9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Situations where motorists are denied their “rights” for leaving the scene of an accident, as evidenced by law enforcement practice, provide many opportunities for unfair court decisions. However,
The plot, studied by the First Court of Cassation, began in Mytishchi near Moscow. His hero, a driver named Chernyshev, was driving his car down a city street when he was overtaken and forced to slow down by another car. The driver jumped out and accused the hero of the story of his car crushing the radiator grille of the offended car. And showed a crumpled detail. Chernyshev was surprised, examined his vehicle and found no signs of a collision or any other contact with the injured “grill” with us. Just in case, he took a few shots of both cars – his and his opponent’s. And then he left, because in his opinion there was nothing to talk about, since there was no misfortune.
However, his counterpart did not calm down. He called the traffic police to the scene of the accident. Without hesitation, they filed an “incident” and went into protocol that the second contestant had disappeared. Later, the police, of course, found Chernyshev brave and sent him to court. The local magistrate also turned out to be a simple man and soon deprived the motorist of his “rights”. Subsequently, his decision was upheld by the Mytishchi court. And only the First Court of Cassation has considered Chernyshev’s case in a truly thoughtful way.
They found that the accident certificate clearly states that the defendant’s car had no damage. Therefore, a reasonable question arose – on the basis of what facts did the traffic police first, and then the lower court judges, decide that the radiator grille of the victim’s car was damaged precisely by the suspect’s vehicle?
The Court of Cassation pointed out that neither the justice of the peace nor the subdistrict court judges ruled on this circumstance. And they did not organize any technical expertise that could shed light on what was happening. As a result, the case went back to Mytishchi where it was reviewed and dropped. But not because there was no accident itself, but because of the “minor damage” to the victim’s car. That is, the court did not admit its glaring mistake – it’s good that the illegally obtained “rights” were returned to our hero.
The conclusion of what happened for law-abiding drivers is extremely unpleasant. At any time you can be accused of hiding at the scene of an accident in which you were not involved. Only. Or because, for example, another car owner decided to repair the radiator grille, bumper, fender, door (underline what applies) of his car at your expense. Oh, you don’t agree to plead guilty to a fictitious incident? Then the most humane court in the world, without looking, will deprive you of a VU for an imaginary deviation from the scene of an accident. And then you go through the authorities for a long time and difficult to get them back.
But the main “charm” of the situation is different: neither the slanderer-motorist, nor the traffic cop who takes him at his word, nor the judges of the first instance who make lawless decisions, do not get anything for it.
The plot, studied by the First Court of Cassation, began in Mytishchi near Moscow. His hero, a driver named Chernyshev, was driving his car down a city street when he was overtaken and forced to slow down by another car. The driver jumped out and accused the hero of the story of his car crushing the radiator grille of the offended car. And showed a crumpled detail. Chernyshev was surprised, examined his vehicle and found no signs of a collision or any other contact with the injured “grill” with us. Just in case, he took a few shots of both cars – his and his opponent’s. And then he left, because in his opinion there was nothing to talk about, since there was no misfortune.
However, his counterpart did not calm down. He called the traffic police to the scene of the accident. Without hesitation, they filed an “incident” and went into protocol that the second contestant had disappeared. Later, the police, of course, found Chernyshev brave and sent him to court. The local magistrate also turned out to be a simple man and soon deprived the motorist of his “rights”. Subsequently, his decision was upheld by the Mytishchi court. And only the First Court of Cassation has considered Chernyshev’s case in a truly thoughtful way.
They found that the accident certificate clearly states that the defendant’s car had no damage. Therefore, a reasonable question arose – on the basis of what facts did the traffic police first, and then the lower court judges, decide that the radiator grille of the victim’s car was damaged precisely by the suspect’s vehicle?
The Court of Cassation pointed out that neither the justice of the peace nor the subdistrict court judges ruled on this circumstance. And they did not organize any technical expertise that could shed light on what was happening. As a result, the case went back to Mytishchi where it was reviewed and dropped. But not because there was no accident itself, but because of the “minor damage” to the victim’s car. That is, the court did not admit its glaring mistake – it’s good that the illegally obtained “rights” were returned to our hero.
The conclusion of what happened for law-abiding drivers is extremely unpleasant. At any time you can be accused of hiding at the scene of an accident in which you were not involved. Only. Or because, for example, another car owner decided to repair the radiator grille, bumper, fender, door (underline what applies) of his car at your expense. Oh, you don’t agree to plead guilty to a fictitious incident? Then the most humane court in the world, without looking, will deprive you of a VU for an imaginary deviation from the scene of an accident. And then you go through the authorities for a long time and difficult to get them back.
But the main “charm” of the situation is different: neither the slanderer-motorist, nor the traffic cop who takes him at his word, nor the judges of the first instance who make lawless decisions, do not get anything for it.
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.
