Overturned a RUB 520,000 court award against our client after a traffic accident

The Kirovsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk partially satisfied the victim’s claims.

The court ordered Aitmamatov to pay:

• RUB 500,000 — compensation for moral harm;
• RUB 20,000 — court costs.

Additionally, he was ordered to pay court fees into the budget.

The first-instance court proceeded from the fact that it was Aitmamatov who directly caused the harm and allegedly was not performing his employment duties at the time of the accident.

We disagreed with this qualification of liability.

The case already contained a finding that had entered into force about the driver violating the traffic rules and causing serious harm to the passenger’s health.

But for the civil dispute this was not enough.

It was necessary to establish something else:

Under the Russian civil-law rules applied in this case, the court had to establish who lawfully possessed and controlled the vehicle and was responsible to the injured passenger. Driving a vehicle as part of employment duties does not, by itself, make the employee that legally responsible person.

It was this question that became central on appeal.

On appeal, we insisted that Aitmamatov drove the car within his employment relationship and was carrying out the employer’s assignment.

Consequently, he was not the person who lawfully possessed and controlled the vehicle and bore the corresponding civil liability within the meaning of civil law.

This meant that the obligation to compensate the victim for moral harm could not be automatically imposed directly on him merely because he was behind the wheel at the time of the accident.

To resolve the dispute, it was necessary to establish:

• who owned the car;
• on what basis it was held by the relevant organization;
• who lawfully possessed and controlled the vehicle and was legally responsible for its operation;
• why Aitmamatov was driving the car;
• whether he was performing his employment duties at the time of the accident;
• whether he had unlawfully taken possession of the car.

In the appellate instance, the materials of the civil and criminal cases were examined, as well as additional evidence.

Among them:

• documents on the car lease;
• a debt transfer agreement;
• acts of acceptance and transfer of the car;
• information on Aitmamatov’s employment;
• a reference from the employer;
• a waybill for the date of the accident;
• a power of attorney to drive the car;
• the client’s own explanations.

The waybill turned out to be especially important.

It confirmed that on 16 February 2019 the car was issued to Aitmamatov as a driver of the organization.

The destination was indicated as the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Kuragino, and the purpose of the trip was to conclude a contract.

The first-instance court noted that 16 February 2019 was a Saturday.

Witnesses also claimed that the driver went to Kuragino on personal business.

The appeal assessed these arguments differently.

The documents confirmed that the car was transferred to the client by the employer precisely for performing employment duties.

Therefore, the mere fact that the accident happened on a day off did not refute the official nature of the trip.

The Krasnoyarsk Regional Court formulated a conclusion fundamental to the case.

Under the Russian civil-law rules applied in this case, driving the vehicle as part of employment duties did not, by itself, establish that the employee was personally liable to the injured passenger. The court also had to examine lawful possession and use of the vehicle and identify the party responsible for the harm.

Therefore, such an employee, as a general rule, does not bear civil liability directly to the victim for harm caused by the car.

An exception is possible, for example, if it is proven that the person unlawfully took possession of the car.

In our case, there was no such evidence.

Aitmamatov was brought to criminal liability for violating traffic rules that resulted in serious harm to the passenger’s health.

But the regional court separately indicated:

the mere bringing of the driver to criminal liability is not an independent basis for recovering moral damages specifically from him.

Civil liability is determined by the rules of civil law.

Therefore, it is necessary to separately establish who, in a particular situation, is the person obliged to compensate the harm.

This is what made it possible to change the outcome of the case.

The appellate court established that as of the date of the accident, the organisation legally responsible for the vehicle’s operation in the circumstances of this case was Orion-S Construction Financial Company LLC.

At the same time, the car, with the knowledge of this organization, continued to be used by Orion Group Company LLC, on whose assignment Aitmamatov was making the trip.

There was no evidence of the client’s unlawful taking possession of the car.

Therefore, the court placed the civil liability before the victim not on the driver, but on:

Orion-S Construction Financial Company LLC.

This point is fundamental.

We did not prove that the victim is not entitled to compensation at all for the serious harm caused to health.

The amount of moral damages — RUB 500,000 — was preserved by the appellate court.

But it was not our client who had to pay it personally.

The court changed the person on whom the civil liability is placed.

Instead of Aitmamatov:

Orion-S Construction Financial Company LLC.

In disputes over compensation for harm after a traffic accident, it is easy to confuse two different questions.

The first:

who actually violated the rules and caused the harm?

The second:

who, under civil law, is obliged to compensate this harm to the victim?

The answers to these questions may not coincide.

Especially if the accident happened:

• in a company car;
• while the employee was performing his duties;
• in a leased car;
• with a complex chain of lawful possession and use of the vehicle.

Therefore, the mere fact of the driver’s guilt is not enough to correctly determine the proper defendant.

Konsultant Law Firm represented the interests of Aitmamatov A.A.

In the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, the client’s position was supported by Viktor Erofeev, a lawyer of Konsultant Law Firm.

The defense was built not on an attempt to deny the circumstances of the accident, but on the correct determination of the subject of civil liability.

On appeal, we examined the documents governing possession and use of the car and established that the journey was work-related. We showed that, in this case, civil liability to the passenger rested with Orion-S Construction Financial Company LLC (ООО ФСК «Орион-С»). The appellate court set aside the award against our client.

As a result, the recovery from the client was overturned.