Volgograd Court Rules in Dispute Involving Local Official and Vehicle Collision
A court in Volgograd accepted the claim of Alexander Varlamov, deputy head of the Dzerzhinsky district, who collided with another car while driving a Kia Sportage and subsequently sued the other driver. The case was reported by media outlet v1.ru.
Varlamov faced allegations on social networks that at the moment of the crash the official was intoxicated and that the traffic officers who arrived at the scene avoided a sobriety check. It later emerged that the official was taken to a hospital for examination, and test results showed no alcohol or drug traces.
In his civil action, Varlamov sought a formal denial of the claim that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident and demanded compensation from the other driver for non-pecuniary damage. The dispute extended for roughly 18 months, with the incident occurring on September 17, 2021 in Volgograd and the defamation suit filed about 41 days after the crash.
He requested the withdrawal of statements about his drunkenness and sought 100 thousand rubles in non-pecuniary damages. The court ultimately ordered the other driver to pay 10 thousand rubles for non-pecuniary damage, 30 thousand rubles for attorney services, and 2,100 rubles for state duty and notary costs.
According to earlier statements, the UAZ factory had denied the claim of a strike at the enterprise.
Throughout the proceedings, the focus remained on clarifying responsibility for the collision, the accuracy of public statements about the official’s sobriety, and the appropriate level of compensation for reputational harm. The outcome reflects how courts handle arguments about intoxication claims and the balancing of damage awards in high-profile local government cases.
As the case progressed, observers noted the importance of verified findings from medical examinations and the role of civil litigation in correcting defaming information that circulates on social platforms. The judges weighed the evidence presented, including hospital reports and the absence of intoxicants in testing, before arriving at the final financial obligations assigned to the driver accused of defaming the official.
Citizens and officials alike can draw lessons from this case about the procedures for challenging defamatory assertions following an automobile incident, the steps courts take to verify claims of intoxication, and how damages are calculated in disputes of reputational harm.
The parties did not rely on private agreements during the dispute; instead, the matter proceeded through the court system with formal submissions and documented evidence that shaped the ruling. This resolution demonstrates the legal framework for civil claims arising from traffic incidents in Volgograd and the surrounding region.
In summary, the court’s decision established a precedent regarding the verification process for sobriety claims and clarified the financial responsibilities associated with non-pecuniary damages and legal services, contributing to ongoing discourse about accountability and due process in public-sector contexts.