Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 3479

An accidental injury incident may occur as a result of two faults by two different persons. Its prerequisite. Each must have committed an unlawful act distinct in its elements from the act committed by the other and constituting in itself an independent offence, even if both led to a single result. The implication thereof: bringing criminal proceedings against the accused persons in a single indictment does not deprive either action of its independence from the other. Its effect. Extinguishment of the criminal proceedings against one of them by a final judgment does not affect the continued hearing of the criminal proceedings against the other accused. The period barring the hearing of the civil action for the unlawful act committed by the first accused begins to run from the date of the finality of that judgment. The basis thereof. - Charging two persons with negligently causing injury to another. The court of first instance's judgment convicting one and acquitting the other. The first does not appeal the judgment and it becomes final as regards him. Its effect. The period barring the hearing of the civil action arising from the act he committed begins to run after the suspensive effect ceases. The Public Prosecution's appeal against the acquittal of the second accused. Has no effect, because each person's unlawful act is independent of the other's. This is not altered by the supposition that the appellate misdemeanour court reverses the judgment and convicts the second accused, thereby rendering him jointly and severally liable with the first accused. The rationale: a joint and several debtor in respect of whom the period barring the hearing of the action has expired. He may invoke that against the creditor claiming the debt from him. The latter may not invoke against him the suspension of that period in respect of another debtor. The basis thereof: the presumed reciprocal representation among joint and several debtors. It applies to what benefits them, not to what harms them, because of the multiplicity of the relationships between them and the creditor. Contravention thereof. An error in applying the law requiring cassation of the judgment.