News Supreme Court rulings February 2013

If causation is not proven: the condominium does not have to compensate those who trip over the grate.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 5977/2012 confirmed that the mere presence of a rickety, raised grating does not mean that the condominium, the custodian of it, must compensate the person who ended up on the ground in the vicinity of the object.
In fact, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the heirs of the lady who capitulated, according to them, because of the aforementioned grate. The court noted that since there were numerous obstacles present that could have caused the fall, the mere fact that the lady was found near the grating is not enough to presume that it was the grating that caused the tumble: the court reiterated that it is the burden of the injured party to prove that the damage suffered was caused by the object being guarded.

Adult son may refuse seasonal work procured for him by his father who will continue to pay child support
.
In ruling no. 1779 of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that an adult son can legitimately refuse a seasonal job procured for him by his father, who, therefore, must continue to contribute to his support until the boy achieves economic independence.
Specifically, the son, after leaving school and now coming of age, although he did not have stable and lasting employment, had refused a job as a bartender procured for him by his father. The father, believing that the aforementioned refusal was completely unjustified, acted in order to obtain the termination of the obligation to continue contributing to the boy’s maintenance.
The Supreme Court also made it clear that an occasional job is unsuitable to enable the young person to achieve full and stable economic independence, the only circumstance that would legitimize the father no longer having to contribute to child support.

Wife leaves after 50 years of marriage: evidence of his unhappiness.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 2183/2013 ruled that if the wife, at the age of seventy, decides to leave home and subsequently leave her husband, she does not deserve a separation charge.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the wife is not liable for separation because her estrangement at an age when one generally needs the affection of loved ones most is a clear indication of intolerability to continued cohabitation with one’s spouse.