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.
THE OWNER OF THE CAR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE TENANT
The plaintiff filed a statement of claim with the court, stating that as a result of a traffic accident caused by Defendant 1, driving a Renault Logan car, but owned by Defendant 2, the plaintiff's car, used by him as a taxi, was damaged. The plaintiff suffered minor harm to his health.
At the time of the incident, the civil liability of the Responder1 was not insured, in connection with which the plaintiff asked to recover from the defendants damages, lost profits, compensation for moral damage, expenses for the services of a representative, appraiser services and the cost of paying state duty.
Positions of the vessels
The claim was satisfied by three instances.
The courts, proceeding from the fact that the rightful owner of the car is Defendant 2, and the direct causer of the damage is Defendant 1, whose civil liability was not insured, recovered in equal shares from the defendants the losses caused to the plaintiff - moral damage and lost profits.
By itself, the fact that Defendant 2 was driving the car at the time of the accident cannot indicate that it was the driver who owned the source of increased danger in the sense that is given to this concept in Article 1079 of the Civil Code, since there is no evidence of the reality of the lease agreement.
The position of the Supreme Court
The higher instance did not agree with the position of the lower instances, canceled their judicial acts and sent the dispute for a new consideration (Ruling No. 19-KG23-30-K5 dated 11/28/2023). Arguing its position, the court stated the following:
• The owner is responsible for the damage caused by the source of increased danger, except in cases when he provides evidence that the ownership of the source of increased danger was transferred by him to another person in accordance with the procedure established by law;
• If the car is transferred under a lease agreement, but management and maintenance services are not provided, the damage caused must be reimbursed by the lessee. The above-mentioned legislative regulation is imperative and does not imply the possibility of changing it at the discretion of the parties entering into a vehicle rental agreement;
• Taking into account the above, the conclusions of the courts on the imposition of liability on defendant 1 as the owner of the vehicle for damage caused to the plaintiff do not comply with current legal norms and, therefore, are illegal.
At the time of the incident, the civil liability of the Responder1 was not insured, in connection with which the plaintiff asked to recover from the defendants damages, lost profits, compensation for moral damage, expenses for the services of a representative, appraiser services and the cost of paying state duty.
Positions of the vessels
The claim was satisfied by three instances.The courts, proceeding from the fact that the rightful owner of the car is Defendant 2, and the direct causer of the damage is Defendant 1, whose civil liability was not insured, recovered in equal shares from the defendants the losses caused to the plaintiff - moral damage and lost profits.
By itself, the fact that Defendant 2 was driving the car at the time of the accident cannot indicate that it was the driver who owned the source of increased danger in the sense that is given to this concept in Article 1079 of the Civil Code, since there is no evidence of the reality of the lease agreement.
The position of the Supreme Court
The higher instance did not agree with the position of the lower instances, canceled their judicial acts and sent the dispute for a new consideration (Ruling No. 19-KG23-30-K5 dated 11/28/2023). Arguing its position, the court stated the following:• The owner is responsible for the damage caused by the source of increased danger, except in cases when he provides evidence that the ownership of the source of increased danger was transferred by him to another person in accordance with the procedure established by law;
• If the car is transferred under a lease agreement, but management and maintenance services are not provided, the damage caused must be reimbursed by the lessee. The above-mentioned legislative regulation is imperative and does not imply the possibility of changing it at the discretion of the parties entering into a vehicle rental agreement;
• Taking into account the above, the conclusions of the courts on the imposition of liability on defendant 1 as the owner of the vehicle for damage caused to the plaintiff do not comply with current legal norms and, therefore, are illegal.
23.01.2024
