In the winter, the owner of the Lada had an accident. He hit a pothole in the road, causing his car to overturn and be damaged. The victim sued the organizations responsible for monitoring the condition of the highway in order to recover 328,922 rubles, including 273,632 rubles. damage, 50,000 rubles. compensation for immaterial damage, the cost of solving problems 1290 rubles. and 4000 rubles. according to the estimate, the website pravo.ru specified.
The victim believed that the accident would not have happened if the companies had removed the damage to the canvas and treated the surface. In addition, there were no signs warning of the speed limit in the dangerous area. The traffic police have not filed an administrative case showing that the car owner has violated Article 10.1 of the traffic rules: the driver must drive the vehicle at a speed that does not exceed the established limit, but takes into account the traffic intensity; characteristics and condition of the vehicle and the load; road and weather conditions. When there was a danger to traffic that the driver could see, he had to slow down until the vehicle came to a stop.
At the same time, the inspector forgot to indicate that the road surface was in poor condition.
The man went to court and filed lawsuits against two organizations at once, as the company, which subcontracted the fateful site where the accident occurred.
The car owner added to the lawsuit a response from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, which states that there are holes and gaps on the roadway where the accident occurred, which does not meet the requirements of GOST.
The Court ordered an investigation, which showed that the safe speed in the circumstances in which the accident took place was 46 km/h. If the driver had held her, nothing would have happened. In two consecutive cases, it was also judged that the driver did not fully understand the traffic situation and chose the wrong speed.
The courts noted that it was not scary that there was no speed limit sign, but that there was a “Rough Road” sign on the road, but the driver still did not slow down. The victim did not agree with the conclusions of the courts and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court ruling
The lower courts held that since the driver exceeded the speed of 46 km/h, he was violating paragraph 10.1 of the rules. According to the representative of the Supreme Court, the court should have assessed how exceeding the speed of more than 46 km/h is contrary to the traffic rules, but did not do so. The judges of the Supreme Court clarified what the speed limit in this place was under normal circumstances, it turned out to be 90 km/h.
The Sun also found that the “Rough Road” sign warns the driver of bumps, but says nothing about possible potholes, and this is not the same. The court also ruled that there was no speed sign in the danger zone.
As a result, the sun gave an analogy to an oil slick on the road, which on dark asphalt is easy to see and uncontrollable. Therefore, the acts of the lower courts were canceled and the case was sent for a retrial in the first instance.