RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
09/05/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
9 May 
2021 Victory Day.
2020 Victory Day
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
9 May
2021 Victory Day.
2020 Victory Day
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1944 The city of Sevastopol was liberated.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
1936 Mussolini announced the accession of Ethiopia to Italy.
COURT: IN A HIT-AND-RUN ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER IS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE
The plaintiffs appealed to the court with a claim for recovery from the institution of compensation for moral damage as a result of an accident, in support of the claims pointing out that the defendant's employee hit a pedestrian, as a result of which the latter died from injuries.
The claim was partially satisfied by the courts of the first and cassation instances with reference to the fact that the harm was committed while managing a source of increased danger.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this approach and upheld the appellate ruling, which reduced the amount of compensation due to the pedestrian's own fault as a result of traffic violations (traffic outside the pedestrian crossing at a red pedestrian traffic light).
The Supreme Court noted (the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 18.09.2023 ¹ 8-KG23-119-K4) that in the absence of the fault of the owner of the source of increased danger, in the presence of gross negligence of the person whose life or health was harmed, the court may reduce the amount of compensation for moral damage may be reduced.
If the gross negligence of the victim himself contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage, depending on the degree of guilt of the victim and the causer of the damage, the amount of compensation should be reduced. If gross negligence of the victim took place when causing harm to the life or health of a citizen and there was no fault of the harmer, in cases where his responsibility comes regardless of guilt, the court does not have the right to completely release the owner of the source of increased danger from responsibility, but the amount of compensation for harm should be reduced by the court.
The court also noted that the question of whether the negligence committed by the victim is gross, in each case should be decided by the court taking into account the actual circumstances of the case. The amount of compensation for harm may also be reduced by the court, taking into account the property status of the harm-doer (citizen). The relevant reasons for the amount of compensation for moral damage should be given in the court order in order to avoid arbitrary overstatement or understatement of the amount of compensation by the court.
Photo: Freepik
The claim was partially satisfied by the courts of the first and cassation instances with reference to the fact that the harm was committed while managing a source of increased danger.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this approach and upheld the appellate ruling, which reduced the amount of compensation due to the pedestrian's own fault as a result of traffic violations (traffic outside the pedestrian crossing at a red pedestrian traffic light).
The Supreme Court noted (the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 18.09.2023 ¹ 8-KG23-119-K4) that in the absence of the fault of the owner of the source of increased danger, in the presence of gross negligence of the person whose life or health was harmed, the court may reduce the amount of compensation for moral damage may be reduced.
If the gross negligence of the victim himself contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage, depending on the degree of guilt of the victim and the causer of the damage, the amount of compensation should be reduced. If gross negligence of the victim took place when causing harm to the life or health of a citizen and there was no fault of the harmer, in cases where his responsibility comes regardless of guilt, the court does not have the right to completely release the owner of the source of increased danger from responsibility, but the amount of compensation for harm should be reduced by the court.
The court also noted that the question of whether the negligence committed by the victim is gross, in each case should be decided by the court taking into account the actual circumstances of the case. The amount of compensation for harm may also be reduced by the court, taking into account the property status of the harm-doer (citizen). The relevant reasons for the amount of compensation for moral damage should be given in the court order in order to avoid arbitrary overstatement or understatement of the amount of compensation by the court.
Photo: Freepik
24.10.2023
