Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

LS LEXJUS SINACTA

BOLOGNA
Via Massimo DAzeglio, 19
40123 Bologna
Tel. +39051232495
Fax +39051230407
P.I. 02698331200

PARTNERS

GIONATA BARTOLINI
DOTT. Bologna, 7th August 2017
RAG. ALFREDO BOSCHI
DOTT. LUCA RUSSO BRUGNERI

Messrs.
AVV. FRANCESCA CAPODIFERRO
DOTT. FRANCESCA CASTAGNOLI
AVV. CLAUDIO CAVALERA
AVV. VERA DANIELE
DOTT. ALESSANDRO DI PIETRO
Kennedys
DOTT. FRANCO FINOCCHI
AVV. SILVIA FRATTESI 25 Fenchurch Avenue
London EC3M 5AD
DOTT. LUCIANO LEOMBRUNI
DOTT. FAUSTO MARONCELLI
DOTT. MASSIMO MASOTTI
DOTT. LUCA MONTEVECCHI
DOTT. SIMONA MORDINI
UNITED KINGDOM
AVV. PIETRO NISI
AVV. CLAUDIO PERRELLA
RAG. ROBERTO RIZZOLI
AVV. ANNA RITA RONCUZZI To the kind attention of Mrs. Tara Mukerji
AVV. GIANLUIGI SERAFINI
AVV. ALESSIO TOTARO
AVV. SIMONE TROMBETTI
DOTT. VINCENZO URBINI
PROF. AVV. MARCO DUGATO
Reply to the letter of claim on 27th July 2017
Ordinario Diritto Amministrativo Universit di
Bologna
PROF. AVV. ANNA MASUTTI
Ordinario Diritto della Navigazione RE: Proposed claimants: Mr. and Mrs. Monk / proposed
Universit di Bologna
PROF. AVV. FRANCESCO VELLA
Ordinario Diritto Commerciale
defendant: Polti UK Limited - Incident fire at Grange Close
Universit di Bologna
AVV. MICHELE MASSIRONI date of incident 27 March 2017 Your ref. 33/TVM/S1129-842762
Professore a contratto
Diritto Commerciale Internazionale (PW)- Our Ref. AG 9084/2017/AM
Universit di Bologna

ASSOCIATES

VIRNA ANDERLINI
DOTT.
Strictly without prejudice
DOTT. ELISABETTA BARATTA
AVV. MARIA GAIA CAVALLARI
DOTT. MARIA LUCE CAPPELLERI
DOTT. GIUSEPPE CIRESI
AVV. ISABELLA COLUCCI
Dear Sirs,
DOTT. FABIO DALMASSO
AVV. ANGELA DE PASCALIS

Acknowledging the receipt of your e-mail from 27 July 2017, we


AVV. MARIA DE PASCALIS
AVV. ELISA FABBRI
AVV. DIEGO FAVERO
AVV. ANDREA FEDERICI
DOTT. GIULIETTA FERRANTI
would like to inform you on the following:
DOTT. ARTEMIO GNERRE
DOTT. ANTONIO GIULIO GRECO

1. We do not approve your statement according to which a


DOTT. MATTIA MANTOVANI
AVV. SILVIA MANZONI
DOTT. CLAUDIA MONZONI
AVV. FABIO NICOLICCHIA
DOTT. GIORGIA PANFILI
Claimant is not required to show the precise nature of a
AVV. GUIA SANTOLI
AVV. RITA SATANASSI
defect said to have caused the damage since we noticed
AVV. MONIA STANEV
AVV. MARIALISA TAGLIENTI that you did not provide us the minimum evidence to
AVV. EVA BETTINI
show that the damage was caused by the Window Vac. As
it was established by the case Foster v Basil [2001] 59
BMLR 178, it is necessary to establish the damage,

not merely that the product failed in circumstances


which were unsafe and contrary to what persons
generally might expect.

1
2. You did not provide us with a technical report that could
prove the fire was caused by the malfunction of the Polti
Forzaspira AG100 Window Vacuum Cleaners.

3. As we notice from your last letter of claim, there is still


missing the relevant documentation in order to prove your
statements.

4. We do not accept your circumstantial evidence and


witness evidence that could prove there was a defect with
the Window Vac because of the following considerations:

We cannot be assured about the accuracy of the


photographic evidence because they are not from an
independent technical expert but from your
Claimant. From the 4 photographs enclosed it is not
possible to recognize or locate the aforementioned
Window Vac and consequently recognize that it was
the origin of the fire.

We also do not accept your assertion that the


Window Vac was the only piece of electrical
equipment on the bookcase that was plugged in, or
charging at the time of the accident since there is no
relevant photographic evidence to prove the
damage of the Window Vac and the other electronic
equipment mentioned.

We also do not recognize the vague expression


around six hours with regards to the time that the
Windows Vac was left on charge and unattended.
Your Clients evidence doesn't prove that the fire
originated in the Window Vac or that it originated

2
due to other causes, for instance: short circuit,
overvoltage etc.

5. Even if we were to consider the photographic evidence, a


fact which is excluded, the fire occurred in a very small
area, remaining confined to the top of the bookcase.
Therefore, we cannot accept your assertion according to
which the smoke from the fire also travelled under the
door between the garage and the Monks house and
contaminated parts of the house. We kindly ask you to
provide proof and the adequate expertise.

6. We also do not accept your contention that the loss is being


fully adjusted since you are being vague in your
statements with respect to the facts occurred during that
period of time when the Vacuum Cleaner was left of on
charge. Therefore, we do not think that the quantum
estimated by your Client is realistic bearing in mind that
there is no relevant evidence of proving this kind of
damage.

7. We are available to discuss the matter once we will receive


the proof on our Clients alleged liability.

Yours faithfully,

Prof. Avv. Anna Masutti

Potrebbero piacerti anche