Menu
CASE STUDY.
Lawyers involved in the project:
Piotr R. was returning from home to work along the same road as always. It was summer, but it was raining, and Piotr R. was well aware of the road he was traveling. He was driving in good spirits, with music playing in the background. After driving a few meters past the 40 km/h speed limit sign and around a bend, a deer jumped out into his path. Peter was traveling at a speed far in excess of that allowed and had no way to react - a collision with the animal occurred. The front of the vehicle was damaged, Piotr R. did not have AutoCasco insurance.
Piotr claimed compensation for the damaged vehicle from the road manager's oc insurance. Piotr R. argued his position with the circumstance that the A-18b sign (indicating wildlife) had not been placed on the road, although he himself had seen animals running there many times, and his friends had as well. The insurer's attorney pointed out that the collision itself was not a consequence of the absence of the sign.
The cause of the collision was solely the driver's behavior, particularly the failure to adjust the vehicle's speed to the road conditions. The insurer's attorney argued that the Claimant should prove the prerequisites for the road manager's liability for damage caused by irregularities in the organization of traffic: (i) damage, (ii) fault, (iii) fault of the county authority (Article 416 of the Civil Code), (iv) the causal link between the damage caused and the unlawful and culpable behavior of the perpetrator, for which it is sufficient to show a lack of due diligence. The possible liability of a road manager for a collision between a car and a running animal depends on whether he was under an obligation to mark the road with the A-18b road sign. This is one of the circumstances that the Claimant should have proven - because only the neglect of this duty allows the county to be attributed fault, and thus liability.
In the course of the proceedings, the Claimant called witnesses - colleagues - who indicated that wild animals often ran across this road. However, when questioned by the insurer's attorney, they indicated that they had never reported this circumstance to any authority. In addition, the investigation showed that there had not been any collision with wildlife on this stretch of road in the past 5 years. Therefore, in the Court's opinion, the Claimant failed to prove the road manager's premises for damages, as the manager was not obliged to place a sign at this location. In addition, the incident was caused by the very behavior of the injured party - failure to observe the speed and caution imposed by law. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.
