Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 1023

An accident involving negligent injury may occur on the basis of two faults committed by two different persons. Its necessary consequence. Each commits an unlawful act distinct in its elements from the act committed by the other and constituting in itself an independent offense, even if they lead to a single result. The implication: bringing criminal proceedings against the accused persons by a single indictment does not deprive either action of its independence from the other. Its effect. Termination of the criminal action against one of them by issuance of a final judgment does not affect the continued hearing of the criminal action against the other accused. The period for barring the hearing of the civil action concerning the unlawful act committed by the first accused begins to run from the date of finality of that judgment. The basis for this. - Charging two persons with having negligently caused injury to another. The court of first instance’s conviction of one and acquittal of the other. The first person’s failure to appeal the judgment and its becoming final as to him. Its effect. The period for 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. It has no effect because each person’s unlawful act is independent of the other’s. This is not altered by supposing that the appellate misdemeanor court reverses the judgment and convicts the second accused, thereby making him jointly and severally liable with the first accused. The rationale: a jointly and severally liable debtor in respect of whom the period for barring the hearing of the action has elapsed may invoke this against the creditor demanding payment of the debt from him. The latter may not invoke against him the suspension of that period in respect of another debtor. The basis for this: the presumed mutual representation among jointly and severally liable debtors operates in what benefits them, not in what harms them, because of the multiplicity of the relationships between them and the creditor. Contravention of this. An error in applying the law requiring cassation of the judgment.