”When objective responsibility is given due to a dangerous activity, the exculpatory reasons are exceptions, so the unexpectedness of the injured party’s act is judged according to the strictest criterion – the criterion of extreme care. If a looser or subjective point of view were to prevail, the obligation of the objectively responsible person would be eased beyond reasonable limits, which would be contrary to the purpose for which the legislator established objective liability for the owners of dangerous things. Therefore, the sphere of risk of the objectively responsible operator also includes those careless and reckless actions of the injured party, which the employer should have expected and could have prevented. The conditions for a complete exemption from the employer’s liability are thus not met. Considering the established level of carelessness of the plaintiff, the revision objection that the conditions for partial exemption from objective liability are given is justified. In this case, however, the court must assess, based on the criteria from the second paragraph of Article 171 of the Civil Procedure Code, how much the injured party’s compensation is reduced due to his contribution to the occurrence of the damage. When assessing the proportion by which the awarded compensation should be reduced due to the actions of the injured party, it is necessary to take into account (1) how important the danger itself, originating from the activity, was for the occurrence of certain damage, (2) whether any negligence also contributed to the occurrence of the damage the conduct of the employer and (3) how much the damage was caused by the negligent conduct of the injured party. In the case of the latter, the seriousness of the victim’s conduct must also be taken into account. The main cause of the damage event was the high risk of accidents, which is inextricably linked to the work of a woodcutter. The additional risk was certainly caused by the plaintiff, who did not follow one of the most important safety regulations at work. Due to his inexperience and because he saw that even more experienced workers do the same, this is partly the result of the careless behavior of the employer. Although it was found that he sanctioned the improper felling of trees, at the same time, with insufficient supervision, he quietly agreed to improper and therefore faster work. In addition to the already mentioned circumstances, the court’s finding that the norms and time were set in such a way that the simultaneous presence of the feller and the tractor driver was difficult, and the plaintiff and the tractor driver were specifically told to hurry because the trees would be in vegetation and must cut down the youths. The Supreme Court took all the mentioned circumstances into account and, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 171 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 153 of the Criminal Code, decided that the plaintiff should be awarded 10% less compensation due to his negligent conduct.”

”The plaintiff did not take care of himself. Together with the driver, he embarked on a dangerous adventure that ended tragically. The defendant’s insured took the lead in this regard. His alcohol level was already 2.6 g/kg at the border crossing, and even over 3 g/kg at the time of the accident. He was driving a car that is dangerous because, with its mass and at higher speeds, when something goes wrong, its momentum can find itself in an unpredictable causal vortex. However, when the driver is intoxicated (which is also an illegal, culpable act) in this causal scheme, the risks only increase. The more drunk he is, the more he raises them, the more dominant they become, and the more and more deadly the causal vortex. The plaintiff was complicit in this increase in risk and agreed to it. Since it was their joint drunkenness, it is possible, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, to weigh both causes equally on the scales. According to the reasons in point 47 of this judgment, this dictates that with the correct application of Article 171 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff will be entitled to a halved compensation, or to put it numerically, that his co-contribution amounts to 50%.”

”An employee whose employment contract was illegally terminated is entitled to compensation for unused annual leave also for the years following the year in which the employment contract was terminated, i.e. for the entire period of the recognized employment relationship that later ended (in this case by judicial dissolution of the employment contract).”

