Suddenly, Gazelle abruptly turned left, drove into Igor’s lane and began to pick up speed! It was not possible to go to the right - the high curb prevented, and behind it the tram rails …
The blow fell on the left side of Igor’s car. Fortunately, he was fastened, so he escaped with a slight fright. A bewildered man in years came out of the Gazelle and, apologizing, explained that he still did not understand where to go at this intersection. Together with Igor, they went in search of signs and found only one - “Give way”. But he was not right in front of Polyarnaya Street in the north of the capital, where the accident happened, but in front of her understudy. There were no others …
HERE BARIN WILL ARRIVE, HE WILL US AND DISCUSS …
The traffic police inspector arrived quite quickly, immediately declared that the Gazelle driver was to blame, and began to draw a diagram. True, there was a hitch with the protocol: after all, there was no reason to compile it! Formally, none of the drivers violated the requirements of the signs … because of their absence. In the end, the inspector offered to meet in the department - "everything will be decided there." But on the appointed day, Igor appeared alone - R. Makhabek, the driver of the Gazelle, a resident of Kaluga, was absent for a good reason.
- No problem! - Igor told the traffic police. - “Kaluga” is certainly to blame. He agrees with this, so demand money from him.
However, the inspectors refused to issue any documents in support of these words. “You yourself understand that now the court establishes blame, and there you’ll sort it out. And we have already closed the case."
Just in case, Igor consulted in the "Legal Defense". As follows from the traffic accident scheme, before leaving on Polyarnaya Street (where the collision occurred) there was a parallel understudy road; in front of her hung a sign “Give way”. Such an organization of the movement could confuse anyone, especially if the driver (especially non-local!) Passed this intersection for the first time. Therefore, I prepared a statement of claim for damages, the defendant of which was the driver of the Gazelle, but he drew attention to the lack of signs. The court is obliged to send relevant requests in this regard and, if there are reasons, to forward the claims to the real culprits.
BEST DEFENSE IS ATTACK
But instead of finding out in court who was responsible for the installation of the signs, we were forced to … repel the attacks of the lawyer representing the owner of the Gazelle. The Kaluga’s brought a witness who claimed that immediately before the collision, the BMW was moving at high speed, and the Gazelle was standing! And if so, it was Igor K. who was to blame for the accident. I had to remind the court that, firstly, there is no evidence of speeding by a BMW car in the case file, and secondly, drivers must act in such a way that “does not create danger for movement and not to cause harm”(paragraph 1.5). But it was Gazelle that was in the oncoming lane for itself!
In turn, we filed a motion regarding the absence of signs on this site. Their installation is managed by a specialized installation and operational management (SMEU) GUVD. The judicial request went there. But the next time we went to court, we got …. counterclaim of the owner of the Gazelle! We were amazed - it was in the interests of the truck driver to prove that he did not understand the signs, as there were not enough signs, and thereby try to “turn the arrows” on the traffic police. Who exactly will compensate Igor for the damage - the driver of the Gazelle or the traffic police - does not matter. Instead, the side of the opponents undertook to prove the guilt of Igor. He was presented with claims in the amount of 25 thousand rubles, and also asked to recover the costs of paying a lawyer in the amount of … 50 thousand rubles! Truly human greed has no measure …
At the same meeting, the SMEU's response to the court’s request was announced, from which it followed that the sign 4.1.4 (“Movement straight and right”) must be at the intersection. At the time of the accident, he was not there (which the inspector recorded in the diagram). Therefore, as respondents, we also asked to indicate the GUVD of the North-Eastern District of Moscow. The judge agreed with our arguments.
Victory?
Instead of supporting our position, the lawyer of Mahabek R. put forward new requirements: he requested the appointment of an automotive technical expertise in order to nevertheless convict Igor K. of violating the Rules. And for such work he wants to get 50 thousand rubles ?! The court, of course, refused the examination.
The defense strategy of the representative of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate was constructed in a similarly absurd manner. He made a bold statement that the sign 4.1.4 ("Move straight and to the right") is prescriptive and not prohibitive, therefore it does not forbid (!) To turn left. And so, its presence or absence on the road did not affect the accident! The traffic police inspector, who filed the incident, confirmed in court the “management opinion” that the “Right and Right” sign does not prohibit turning left (!). Just imagine that someone would give such an answer at the exam in the traffic police - not to see rights forever, but the officer in the court is lying - and not blushing … Unfortunately, we did not have the right to intervene, but our case was “right” in any case; then it was decided who would pay for the damage - the visitor or the Department of Finance of the Moscow government (he pays the law for all the sins of the capital’s traffic police). And, frankly, there was no particular desire to intervene. After all, at first they wanted to help the owner of the Gazelle, and instead of gratitude, a counterclaim. As we expected, the court decided to recover the full amount of damage from the driver of the truck in favor of Igor K.
