State Defense Council requested to reject Senator Fabiola Campillai’s lawsuit

The parliamentarian had filed a legal action in which she requested compensation for more than $2 billion for non-pecuniary damage, after what happened in the context of the so-called social outbreak.

Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:46 a.m.

The State Defense Council asked to reject the million-dollar lawsuit filed by the current independent senator for moral damages, after losing the sight of her two eyes, along with the sense of taste and smell in the framework of the so-called social outbreak.

Let us remember that Campillai received the impact of a tear gas bomb in the face launched by Carabineros when he was on his way to work on November 26, 2019, in the commune of San Bernardo.

For this fact, the independent legislator requested compensation for more than $2 billion.

According to the lawsuit “due to the malicious or, at least negligent, act of the police, both the direct victim, Mrs. Fabiola Campillai, and her family have suffered obvious non-pecuniary damage.”

However, the CDE argued among its reasons for requesting the rejection of the legal action that it is not appropriate to compensate the relatives of the congresswoman, such as her sister Ana María Campillai.

In that sense, it pointed out that “considering that the suit for the proceedings seeks compensation exclusively for non-pecuniary damage, it must be considered that said compensation action must protect a legitimate interest, and from the perspective of the damage, this, to be compensated, must be personal, which means that only those who have suffered it can demand its reparation”.

The CDE stated that, although the facts reported by the plaintiff “are of obvious importance, the need to establish a limit to satisfactory reparations cannot be ignored, which could only benefit the closest family nucleus; that is, parents, children and spouse”.

Likewise, the entity challenged the amount demanded for non-pecuniary damage “because it is considered disproportionate with respect to the facts on which it is based,” according to what is read in the document..

Next, it held that “notwithstanding what has already been stated in the previous sections of this answer, it is necessary to take into consideration that the compensation for moral damages arises due to the fact that a right of a non-patrimonial nature, that is, not appraisable, has been injured. in money, and hence it is sustained by the doctrine and jurisprudence that such compensation always has a merely satisfactory character, since what it is about by its non-patrimonial nature is to give the victim satisfaction, help, assistance that allows it to attenuate, moderate the injury to the right of a non-patrimonial nature affected”.

Follow us on


Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.