Vehicle circulation

In this case, a driver decided to stop his car to put on chains , but he did it in a very dangerous way as he left the vehicle occupying the lane and, furthermore, did not place warning signs to alert other drivers. The stop was not a brief one either, but rather it lasted for a prolonged period . To make matters worse, his wife (who was a passenger) got out of the car and stood outside the vehicle , directly on the road.

Under those circumstances, another car was driving through the area at low speed , on a narrow stretch, and in difficult weather conditions (there was a blizzard and snow). Nevertheless, the driver suddenly encountered the stopped car as an obstacle in his lane . He tried to react by making evasive maneuvers , but a collision occurred, and also the pedestrian run over (the wife who was on the road).

After the accident, the driver of the stopped car, the pedestrian, and the insurer of that vehicle sued the insurer and the driver of the colliding car. Initially, the court understood that the fault of the accident was exclusively on those who had incorrectly parked the vehicle and were occupying the road. On appeal, the Court of Appeals confirmed that conclusion.

Finally, the matter reached the Supreme Court (SC), which also dismissed the appeals of the couple. The SC makes it clear that the key point is not to discuss "fortuitous event," but the exclusive fault of the injured party as a reason to exonerate the other driver. And it concludes that stopping in the lane and having a person on the road was the direct and exclusive cause of the accident.

If you feel harmed and in a position to demand accountability for any damage suffered due to a traffic accident, our professionals can assist you in pursuing your claims