The driver was not the owner of the car: The Supreme Court clarified whether he can claim damages after an accident

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Civil Cassation Court, considered a case on a claim for compensation for material and moral damages caused by a traffic accident. The subject of the dispute was, in particular, whether a person who lawfully used a vehicle but was not its owner has the right to claim compensation for damage caused to the car.

Case Summary

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding compensation for material and moral damages caused by a traffic accident that occurred on March 8, 2014. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries of moderate severity characterized by a prolonged health disorder lasting more than 21 days, and the ALFA ROMEO car he lawfully used was damaged.

The district court convicted the defendant of a criminal offense under Part One of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The plaintiff requested compensation from the defendant in the amount of UAH 59,005.77 for material damages and UAH 200,000 for moral damages.

During the case, it was established that the owner of the damaged vehicle was a third party. At the same time, the plaintiff operated the vehicle based on a driver's license, vehicle registration certificate, and compulsory civil liability insurance policy.

The value of the material damage to the vehicle, according to the expert's conclusion, amounted to UAH 20,426.50.

In the cassation appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore had no right to claim compensation for material damage caused to the car. The defendant also claimed that at the time of the accident he was a minor and did not have legal possession of the vehicle.

The district court partially satisfied the claim and ordered the defendant to pay UAH 20,426.50 in material damages and UAH 25,000 in moral damages.

The court based its decision on the fact that the defendant's guilt in violating traffic rules was established by a guilty verdict, and the amount of material damages was confirmed by the expert's conclusion, which was not refuted.

When determining the amount of moral damages, the court took into account the nature of the plaintiff's suffering, the circumstances of the case, principles of reasonableness, balance, and fairness, as well as the fact that more than three years had passed since the accident.

The appellate court left the decision of the first instance court unchanged.

Legal Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts in case No. 300/193/17 and noted that Article 395 of the Civil Code of Ukraine classifies the right of possession as a property right over another's property. Such rights are absolute and are subject to protection on par with ownership rights.

The court pointed out that according to Article 396 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the rules on the protection of ownership rights also apply to property rights over another's property. Therefore, a person who lawfully possesses property and suffers damage due to violation of their rights by third parties has the right to seek judicial protection.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of lawful possession of property is sufficient grounds for a person to seek protection of their property right.

The panel of judges also referred to Part Two of Article 1187 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which the possessor of a source of increased danger is not only the owner of the vehicle but also a person who uses it on other legal grounds, including by power of attorney or in another manner provided by law.

The court noted that causing damage to the user of property arises from the fact of using this property on a sufficient legal basis in accordance with clause 2.2 of the Traffic Rules of Ukraine. This conclusion aligns with the legal position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine expressed in the ruling dated December 3, 2014, in case No. 6-183tss14, as well as the position of the Supreme Court in case No. 200/21325/15-ts.

Having established that the plaintiff operated the vehicle based on a driver's license and registration document, the courts correctly concluded that he had the right to compensation for the damage caused.

Regarding the arguments about the defendant's minority, the Supreme Court noted that according to Article 1179 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a minor aged 14 to 18 years is independently liable for damage caused by them on general grounds.

Moreover, during the criminal proceedings, it was established that the vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of the accident was given to him with his father's permission. These circumstances were taken into account by the lower courts when deciding on compensation.

The Supreme Court also rejected arguments regarding the unreasonableness of moral damages, since the courts partially satisfied the relevant claim and set the compensation amount at UAH 25,000.

As a result of the case consideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

The cassation court's ruling comes into legal force from the moment of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to appeal.

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