A passerby leaned on a car and allegedly made a dent worth 29,000 UAH: did the car owner get compensation
The owner of a Toyota Prius filed a lawsuit demanding compensation for property damage, claiming that in Shepetivka a passerby damaged the hood of his car by leaning on it.
According to the plaintiff, near a parking lot he saw an unfamiliar woman who was leaning her hand on his parked car. After that, he discovered a fresh dent on the hood with damaged paintwork, which, according to him, was not there before. He estimated the cost of repair at 29,763 UAH and asked to recover this amount from the defendant.
The Shepetivka City District Court of Khmelnytskyi region denied the claim.
The plaintiff filed an appeal requesting to overturn this decision and satisfy the claim. He believed that the local court improperly assessed the evidence in the case, in particular the police investigation materials, in which the defendant confirmed that she had leaned on his car.
The appellate court in case No. 688/3782/25 noted that to recover damages under Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the plaintiff must prove all elements: the existence of damage, the unlawful behavior of the defendant, the causal link between such behavior and the damage caused, as well as the fault of the person who caused the damage.
The panel of judges stated that the circumstances of the car damage cannot be confirmed solely by the plaintiff's explanations, who was not questioned in court as a witness. At the same time, it noted that the defendant denied causing any damage. She explained to law enforcement officers that she was passing by the Toyota Prius and only touched it with her fingertips.
The court took into account that according to the expert's conclusion, it is not excluded that a dent with damaged paintwork on the car could have been caused by leaning a hand on the hood. However, it pointed out that in the absence of objective evidence of the defendant's wrongful behavior and that the damage was caused by her, this conclusion is not sufficient proof of her liability.
Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion: the plaintiff did not prove the presence of a civil offense in the defendant's actions or that the car damage was a result of her actions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the local court's decision remained 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 updated on the most important events.
