Don't knock, wheels: why you can't leave the scene of a "contactless" accident
A driver who leaves the scene of an accident, even if his car has not physically contacted another car, risks being left without a license, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed. Such "contactless" accidents are not uncommon on the roads, experts say. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Accident without collision
In December last year in Tatarstan, Ifanov (surname changed. — Izvestia), while changing lanes on a three-lane road from the far left lane immediately to the far right, "cut off" another driver. To avoid a collision, the motorist began to brake and dodge Ifanov's car, but his minivan skidded, he left the road and crashed into a road sign. Ifanov, having decided that he was not a participant in the accident, since there was no collision between the cars, left the scene. However, subsequently, traffic police officers tracked him down and issued a report under Part 2 of Article 12.27 "Leaving the scene of an accident in violation of traffic regulations, in which he was a participant."
Based on the protocol, the magistrate found Ifanov guilty of this offense and deprived him of his driver's license for a year. The motorist disagreed with the decision, believing that he was not a participant in the accident, and challenged the decision first in the Kazan District Court, and then in the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction. However, these instances upheld the decision of the justice of the peace. As a result, Ifanov filed a complaint with the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).
There is no blow, but there is responsibility.
After reviewing the case file, the Supreme Court found no legal grounds to satisfy the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that, according to the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a driver driving a vehicle can be recognized as a participant in an accident regardless of whether they violated traffic regulations and whether there was mechanical interaction with other vehicles, people and objects.
In addition, after studying the video recording made by an eyewitness to the accident, the RF Armed Forces concluded that Ifanov could not help but see that it was his maneuver that caused another car to skid and collide with a road sign. It is also clear from this recording that an eyewitness to the accident, having caught up with Ifanov, suggests that he return to the scene, and Ifanov understands the essence of the conversation, denying his involvement in the traffic accident, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation noted.
"Ifanov's actions <...>, who was aware of the accident and realized his involvement in it, constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and are qualified under this rule in accordance with established circumstances, the norms of this code, and the provisions of legislation in the field of road safety," the Supreme Court said in a statement.
As a result, the Supreme Court rejected the motorist's complaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
If you doubt it, stop!
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has made a reasoned and fair decision, says Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement.
— In my practice, there was a case when, due to a driver jumping out at an intersection, another motorist, avoiding a collision, drove onto the sidewalk, where he hit a pedestrian. As a result, both received deadlines," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
In his opinion, the video recording attached to the case file, which shows all the circumstances of the incident, as well as previous and subsequent events, was of key importance to the Supreme Court. It was she who allowed us to study all the nuances and make a reasoned decision.
— This decision of the Supreme Court does not mean that now all drivers within a radius of 100 m from an accident must stop and wait for the arrival of traffic police. However, if a motorist has doubts about whether he was involved in the accident, he should stop and at least find out if there are any claims against him from other drivers, even if his car was not physically involved in the accident and has no damage. Otherwise, there is a possibility that police officers will later consider him to have fled the scene," Sergei Radko told Izvestia.
Such behavior will allow us to collect evidence (record eyewitness information, record the circumstances of the incident, etc.) of his innocence, if he is really not involved in the incident, and, if necessary, provide explanations to traffic police, the lawyer believes. Having left the scene of the accident in a similar situation, it will be almost impossible to prove his innocence later, the lawyer noted.
"Contactless" traffic accident
Situations where rash actions and maneuvers lead to an accident, but its initiator is not physically involved in it, are not uncommon on the roads, said Igor Morzharetto, a member of the presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. There is even an unofficial term for such accidents — "contactless accidents," he said. Their perpetrators, of course, must be held accountable both for the violation itself, which eventually caused the accident, and for leaving the scene of the accident if they left, believing themselves innocent, he is sure. However, this issue must be approached very carefully and carefully, the expert emphasizes.
— Very often, drivers involved in an accident claim that someone "cut them off", "got out right in front of their nose", braked sharply, etc. Such statements must necessarily be supported by appropriate evidence, ideally a video recording. Only in this case, it is possible to resolve the issue of searching for the initiator of the accident who fled from the scene of the accident and bringing him to justice," Igor Morzharetto told Izvestia.
Maxim Kadakov, the editor-in-chief of Za Rulem magazine, shares a similar point of view. According to him, in any case, the decision on the driver's involvement in a "contactless" accident and the determination of his degree of guilt in it should be made by the court after the most objective and comprehensive study of all the circumstances of the incident.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
