The Supreme Court Obliged the Recovery Service to Pay the Porsche Owner Over 780 Thousand Hryvnias for an Accident Caused by Poor Road Conditions

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision to compensate over UAH 780,000 in material damage to the owner of a Porsche Panamera who was involved in an accident due to the poor condition of the road surface on the Kyiv–Chop highway in Zhytomyr region. This decision was made by the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court in case No. 278/1722/21.

Case circumstances

In June 2021, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service in Zhytomyr region seeking recovery of UAH 1,226,183.49 in damages related to a traffic accident that occurred on November 13, 2020, at kilometer 138 of the Kyiv–Chop highway. The claim was based on the plaintiff's assertion that the cause of the accident was an improperly secured nine-meter-long rubber structure on the deformation joint of the road surface, which caused loss of control and mechanical damage to the vehicle.

According to the expert examination, the amount of material damage was determined to be UAH 780,458.60.

On November 1, 2024, the Zhytomyr District Court denied the claim, citing insufficient evidence of a causal link between the road condition and the accident.

However, on January 16, 2025, the Zhytomyr Appellate Court overturned this decision and issued a new ruling partially satisfying the claim and ordering the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service to pay:

• UAH 780,458.60 in material damages;
• UAH 15,000 for legal assistance;
• UAH 19,496.33 in court fees.

Additionally, by a ruling dated January 22, 2025, UAH 4,800 was awarded for expert examination costs.

The appellate court concluded that the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service, responsible for road maintenance in the region, failed to properly maintain the road surface. This was the cause of the accident and the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle.

Disagreeing with the appellate court's decision, the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service in Zhytomyr region appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued that the accident was not caused by the road condition but by the Porsche driver's inattention. The defendant also stated that the maintenance of this road section was carried out by a contractor, and therefore, according to the Service, the contractor should bear responsibility for any road surface defects.

Supreme Court's conclusion

The Supreme Court emphasized that according to Articles 22 and 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, property damage must be fully compensated by the person who caused it. To impose liability, it is necessary to establish the presence of damage, unlawful conduct, a causal link between such conduct and the damage, as well as the fault of the person who caused it. The plaintiff must prove the fact of damage and the causal link, while the defendant must prove the absence of their fault.

The Court noted that the Law of Ukraine "On Road Traffic" and the Law of Ukraine "On Automobile Roads" guarantee road users the right to safe conditions of movement and compensation for damages caused by non-compliance of road conditions with safety requirements. Road owners or their authorized bodies are responsible for creating safe traffic conditions and must compensate for damages if an accident occurred due to improper maintenance of road infrastructure.

The courts established that the state authority managing public roads in Zhytomyr region is the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service in Zhytomyr region, which is responsible for the relevant section of the Kyiv–Chop highway. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service in Zhytomyr region is liable to road users for damages caused by improper maintenance of public roads.

The Court also rejected the cassation appeal's arguments regarding the contractor's liability. The panel of judges stressed that the case materials do not contain evidence of proper performance by the contractor on the road section where the accident occurred. At the same time, the client was obliged to control the contractor's fulfillment of duties and ensure the safe condition of the road. Failure or improper performance by the contractor does not exempt the client from liability to third parties.

As a result of the case review, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Recovery and Infrastructure Development Service in Zhytomyr region and left the appellate court's decision unchanged.

 Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.