Reckless Use of Drones

In the “F., S. re prosecution” case, docket N° 48313/2015, ruled by Room I on March 20, 2017, and in the “B.A., S. re prosecution” case, docket N° 77397/ 2016, ruled by Room VII on April 24, 2017, the Argentine Criminal and Correctional Court confirmed the rulings issued by the lower court, in which the accused were prosecuted for culpable injuries caused by the reckless use of drones.

In  “F., S. re prosecution” , a drone was being operated over a densely populated area, near Plaza Constitución, when the accused lost control of the drone which dropped suddenly, impacting its rotors and propellers against the victims, who were waiting at a taxi stand.

In  “B.A., S. re prosecution” , a drone was being operated near the face of the victim when it hit the victim in the face while singing with a music band in Parque Chacabuco, as confirmed by other witnesses.

The operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAV”, or Drones as they are commonly known) is regulated by Resolution No. 527/2015 of the National Administration of Civil Aviation (“ANAC”, after its acronym in Spanish), the competent aeronautical authority. The resolution approved the Provisional Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft vehicles. The Resolution was published on October 7, 2015 and entered into force 120 days after it was published, i.e. on November 11, 2015 (see “Civil Liability Insurance for Drones”, published in Marval Insurance News Nº 2 on March 20, 2017).

Article 15 of the Resolution prohibits operating this type of vehicles over highly populated areas or crowds of people. Article 27 of the Resolution sets out that all drone operations weighing less than 10kg must take place in a radius not less than thirty (30) horizontal meters from, and ten (10) vertical meters above those who are unrelated to the remote crew.

In the first case, the appellant explained that at the moment of the incident, occurred on August 15, 2015, there was no regulation regarding the use of drones. However, even so, the Court understood that a basic and general duty of care existed, which is not only stated in the Law, but also in custom, use or common sense and in rules of coexistence.

In the second case, the violation to article 15 was admitted by the accused, when same recognized having operated the drone one meter and a half from the face of the singer, producing the injuries that were attributed to it. Also, in this case the Court understood that a violation to the general duty of care took place and that no safety precautions were taken.

The Court confirmed both prosecutions for the crime of injury.

These are the first judicial cases in which the responsibility for using drones and applying the regulation issued by the ANAC were analyze; and the general duty of care was affirmed. To date, these precedents have only dealt with this matter from a criminal point of view.