Guilty, but not guilty: not always bumping into a tree – the culprit of an accident

The girl on her Mazda drove into the ice. She went around the pit, lost control and crashed into a tree. Another driver who witnessed the accident called the police and the inspector who arrived, drafted a decision to bring her under administrative responsibility, accusing her of violating clause 10.1 (“Exceeding speed”), clause 9.1 of the SDA (“Location of vehicles on the roadway”). parts”) and part 1 of Art. 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of the rules for placing a car on the roadway”). She was fined 1,500 rubles, with which she disagreed and went appealed it to the court, according to the Pravo.ru portal.

In the city court, the girl insisted that the accident happened because of a pothole, bad weather and lack of markings. She stated that she was traveling at a speed of 60-70 mph, and when she tried to go around the pit, she lost control of the wheel and hit a tree.

On the diagram of the crime scene and in the act it was indicated that the length of the pit was 93 cm, the width 87 cm and the depth 6 cm. Witnesses to the accident spoke about the hole in the road and bad weather in the courtroom.

The judge ruled that the plaintiff was speeding for the weather while she should have adjusted her speed to the terrain, visibility and road conditions. To be able to stop at any foreseeable obstacle. The pit on the road and the lack of markings do not relieve the driver of guilt, so the judge left the traffic cop’s decision unchanged.

In the regional court, clause 10.1 of the SDA (“Exceeding the speed limit”) was excluded from the acts, but otherwise agreed with the local government. The girl continued to appeal the decision, no one wanted to meet her halfway, and in the end she reached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court judge pointed out that Article 17 of the Federal Law of 08.09.2007 No. 257 sets requirements for the maintenance of roads: they must be intact and ensure uninterrupted traffic. And with art. 12 of the Federal Law of 10 December 1995 No. 196 states that the repair and maintenance of the canvas must guarantee road safety. However, there is no evidence in the case that there were road signs at the accident site warning motorists of a hole in the roadway. This was ignored by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court therefore annulled the decisions of lower instances and terminated the proceedings because the circumstances on the basis of which the court decisions were made were not proven (Article 4, second paragraph, Article 30.17 of the Administrative Offenses Code).

For example, the court confirmed the girl’s version that she had been involved in a forced accident, in which she was not to blame. At the same time, she did not break the traffic rules, so she cannot be punished.

Source: Z R

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular

More from author