The accident that became the stumbling block occurred on March 2, 2021. It follows from the judicial materials that the driver of a tractor with a Mercedes-Benz tipper semi-trailer named AP Arutyunyan lost control in the dark on one of the highways of the Moscow region and ran into a cable fence. The car overturned, the load (stone chips) fell on the road. The driver was not injured and was able to get out of the cab under his own power. But after some time, a Ford Mondeo driven by Alexey Gulbasov crashed into an overturned truck. Yes, so powerful that, as it turned out, it turned out to be economically unfeasible to repair it.
Fortunately, the driver of the car and his passengers escaped with minor injuries. The driver of the comtrans had no insurance and the owner of the Mondeo went to court and demanded that the company that owns the tractor and trailer, TD Alta LLC, compensate for the material damage. The claim stated 606,444 rubles for the “total” cost of the car and 11,000 rubles for its evacuation. The amount of compensation for moral damage is 100,000 rubles.
The case was heard at the Tagansky District Court in Moscow on June 14, 2022 and ended with the rejection of the claim. The judge referred to the fact that the driver of the car himself was to blame for the accident, as he had violated paragraph 10.1 of the traffic regulations, which requires that the car be driven at a speed that allows the car to stop or to drive around a bend. obstacle found along the way.
And as often happens, the first instance did not take into account the automotive technical research data provided by the claimant. Her materials confirmed that the Ford driver did not have the technical skills to stop and avoid a collision. All appellate bodies supported the dismissal of the claim.
However, the Supreme Court’s civilian panel disagreed with their decisions. According to her, the lower courts did not take into account that the driver of the overturned truck ignored traffic rules: he did not set up a warning triangle after the tractor overturned. Moreover, the courts did not deign to order their own automotive technical examination, which could reliably clarify the issue of the plaintiff’s physical ability to avoid a collision with a truck.
We remind you that outside populated areas, a driver involved in an accident must place this sign at a distance of at least 30 meters from the scene of the accident. That is, if the tractor driver had met the requirements of the regulations, the Ford Mondeo driver would have every chance of braking in time.
As a result, the Supreme Court sent Gulbasov’s claim against the owners of the crushed stone car for reconsideration. The practice of similar cases shows that the driver AP Harutyunyan will now most likely also be found guilty of a collision with a Ford Mondeo – “thanks to” the “red triangle” that was not installed in time.
The accident that became the stumbling block occurred on March 2, 2021. It follows from the judicial materials that the driver of a tractor with a Mercedes-Benz tipper semi-trailer named AP Arutyunyan lost control in the dark on one of the highways of the Moscow region and ran into a cable fence. The car overturned, the load (stone chips) fell on the road. The driver was not injured and was able to get out of the cab under his own power. But after some time, a Ford Mondeo driven by Alexey Gulbasov crashed into an overturned truck. Yes, so powerful that, as it turned out, it turned out to be economically unfeasible to repair it.
Fortunately, the driver of the car and his passengers escaped with minor injuries. The driver of the comtrans had no insurance and the owner of the Mondeo went to court and demanded that the company that owns the tractor and trailer, TD Alta LLC, compensate for the material damage. The claim stated 606,444 rubles for the “total” cost of the car and 11,000 rubles for its evacuation. The amount of compensation for moral damage is 100,000 rubles.
The case was heard at the Tagansky District Court in Moscow on June 14, 2022 and ended with the rejection of the claim. The judge referred to the fact that the driver of the car himself was to blame for the accident, as he had violated paragraph 10.1 of the traffic regulations, which requires that the car be driven at a speed that allows the car to stop or to drive around a bend. obstacle found along the way.
And as often happens, the first instance did not take into account the automotive technical research data provided by the claimant. Her materials confirmed that the Ford driver did not have the technical skills to stop and avoid a collision. All appellate bodies supported the dismissal of the claim.
However, the Supreme Court’s civilian panel disagreed with their decisions. According to her, the lower courts did not take into account that the driver of the overturned truck ignored traffic rules: he did not set up a warning triangle after the tractor overturned. Moreover, the courts did not deign to order their own automotive technical examination, which could reliably clarify the issue of the plaintiff’s physical ability to avoid a collision with a truck.
We remind you that outside populated areas, a driver involved in an accident must place this sign at a distance of at least 30 meters from the scene of the accident. That is, if the tractor driver had met the requirements of the regulations, the Ford Mondeo driver would have every chance of braking in time.
As a result, the Supreme Court sent Gulbasov’s claim against the owners of the crushed stone car for reconsideration. The practice of similar cases shows that the driver AP Harutyunyan will now most likely also be found guilty of a collision with a Ford Mondeo – “thanks to” the “red triangle” that was not installed in time.
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.