Driver Violated Traffic Rles and Injured a Person: Supreme Court Names Key Condition for Liability

The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a driver who ran over a cyclist's leg during a road altercation. Despite the driver violating traffic rules and causing minor bodily injuries, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove intent to cause harm. The corresponding ruling was issued by the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court on 18 June 2026, in case No. 369/16593/20.

What Happened

The incident occurred on 16 July 2020, in the village of Khodosivka, Kyiv region. According to case materials, an Audi driver stopped at a traffic light and was subsequently surrounded by a group of cyclists. Courts established that the cyclists banged on the car body and windows, attempted to open the doors, and broke a side mirror.

Two cyclists positioned themselves in front of the car, blocking its movement. After a few seconds, the driver moved forward, causing the cyclists to fall. One cyclist sustained minor injuries after the car ran over his leg. The driver then bypassed the cyclists and left the scene.

Both the first-instance and appellate courts found that the driver violated traffic rules by failing to ensure safety before moving, and this violation caused the victim's injury.

However, the courts concluded that these circumstances alone did not demonstrate a desire or conscious allowance to cause bodily harm. Due to the lack of proven intent, the driver was acquitted under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury).

The prosecutor and the victim's representative appealed the acquittal, arguing that the courts had misjudged the evidence and unjustifiably concluded there was no intent to cause bodily harm. They believed the car's trajectory indicated an intent to injure the victim. They also claimed the courts wrongly deemed inadmissible the video review protocol and expert conclusion, and referred to an administrative offence decision where the driver was found guilty of a traffic accident.

The Supreme Court's Decision

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court examined the cassation complaints from the prosecutor and the victim's representative regarding procedural violations and the courts' conclusions about the absence of intent to cause bodily harm.

The first-instance court had declared the video review protocol and expert conclusion No. 190/D inadmissible, reasoning that the investigator acted without proper authority and that the right to defence was violated during the notification of suspicion due to the absence of a lawyer.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The panel noted that the crucial factor is not the name of the procedural document but its content: if the head of the investigative body's order contains the necessary details and defines the investigator's powers, it constitutes sufficient grounds for investigation. The Court also stated that in this case, the presence of a defender during the notification of suspicion was not mandatory.

At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that these errors did not affect the legality of the decision because the courts still examined the original video recording and established all important circumstances. Excluding the expert conclusion also did not affect the establishment of minor bodily injuries. Therefore, there were no grounds to overturn the court decisions.

The Supreme Court also considered the prosecution's and victim's argument that the driver's actions indicated intent to cause bodily harm.

The panel noted that lower courts established the fact of a traffic rule violation, resulting in minor injuries to the victim. However, the key issue was not only the rule violation but the driver's attitude at the moment—whether he intended to injure the victim or whether the injuries were a consequence of careless manoeuvring.

The Supreme Court emphasised that to hold a person liable under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the intent to cause bodily harm. That is, it must be confirmed that the person desired or consciously allowed harm to another's health.

The mere fact of violating traffic rules cannot automatically indicate such intent. The Court noted that traffic safety violations are, by legal nature, negligent acts, whereas intentional crimes against health involve a different form of guilt.

According to the Supreme Court, qualifying a traffic incident under Article 125 of the Criminal Code solely because the driver started moving without due caution would expand the scope of criminal law.

After evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the accused's intent to cause bodily harm to the victim. The Supreme Court noted that the first and appellate courts were best placed to directly examine the evidence, including the video recording, which allowed for a more objective establishment of the conflict's circumstances.

As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaints of the prosecutor and the victim's representative, leaving the acquittal of the Kyiv-Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv region and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.

Thus, the mere fact of a car running over a person is insufficient to recognise the driver's actions as intentional under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The prosecution must prove not only the fact of injury but also that the driver had intent — that is, wanted to cause harm or consciously allowed such consequences. If the injuries resulted from careless manoeuvring or traffic rule violations, this is not evidence of an intentional crime.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.