no image

For overtaking into oncoming traffic now not punished — the court case

Faced two cars, the actions of both drivers, the inspector saw the violation of traffic rules, and, therefore, mutual fault in an accident. However, one of the drivers to admit his guilt and did not want to come to the Supreme court.

Citizen Yaschenko appealed to the court stating that on the route Blagoveshchensk — Bibikova his car was damaged as a result of turning the vehicle in front, driven by a Prusakov. From Prusakov insurance CTP was not, and refurbishment cost Yashchenko in more than 87 thousand rubles, which he was going to charge alleged, in his opinion, the culprit.

It turned out to be difficult even for judges. The road on which the collision occurred, was narrow, and Prusakov was forced to start the reversal at the extreme right edge, reaching in his pocket for public transport. Moving in the same direction Yaschenko saw it and to avoid a collision, tried to avoid the car Prusakova on the left, at oncoming traffic. However, Prusakov, instead of stopping and skip Yashchenko, accelerated and kept going. The cars collided, and in the time of the accident both were on the oncoming traffic. The inspector considered that the accident both to blame: Prusakov broke the rules of a turn, not taking an extreme left position, and Yashchenko was overtaking, drove into the oncoming lane.

Yashchenko was not satisfied and appealed to city court of Blagoveshchensk, who went to meet him and granted the petition, but the decree of the Presidium of Amur regional court the decision was reversed and the claim Yashchenko refused. At his insistence, the examination was conducted, but the court found the expert’s conclusion is not obvious and has not taken it into account.

The Supreme court, having carefully studied the case, went against the plaintiff, noting that cockroaches have to be found guilty in the accident, as established circumstances, it follows that the harm to plaintiff was caused while committing the defendant for turning maneuvers.

Justifying its decision, the Supreme court has noted that the Respondent, starting to turn, had to assess the speed of oncoming vehicles and the distance to them. Under the provision of paragraph 1.5 of traffic rules, road users have a responsibility to act so that not to create danger to movement and not to cause harm to other vehicles. If at the turn out of the junction the width of the roadway is insufficient to complete the maneuver from the leftmost position, it is allowed to produce from the right edge of the roadway (right side). The driver must give way to passing and oncoming vehicles.

Established by the court of the circumstances it follows that the damage to plaintiff’s property caused in the Commission of a defendant turning manoeuvres. Thus, a denial of the claim in the present case, citing a lack of evidence Prusakova is not consistent with the substantive law.

Therefore, the Supreme court held: the higher a decision to refuse a claim to cancel and direct business on new consideration.

  • The Supreme court returned the law to the driver, after the accident, allowed himself to relax and to drink alcohol. Behind the wheel he’s getting is not going to, waited for reinforcements, but the inspector did not listen to his arguments.
  • The owner of the car also with the help of the Supreme court have achieved cancellation of the fine, proving that driving a car at the time of the traffic violations was a different person.

Photo: Andrey Georgiev/TASS

Залишити відповідь