The Supreme Court once again favored defending the interests of those affected by communication accidents. The resolution will certainly be invoked in court disputes against insurers on the basis of OC claims of the perpetrator.
On 13 March 2020 The Supreme Court adopted a resolution in response to the legal question: ‘is the required obligation to pay the rent of a replacement vehicle, which imposes on the person injured in a communication accident, resulting in the inability to use his own car, a damage, and the injured person has a liability for this in relation to the person responsible for the accident and the insurance undertaking to which the offender is bound by the contract of insurance of civil liability of motor vehicle holders for damage to the traffic of these vehicles?’ In response to such a problem, the NS stated that ‘the imposition by the injured party of an obligation to pay the rent of a replacement vehicle constitutes damage within the meaning of Article 361(2) k.c. remaining due to a cause of a communication accident.’ Therefore, if, as a result of the damage, the injured person who has been deprived of the means of transport has entered into a contract to rent a replacement vehicle, he is entitled to pursue any rent claims from the insurer arising from the conclusion of such a contract.
Here it should be noted that by resolution dated 15 February 2019 The Supreme Court after the Civil Chamber has examined a legal question on the reference no. III CZP 84/18, stated that ‘the liability of the civil liability insurer of the holder of a motor vehicle also covers the deliberate and economically justifiable expenses incurred by the victim for the hire of the replacement vehicle during the extended repair period, unless they are a consequence of circumstances for which the injured person or person is liable third”.
The resolution adopted by the Supreme Court therefore complies with the principle of full compensation in civil law. Harm in Meaning Article 361 k.c.
is the difference between the property status of the injured person, which arose after the occurrence of an event causing damage, and the condition which would exist in his property if the event had not occurred. The obligation to pay compensation shall cover the normal consequences of the action or omission resulting from the damage.
It is clear that the damage is all that the injured person has lost, i.e. not only the reduction of assets, but also the increase of liabilities (judgment of the District Court for Warsaw in Warsaw). dated 17 November 2008, reference no. II C 1132/06.
It should be explained that the normal consequences of the event from which the damage occurred are the consequences that such an event can cause in the ordinary course of things, and not just because of a particular coincidence. Within the normal course of events, liability for damage may cause not only a direct cause, but also a further indirect cause. The qualification of consequences as normal is determined by an objective assessment based on life experience and current indications of knowledge.
Source: SN resolution III CZP 63/19
Author: Michał Wasilenko
Lawyer, Senior Associate in the Legal Department, member of the Bar Association in Lublin, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. He specializes in commercial and civil law law.