A.M., F.A. c/ C.N.H y otros
CA Río Negro · Dec 12, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court admonished counsel for citing nonexistent and misrepresented case law, identifying these as AI-generated hallucinations. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the accident's mechanics, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the confirmation of the lower court's judgment against the plaintiff.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision as supporting objective liability; court could not locate the precedent and determined it to be nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court was unable to find it and treated it as a non-existent AI-generated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court could not locate it and concluded it was a fabricated citation likely produced by generative AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court's search found no trace of the precedent and characterized it as an AI 'hallucination'. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a provincial/circuit civil appellate decision 'Mosca c/ Vilches' (CNCiv Sala B) as binding support; court could not locate that decision in official repositories and treated it as nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited CSJN Fallos 308:1109 as supporting the proposition; court found the cited CSJN decision (Honorio Juan Luján) exists but determined it was unrelated to the proposition invoked (misuse/misrepresentation of precedent).
- Why it matters now
- Argentine appellate courts are admonishing counsel for AI hallucinations on the record; admonishments stay published and traceable.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal regarding a traffic accident, the appellate court reviewed the plaintiff's arguments, which relied on multiple cited precedents. The court determined that several of these citations were nonexistent, including references to specific STJ Río Negro decisions and a provincial appellate decision ('Mosca c/ Vilches'). The court characterized these as fabricated citations likely produced by generative AI. Additionally, the court noted that another cited CSJN decision existed but was misrepresented as it was unrelated to the proposition invoked. The court ultimately rejected the appeal, confirming the lower court's dismissal of the claim due to the plaintiff's failure to prove the alleged facts and the presence of contributory negligence by the motorcycle driver.
Argentine appellate courts are admonishing counsel for AI hallucinations on the record; admonishments stay published and traceable.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court attributed the fabricated citations to generative AI.
Appellate review of a lower court judgment in a civil damages case, resulting in the confirmation of the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision as supporting objective liability; court could not locate the precedent and determined it to be nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court was unable to find it and treated it as a non-existent AI-generated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court could not locate it and concluded it was a fabricated citation likely produced by generative AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this STJ Río Negro decision; court's search found no trace of the precedent and characterized it as an AI 'hallucination'.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a provincial/circuit civil appellate decision 'Mosca c/ Vilches' (CNCiv Sala B) as binding support; court could not locate that decision in official repositories and treated it as nonexistent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited CSJN Fallos 308:1109 as supporting the proposition; court found the cited CSJN decision (Honorio Juan Luján) exists but determined it was unrelated to the proposition invoked (misuse/misrepresentation of precedent).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in A.M., F.A. c/ C.N.H y otros?
- The court admonished counsel for citing nonexistent and misrepresented case law, identifying these as AI-generated hallucinations. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the accident's mechanics, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the confirmation of the lower court's judgment against the plaintiff.
- Why does A.M., F.A. c/ C.N.H y otros matter for legal AI risk?
- Argentine appellate courts are admonishing counsel for AI hallucinations on the record; admonishments stay published and traceable.
- What does the public record establish about A.M., F.A. c/ C.N.H y otros?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this A.M., F.A. c/ C.N.H y otros summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.