” In view of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant did not agree on the duration of the defendant’s stay in the disputed facility, and given the nature of the relationship, the courts of lower levels correctly considered that there was a permanent contractual relationship between them for an indefinite period. Such a contractual relationship can be terminated on the basis of Article 333 of the Civil Code, but not at an inappropriate time. The legal concept of inappropriate time must be fulfilled in each individual case, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the position of both parties. Taking into account the fundamental principles of contractual relations (mainly the principle of conscientiousness and honesty and the prohibition of abuse of rights), it is necessary to weigh whose right is more in need of protection at that moment. When assessing the validity or effectiveness of the termination, the introductory fundamental principles of the law of obligations should not be ignored, such as, for example, the principle of conscientiousness and honesty from Article 5 of the Code of Obligations highlighted in the audit. This co-determines the concept of inappropriate time and requires each party to consider the interests of the other party to the right extent and in an appropriate manner when concluding a contractual relationship. Just as it would be unfair that the owner of the real estate could not cancel the contractual relationship in any way, the other extreme could be equally unfair, when the owner would allow the use of his real estate to another person “with a fig in his pocket”, with the intention that he would invest in the real estate, directly after the investments, he would terminate the contractual relationship. Between these two places there is a series of intermediate positions, to which the ones in question also belong. It is not excluded that some subsequent actions of the parties (after the conclusion of the agreement) or the relationship between them could shift the original center of gravity of the relationship, judged in the light of the principle of conscientiousness and honesty.”

“If the dog is dangerous, its owner must adapt the protection and supervision to such characteristics of the dog and anticipate possible dangerous situations, especially those indicated by past experience or even past harmful events. Despite the installation of a warning sign and a chain that extended 40 cm to the boundary line between the yard and the public path, the plaintiffs did not take care of the necessary protection and supervision of your dog.”

“The central complaint on which the plaintiff bases her thesis about the defendant’s hereditary unworthiness refers to the situation in which the deceased found herself after the death of her partner. At that time, she was forced to move out of their shared home. She had no other (her) place of residence at her disposal. Around that time, she was also diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, which left her in need of help. At that time, the defendant did not offer her to move to her place in Koper. In a specific case, the reason for hereditary unfitness from point 4 of Article 126 of the Civil Code must – unlike what is provided for in point 1 of Article 42 of the Civil Code regarding disinheritance – contain a causal connection between the heir’s failure to provide assistance (or violation of maintenance obligations) on the one hand and concrete injury of the testator due to the omission of the necessary assistance on the other side. If life goes the other way and the deceased is taken care of, he can only be affected morally. It can also respond to such impairment by disinheriting. Inheritable unfitness, on the contrary, is effective even without the testator’s last will order and does not refer only to the exclusion of the possibility of necessary inheritance, but extends to all hereditary positions. Therefore, it is not enough only to have a serious breach of moral obligation, which would potentially turn any inheritance procedure into a moral reprimand and judgement, but it is required that the testator was in real danger due to the heir’s indifferent or even hostile passivity. Since this condition is not given in the case under consideration, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant is not unworthy of inheritance.”

“The enactment of the Act on Temporary Measures Regarding Judicial, Administrative and Other Public Law Matters for Controlling the Spread of the Infectious Disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) (ZZUSUDJZ), which specifically regulated the running of deadlines during an epidemic of an infectious disease, has no effect on the expiration of the absolute limitation period from the sixth paragraph of Article 42 of the Act on Misdemeanors (ZP-1).”

” The combination of circumstances, which the court of second instance assessed only partially, shows that the decision to terminate the job and terminate the employment contract was not the result of the need to rationalize operations and better organize work. Each of these circumstances in and of itself may not really affect the legality of the termination, but all of them combined show the semblance of a reason for the termination.”

” The right to a break is not violated just because the worker is not guaranteed a replacement for the break time, and also not if the worker is at the workplace during the break, near the workplace or takes the break right at the workplace. It is important whether, given the intensity of the commitments during work and the frequency of interventions, the involvement of the informal on-call worker in the work at night, on weekends and holidays, when, according to the testimony of all the witnesses, the amount and intensity of work was not the same as during the day, was such that the use of breaks during working hours was not possible.”

“Divorce is not necessarily a condition for filing a lawsuit for the return of a gift between spouses. In cases where the spouse has already filed for divorce, which indicates that the marriage is unsustainable (at least for that spouse), there is no reasonable reason why the action for the return of the gift should wait until the finality of the decision on divorce. The result of a request for divorce is the issuance of a divorce decree, and the unsustainability of the marriage is no longer subject to any demanding evidentiary procedure.”