A young woman driving a Mazda collided with a road hazard after entering a snowbound stretch. She navigated around the hole, lost control, and struck a tree. An eyewitness immediately alerted authorities, and the inspecting officer drafted a ruling holding her administratively responsible for several violations, citing clause 10.1 Exceeding speed, clause 9.1 of the SDA (Location of vehicles on the roadway), and part 1 of Article 12.15 of the Administrative Offenses Code (Violation of rules for placing a car on the roadway). She received a 1,500 ruble fine, a penalty she challenged in court, according to the Pravo.ru portal.
In court, the defendant argued that the crash occurred due to the pothole, adverse weather, and absent road markings. She claimed she had been traveling at a speed of 60 to 70 mph and, while attempting to bypass the pit, lost control and hit the tree.
The scene diagram and the official report described a pit measuring 93 cm in length, 87 cm in width, and a depth of 6 cm. Court witnesses reiterated that a road hole and poor weather contributed to the incident.
The judge concluded that the speed was excessive for the weather and that the driver should have adjusted speed to road conditions, visibility, and terrain to stop for any foreseeable obstacle. The existence of a pit and missing markings did not absolve the driver of fault, so the traffic police decision stood.
At the regional court, clause 10.1 Exceeding the speed limit was removed from the accusations, but the rest of the decision remained aligned with the local government. The girl persevered with her appeal, and the case moved through the judicial system without a compromise reaching her side, ultimately leading to a petition before the highest court.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court noted that Article 17 of the Federal Law dated 08.09.2007 No. 257 requires road maintenance to ensure intact surface and uninterrupted traffic flow. It also cited Article 12 of the Federal Law dated 10 December 1995 No. 196, which obliges repairs and maintenance that support road safety. However, there was no evidence presented at trial that warning signs existed at the site of the hole in the roadway. This detail had been overlooked by the lower courts.
Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the prior judgments and terminated the proceedings because the foundational facts used to justify those decisions were not proven, in accordance with Article 4, second paragraph, and Article 30.17 of the Administrative Offenses Code. In a related assessment, the court accepted the defendant’s account of a forced accident in which blame could not be assigned to her. While the driver was not found to have violated traffic regulations, the resolution concluded that punishment was not warranted.