A few more night owls froze nearby. But at Sadovoy at any time a continuous stream moves. Finally, a green light came on, and Andrei slowly began to cross the highway. But exactly in the middle of the intersection, a black Mercedes flashed to the right … There was a rattle of metal, the sound of broken glass … Fortunately, both drivers escaped with a slight fright, which cannot be said about cars! At BMW, the entire front part is rotated; at the Mercedes, the left side is disfigured.
WHO IS GUILT WHEN NO ONE IS GUILTY?
Traffic police arrived quickly. An hour later, all documents were completed, and the drivers were left to wait for tow trucks. But the peace conversation did not work out - the driver of the Mercedes, who introduced himself as Alexei E., immediately went on the attack. He said that since D. drove into the red light (!), Because of which the accident occurred, he was obliged to pay fifty thousand dollars, otherwise he would have “problems”. And supposedly E. has even witnesses! "In the traffic police I have all of my own - do not hesitate, the decision will be in my favor." True, Andrei was not very scared, and he did not run borrowing money from friends.
A week later, both came to the parsing group. Alexey E., the driver of the Mercedes, in his explanations really referred to the testimony of a certain citizen and even indicated his phones - home and mobile. However, no one answered the indicated numbers, and E. did not undertake to bring the “witness”.
“Well,” the inspector said, “I don’t have any evidence of guilt for any of the drivers, because I am dismissing the case due to the absence of an administrative offense.” Here, sign in the decree.
D. such a solution was quite satisfactory. His car was insured "in full" and was already in the service of an insurance company. Therefore, he did not intend to make any claims and did not insist on E.'s accusation. Laconic explanations of drivers were repeated practically word for word. Both "drove onto the green through the intersection at a speed of 60 km / h, suddenly a car ran out at high speed …", then a collision occurred. The accident scheme also could not tell anything - the drivers drove almost the same distance before the collision: the Mercedes - 28.6 meters and the BMW - 27.7 meters. Nobody canceled the presumption of innocence - not having indisputable evidence, the traffic police recognized the absence of traffic violations in the actions of drivers and closed the case “for lack of evidence”.
However, E. was not going to calm down and soon filed a claim for damages in the amount of 1, 100, 000 (one million one hundred thousand) rubles. Andrei had no choice but to turn to us for help.
It doesn't matter who crashed into whom. Fundamentally important is another - which of the drivers for which traffic signal passed. This is exactly how the culprit of the accident should be determined.
Butts "MERS" WITH "BOOMER"
I must say, I do not really like this kind of thing: everything in them is too predictable. Typically, a collision occurs when the red has not yet gone out, and the green has just begun to flare up. The traffic police more often blame the one who managed to drive less from the edge of the intersection. He is accused of “not missing a vehicle completing the passage of an intersection.” Speeding by any of the drivers is usually not considered, again based on the principle of the presumption of innocence. After all, there is no evidence that the one who completed the journey raced “far for a hundred” in the case. And the courts accept this view. If you appeal the decision of the court, then during the expert examinations, automotive and traction investigations, you will have to find out who, nevertheless, at what traffic light signal drove to the intersection, what was its speed at that moment and in the collision. From a lawyer is only required to properly execute all procedural documents. In general, some blanks - no creativity.
But this process once again showed that events sometimes develop contrary to prevailing practice.
During a conversation with Andrei, I repeatedly told him that the decision on the claim would depend solely on the expert’s opinion. And if he determines that Andrei drove on red, he’ll have to look for a million somewhere. The expert in his calculations relies on the laws of physics, which are difficult to refute. If Andrei is absolutely sure that he was driving on the green, he has nothing to fear. Moreover, the expert is criminally liable for giving a deliberately false conclusion.
The “victim” also hired a lawyer, and therefore the process promised to be hot. Before the meeting, I managed to get acquainted with the case file - and among them I did not see the documents for the Mercedes! In other words, there is no evidence that the car belongs to the plaintiff. That is, it is generally not clear to whom the harm has been done and who specifically has the right to demand compensation. To my question, E. without batting an eye stated that the car - his father, at the moment it is repaired and sold. Having heard this, the court was forced to leave the statement of claim E. without consideration. Indeed, since the car belongs to a completely different person, then let this person also demand compensation for damage from an accident. It doesn’t matter that these people are immediate relatives.
Six months have passed. Honestly, we hoped that the opponents gave up on this matter, but here again came the summons. This time, the lawsuit was drafted competently - you won’t quarrel, and besides, the documents on the repair were attached: cash receipts in the amount of 200 and 860 thousand rubles. Plus, the act of re-calculation of allegedly opened hidden damage during the repair. This is already serious … Only this time we went to the process fully armed.
First of all, it was required to prove the absence of Andrei D.'s guilt. The main thesis of the plaintiff was that it was BMW crashed into a Mercedes, and not vice versa. We proved: it does not matter who crashed into whom. Fundamentally important is another - which of the drivers for which traffic signal passed. And there is no evidence in the case materials that D. was moving on red! Of course, you could immediately apply for a technical expertise, but this is not cheap. Therefore, they decided to take a chance - to begin with, they invited the traffic police officers who filed the incident and decided on the case to the court. I expected to show the court - if during the consideration of the case in the traffic police there was no evidence of the guilt of our client, then there is no reason to believe that they will be found during the consideration of the case under the lawsuit.
Only the inspector who made the decision on the case (his colleague was on vacation) was able to appear in court. He almost word for word repeated what I spoke about at the very beginning! True, the traffic cop drew attention to one very interesting detail: my client “managed” to drive to the collision site for almost 30 meters and completely crossed the inside of the Garden Ring. Despite the fact that it was already a deep night (2 hours 30 minutes), traffic on this highway did not freeze. And this means that if D. really rode on red, he was unlikely to be able to cross several rows - before he would have hooked someone or someone drove into him.
But for complete success it was required to prove that in the case there are no documents confirming the size of the damage actually caused to the plaintiff. After all, the car was repaired and sold, which means that the plaintiff received some money. And this amount must be deducted from the funds spent on car repair. Otherwise, the so-called “unjust enrichment” sets in for the plaintiff - that is, in addition to damages, he receives additional funds. However, he did not submit documents on how much the plaintiff sold the car for. So, in the case there is no evidence of the losses actually caused to him! Therefore, there is nothing to recover.
In addition, a representative of an insurance company in which Andrei D. was insured against civil liability (he was involved in the case as a third party), presented the court with a directory of car prices. In accordance with this document, the cost of the plaintiff’s car at the time of the accident was 30 thousand US dollars (!). That is, less than the amount that the plaintiff allegedly paid for repairs! And this meant that as a result of the accident, the car completely became worthless and there was no point in repairing it! The plaintiff could only demand the reimbursement of the market value of his car at the time of the accident (which is almost 300 thousand rubles less than the amount indicated in the lawsuit).