- Статьи
- Auto
- You give me a piece of paper: handing over a car does not release the owner from responsibility
You give me a piece of paper: handing over a car does not release the owner from responsibility
The simple transfer of keys and documents to the car does not release the car owner from financial responsibility in the event of an accident. This is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. When entrusting the use of a vehicle to another person, you should draw up any document confirming the transfer of the car, lawyers advise. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
It cannot be restored
In December 2024, in the Khabarovsk Territory, the driver was Yushkin (last name changed. — Izvestia), driving a minibus owned by citizen Ifanova (last name changed. — Izvestia), violated traffic regulations and became the culprit of the accident. In the incident, a crossover belonging to citizen Pchelkina (last name changed. — Izvestia). According to the expert examination, the car, whose market value at the time of the accident was 2,124 million rubles, could not be restored. The CTP insurance company paid Pchelkina the maximum amount established by law — 400 thousand rubles.
To compensate for the rest of the damage, Pchelkina filed a lawsuit against Yushkin and Ifanova (as the owner of the car). The Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk partially satisfied the claims, refusing to recover funds from Ifanova. Pchelkina appealed this decision to the Khabarovsk Regional Court, and then to the ninth Court of Cassation of general jurisdiction. However, both instances upheld the decision. As a result, the motorist filed a complaint with the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).
Increased car danger
After reviewing the case materials, the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded that the lower authorities had committed "significant violations of substantive law and (or) procedural law." The judges noted that, according to Art. 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner bears the burden of maintaining his property. At the same time, within the meaning of art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation to compensate for harm is imposed on a legal entity or citizen who owns a source of increased danger, such as vehicles.
"The owner of a source of increased danger is obliged to compensate for the damage caused by this source, unless he proves that the damage was caused by force majeure or intent of the victim, or that the source of increased danger was removed from his possession as a result of illegal actions of other persons or was transferred to another person in accordance with the procedure established by law," the Supreme Court recalled.
At the same time, as follows from the definition of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the fact of driving Yushkin's car at the time of the accident cannot indicate that he was the owner of the source of increased danger.
"The fact that the owner of the vehicle has transferred the right to drive it to another person, including with the transfer of keys and registration documents for the car, confirms only the will of the owner to transfer this property for use and does not indicate the transfer of ownership of the property <...> and therefore does not release from the obligation to compensate for the damage caused by this source of increased dangers," the Supreme Court ruling says.
As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decided to cancel the court decisions of the lower instances and send the case for a new hearing.
Make a transfer
Formally, the Supreme Court, based on the provisions of the Civil Code, is right, says Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement. Since the transfer of keys and STS from the car was not documented, the Supreme Court recognized it as possible to involve the owner of the car as a co-defendant in the claim for damages, he noted.
— This situation would not even have arisen if the transfer of the car had been executed by a power of attorney drawn up in simple written form. Yes, it has long been not required by traffic regulations to confirm the legality of driving a car — a CTP policy is sufficient, which includes the driver driving the car or insurance in general without limiting the number of persons allowed to drive the vehicle. However, in civil law relationships, a power of attorney can be a document confirming the transfer of ownership and use of a car to a person who is not the owner," Sergey Radko emphasized.
Sergey Smirnov, an auto lawyer, also recommends that car owners who transfer their car, even to relatives, friends or acquaintances, document such a transfer.
— This may not necessarily be a power of attorney: confirmation of the transfer of the vehicle may be a receipt, an act of acceptance and transfer of the car, and a contract of gratuitous use. It is important that these documents indicate the date on which the ownership and use rights are transferred to another person, as well as his data, — said Sergey Smirnov.
Since fines for traffic violations recorded by cameras come to the owner of the car, these documents will also become an additional basis for their cancellation and reissue to the actual violator driving the car, the lawyer added.
An adjustment is needed
If the usual and obvious situation requires the intervention of the Supreme Court, it means that the legislation regulating these issues requires adjustments and clarifications, says Maxim Kadakov, editor-in-chief of Za Rulem magazine.
— It is obvious that the owner of the car, who was not at the wheel of the car involved in the accident, but even at the scene of the accident, has nothing to do with the incident. It probably makes sense to spell out more clearly that in such situations he should not be financially responsible for a reckless driver, even though he is the owner of a source of increased danger," the editor—in-chief of Za Rulem believes.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
