Winter Accident and Legal Claims Over Road Conditions
During the winter, a Lada owner experienced a serious accident after striking a pothole, causing the vehicle to overturn and suffer damage. The plaintiff pursued compensation from the highway-monitoring organizations, seeking a total of 328,922 rubles. The claim broke down into 273,632 rubles for material damage, 50,000 rubles for immaterial damages, 1,290 rubles for legal costs, and 4,000 rubles for related expenses, as cited by the source pravo.ru.
The claimant argued that the crash could have been prevented if the responsible bodies had repaired the road surface and cleared any surface hazards. He also pointed out the absence of warning signs indicating a dangerous stretch or a reduced speed area. The traffic police did not initiate an administrative case against the driver, asserting that Article 10.1 of the traffic rules requires a driver to operate a vehicle at a speed that aligns with current conditions, including traffic intensity, vehicle characteristics, load, road state, and weather. When danger is perceptible to a driver, slowing down until the vehicle comes to a stop is mandated.
There was criticism that the inspector overlooked the poor road surface in the official notes.
The plaintiff pursued claims against two entities simultaneously: the main contractor responsible for the site where the accident occurred, and the organization that subcontracted that site. He also introduced an official response from the Ministry of Internal Affairs noting holes and gaps in the roadway that failed to meet established GOST requirements.
A court-ordered investigation determined that the safe speed under the prevailing conditions was 46 km/h. At both earlier stages, the courts concluded that the driver did not properly assess the traffic situation and chose an unsafe speed. The courts also emphasized that there was no warning about a speed limit in the danger zone, and while a “Rough Road” sign existed, it did not convey critical information about potholes. The claimant disputed these conclusions and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court ruling
The lower courts found that the driver exceeded the 46 km/h threshold, which was treated as a violation of paragraph 10.1 of the traffic rules. A representative of the Supreme Court noted that the court should have evaluated how surpassing the speed by more than 46 km/h conflicts with the traffic rules, but that assessment had not occurred. The Supreme Court clarified the usual speed limit at that location, which under normal circumstances would be 90 km/h.
The Sun noted that the “Rough Road” sign warns drivers about surface roughness but does not explicitly indicate potholes, and that distinction matters for the case. The court also concluded there was no clear sign indicating a speed limit in the danger zone. As a result, the Supreme Court drew an analogy to an oil spill on a road, which can be hard to detect on dark pavement and difficult to control. Consequently, the decisions of the lower courts were annulled, and the case was remanded for retrial in the first instance, allowing new consideration of the facts and evidence.