reconocer el derecho de propiedad que se pretende.- VIII.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES INTERPUESTAS POR LOS DEMANDADOS: Una vez valoradas las pretensiones y alegatos del accionante, corresponde decidir en torno a las defensas formuladas en este asunto y, en general, los presupuestos de fondo que deben constituir un conflicto de esta naturaleza. Así, en primer término, tocante a la falta de legitimación ad causam aducida, ésta debe ser rechazada en sus dos modalidades. Los cargos argumentados por don Nombre147246 tienen origen en el accidente vehicular por él sufrido el día 04 de julio del 2009, el cual ocurrió en una autopista nacional propiedad del ESTADO que, según quedó explicado supra, encargó la administración de ese tipo de bienes de dominio público al CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD y al estar en presencia de una obra concesionada, también está involucrado el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, ambos en condición de órganos de desconcentración máxima con personalidad jurídica instrumental, que deben participar en razón del ordinal 12 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. De igual manera, la sociedad contratista, pues la legislación vigente le direcciona, de existir, la responsabilidad frente a terceros. Por consiguiente, el actor se encuentra legitimado para accionar contra los órganos estatales citados y contra la concesionaria, manteniendo el interés actual para esos efectos, dado que una declaratoria con lugar de sus pretensiones, implicaría un incremento en su patrimonio. Por otra parte, como ya se indicó supra, en este conflicto no fue demostrada la existencia de vínculo causal entre la conducta de los demandados y las lesiones y daños que se solicita indemnizar, razón por la cual debe acogerse la FALTA DE DERECHO alegada, declarándose sin lugar en todos sus extremos la presente acción, omitiendo pronunciarse, por innecesario, respecto de cada uno de los rubros cuyo pago se peticionó.- IX.-SOBRE LAS COSTAS DE ESTE PROCESO: En cuanto al presente rubro, al amparo del numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, este Tribunal considera que no se está en presencia de alguna de las causales de exoneración que dispone dicho artículo. Más aún, analizando el cuadro fáctico que describe lo ocurrido el día 04 de julio del 2009, se concluye que el actor pretende endilgar a los accionados los daños y lesiones sufridos por un accidente donde sólo su conducta y no la de los demandados, fue la causante del detrimento sufrido; incluso presentando alegatos que no se sustentan con la realidad que se llegó a determinar en la especie. Todo lo que, a entender de este órgano jurisdiccional, demuestra la inexistencia de buena fe en este asunto y justifica la imposición del pago de ambas costas al actor aquí perdidoso, como en efecto se hace.-

POR TANTO:

Se rechaza la excepción de FALTA DE LEGITIMACIÓN en sus dos modalidades y se acoge la defensa de FALTA DE DERECHO, interpuestas por los accionados. En consecuencia, se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda planteada por el señor Nombre147246 contra el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD, el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, el ESTADO y la empresa AUTOPISTAS DEL SOL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. Por la manera en que se decide este asunto, se omite hacer valoración sobre el tema de LEGITIMACIÓN ACTIVA de don Nombre147246 para reclamar daños sobre el vehículo placas Nº Placa29345. Tocante al extremo de costas, se impone su pago a la parte perdidosa, señor Nombre147246 . NOTIFÍQUESE.- Julio Alb. Cordero Mora Nombre632 Alner Palacios García