9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
The owner of the car is responsible for being a car owner – this is approximately how the Supreme Court interpreted one of the most unfair articles of
A complaint has been filed for hearing in the top court in a case where a car hit a pedestrian violating traffic rules. In Krasnodar, a certain citizen Apkaryan decided to cross the road next to a zebra crossing at a prohibition light. And he fell under the wheels of a car from the Kuban State Agrarian University. As a result of the incident, the crazy “pedestrian” died. The criminal case against the driver was dismissed due to lack of evidence of a crime. But four relatives of the deceased – Natalya and Naira Abkarian, Svetlana Galechyan and Silva Manvelyan – decided, as they say, to “make money” from the owner of the vehicle – from the educational institution.
And they filed a claim for compensation for moral damage – 1 million rubles each. The Court of First Instance awarded them 300,000 each, and the Krasnodar Regional Court reduced the amount of compensation to 150,000 rubles. On the grounds that Apkaryan showed gross negligence by crossing the roadway at a prohibited pedestrian light. The court’s rulings apparently were not satisfactory to either side of the case and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The latter upheld the decision of his colleagues, citing art. 1079 GLRF. According to this law, legal entities and citizens whose activities involve an increased danger to others (use of vehicles, etc.) are obliged to compensate damage caused by a source of increased danger, unless they prove that the damage occurred as a result. there is force majeure or intent on the part of the victim.
The Supreme Court emphasized that even if there is no fault on the part of the owner of the source of the increased danger and if there is gross negligence on the part of the person whose life or health has been damaged, the court has no right to fully award the owner to dismiss. the vehicle of liability. That is, it turns out that even if the driver is absolutely innocent, he will still have to answer for the fatal stupidity of the pedestrian.
Article 1079 of the Civil Code, to which the courts refer in such cases, is notorious for many car owners who have ‘encountered’ the suicidal behavior of other road users. The paradox is that the absurd injustice of the wording is apparent not only to motorists, but also to lawyers. However, neither the latter nor the lawmakers even try to do anything about it. Although in fact the situation can very well be corrected by the same Supreme Court. It is sufficient for him to decide at his next plenum that a clear and gross violation of traffic rules by accident victims is tantamount to intentional self-harm.
And everything will fall into place: he stepped on the prohibition signal – and he himself received “what he ordered” (injury or death), other people had nothing to do with it. Would you say it’s not human? And you put yourself in the place of the driver who suddenly committed suicide – with all the consequences that entails. For example, it doesn’t occur to anyone to punish the organization responsible for the sidewalk near a high-rise building on which a suicide fell from a window…
A complaint has been filed for hearing in the top court in a case where a car hit a pedestrian violating traffic rules. In Krasnodar, a certain citizen Apkaryan decided to cross the road next to a zebra crossing at a prohibition light. And he fell under the wheels of a car from the Kuban State Agrarian University. As a result of the incident, the crazy “pedestrian” died. The criminal case against the driver was dismissed due to lack of evidence of a crime. But four relatives of the deceased – Natalya and Naira Abkarian, Svetlana Galechyan and Silva Manvelyan – decided, as they say, to “make money” from the owner of the vehicle – from the educational institution.
And they filed a claim for compensation for moral damages – 1 million rubles each. The Court of First Instance awarded them 300,000 each, and the Krasnodar Regional Court reduced the amount of compensation to 150,000 rubles. On the grounds that Apkaryan showed gross negligence by crossing the roadway at a prohibited pedestrian light. The court’s rulings apparently were not satisfactory to either side of the case and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The latter upheld the decision of his colleagues, citing art. 1079 GLRF. According to this law, legal entities and citizens whose activities involve an increased danger to others (use of vehicles, etc.) are obliged to compensate damage caused by a source of increased danger, unless they prove that the damage occurred as a result. there is force majeure or intent on the part of the victim.
The Supreme Court emphasized that even if there is no fault on the part of the owner of the source of the increased danger and if there is gross negligence on the part of the person whose life or health has been damaged, the court has no right to fully award the owner to dismiss. the vehicle of liability. That is, it turns out that even if the driver is absolutely innocent, he will still have to answer for the fatal stupidity of the pedestrian.
Article 1079 of the Civil Code, to which the courts refer in such cases, is notorious for many car owners who have ‘encountered’ the suicidal behavior of other road users. The paradox is that the absurd injustice of the wording is apparent not only to motorists, but also to lawyers. However, neither the latter nor the lawmakers even try to do anything about it. Although in fact the situation can very well be corrected by the same Supreme Court. It is sufficient for him to decide at his next plenum that a clear and gross violation of traffic rules by accident victims is tantamount to intentional self-harm.
And everything will fall into place: he stepped on the prohibition signal – and he himself received “what he ordered” (injury or death), other people had nothing to do with it. Would you say it’s not human? And you put yourself in the place of the driver who suddenly committed suicide – with all the consequences that entails. For example, it doesn’t occur to anyone to punish the organization responsible for the sidewalk near a high-rise building on which a suicide fell from a window…
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
