On the nuances of registration of scratches in the police. Briefly and chaotically.
1. It is not necessary to thoughtlessly draw up all the existing damage on a car with one event.
If the car has damage of different “age” and nature of occurrence, then it is better to arrange it with different events. Numerous scratches and abrasions can be combined into one statement on a "territorial basis"
Those. front fender, hood, glass - yes. But the front right fender, front left door and rear bumper are not.
Insurance companies are very fond of making denials of payments "an investigative study was carried out, which established that the damage was not received at once."
The judicial perspective in such cases is kvelaya. Well, that is, we win such cases, but we will have to pay denyushka. A self-prepared yuzver is unlikely to win such a court.
2. It is not necessary to issue an unambiguous accident as PDTL.
Those. a jammed threshold is clearly an accident. A broken headlight and a jammed fender with metal bends - too. Etc.
If in doubt - it's better to call the traffic police.
3. The district police officer should be called by phone. If you do not know the telephone number of the local police department - call "02". But first, call, then remove the car from the scene and with the permission of the district police officer. Ride on damaged car to the police department - is fraught with the fact that the decision will indicate that the inspection of the scene could not be carried out, t.to. the victim left him. Cant.
4. The resolution must contain the phrase “ damage caused by the action of an unidentified person
” or something similar, but in no case should it be “ under unspecified circumstances
».
To obtain the necessary wording, you should write in the application like this - I heard the alarm siren, looked out the window, saw how some kind of sinister claws scratched the wing.
Well, lies, yes. Well, what to do if the insurance business is so paranoid in our country?
Important! “I came, I saw, I declared” - this is not an insured event. An insured event is definitely an accident, it’s definitely a fall of objects, it’s definitely PDTL, and not “I don’t know what happened, but the car is damaged.”
Upon receipt of the same decision with an undesirable phrase, it can be appealed within 10 days.
In court, of course, you can collect insurance compensation with such wordings from the insurance company. But do you need it?
5. Upon contacting the police, you will be given a ticket indicating the KUSP number and the date of the application. About the timing of the issuance of a form 3 certificate and a resolution - I do not know what regulations are there. I'll clarify later.
6. There is a myth that the police cannot recognize damage as insignificant. This is not true. Previously, there was such a fashion among insurance companies, yes - to equate such a phrase with the fact that as a result of the actions of the insured, the insurer lost the right to subrogation. But in Last year I have seen such failures a number of times.
Moreover - this reason for refusing to initiate a case can be used for some kind of "bargaining" with a policeman - I recognize the damage to you as insignificant and you don’t open a case without too much writing, but you quickly give me information. And then - significant and look for the villain.
Even if the insurance company refuses on this basis, then in order to win such a lawsuit from her, a lawyer will not be needed. It's elementary. Yes, and in the pre-trial order, it will be possible to brainwash them and force them to pay.
7. If the car is damaged so that repairs must be started immediately (for example, the glass is broken), then you can contact the insurance company with this coupon. The main thing is to declare, show (do not forget to get a copy of the application and the inspection report) and after that you can install new glass. And when you receive a certificate and a decision - then to the insurance company with a statement on reimbursement of costs for work and spare parts.
8. In the application to the insurance company, you should write the same as in the police.
Something like that.
Thank you for your attention.
As you know, the CASCO insurance policy protects the property of a citizen, in particular vehicle, from all kinds of troubles, whether it be theft, an accident, intentional harm to a car by another person. If your vehicle was damaged at the hands of third parties, whose illegal actions caused damage to the named property, then you should follow the correct competent actions that will help in obtaining insurance compensation without delay.
A fairly typical situation for CASCO is the unlawful actions of third parties, in other words, PDTL, as a result of which the vehicle turned out to be scratched, doused with paint, or damage was received from a heavy object falling on the car from a height (roof). Theft of a car, as well as the theft of any valuable items from the passenger compartment, also fall under the cases of PTTL.
Each insured motorist should know how to behave in case of detection of malfunctions, damage to the vehicle, formed during his absence. This will help you to receive insurance compensation in a timely and hassle-free manner.
First of all, you need to make sure that the vehicle remains in its place, regardless of whether it interferes with someone or not. To obtain insurance payment, it is necessary to prove the fact that the malfunction of the car arose precisely after the actions of third parties, and not due to the banal negligence of the driver and owner of the vehicle. Next, you need to call the police department and report the trouble that happened to you. This must be done by phone, since going to the department on your own in a damaged car means depriving yourself of the chance to receive insurance payments ahead of schedule. The police officer will be forced to indicate in his document that the victim arrived at the department on his own, so inspection of the scene is not possible, but. therefore, a criminal case will not be initiated. The initiation of a criminal case is key point when paying at risk - causing damage to property due to illegal actions of third parties.
The next step is to call the insurance company with a message about what happened. Of course, being in a state of panic, a person does not understand where to find the insurance number and how to connect with it. It should be remembered that you can contact the UK by the numbers indicated in after CASCO (back side). Any time of the day. The list of actions that the victim must perform may be somewhat different in your company.
Of course, in the process of waiting for the arrival of the police, it will not hurt to consult a competent auto lawyer, in which you can consider questions about the honesty of the police and the completeness of the information reflected in the protocol. And even better, if a lawyer will be personally present at the time of registration of your insured event authorized police representatives. As you know, the interests of the injured motorist and law enforcement officers often do not coincide, so a lawyer will help the driver prevent irreparable mistakes. Specialists legal assistance» practice going to the scene of the event. We work around the clock, so we accept applications not only during the day, but also at night. Our auto lawyer will explain to you the rules of auto insurance for CASCO and will not allow any violations in this area.
The victim, as a rule, must take care of the presence of witnesses and eyewitnesses of what happened. To do this, you need to talk with everyone who saw how everything really happened and is ready to tell the police about it, write down their phone numbers and other contacts.
Next, the motorist needs to write a statement to the police department about bringing to justice of a criminal nature all interested persons whose car was damaged by PDTL. In this statement, all the circumstances of the incident are described in detail, preferably with an indication of the exact time. This is necessary so that there are no unexplained circumstances in connection with which you may not receive an insurance payment.
It should be remembered that in connection with the illegal actions of third parties, both criminal and administrative cases can be initiated. Due to the fact that such crimes are rarely solved, many police officers insist on opening an administrative case. Otherwise, crime detection statistics will simply deteriorate.
In addition, it is important to know that in the text of the statement it is impossible to talk about the absence of claims against anyone. This may provoke a denial of insurance compensation under Part 4 of Article 965 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. An essential step is to independent expertise TC in order to determine the extent of the harm caused.
4. Illegal actions of third parties
By virtue of a direct indication of the law, in the absence of guilt, the owner is released from liability when a source of increased danger leaves his possession as a result of unlawful actions of third parties.
Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger, in such cases, is borne by persons who unlawfully seized the source. If the owner of a source of increased danger is guilty of unlawfully removing this source from his possession, liability can be assigned both to the owner and to the person who unlawfully took possession of the source of increased danger. The above norms provide for the presumption of liability of the rightful owner; the above rules seem unclear and contradictory.
First of all, the concept of illegal owner is not clearly formulated.
Due to the literal interpretation of the norms of paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 GCs viewed the following signs. Firstly, the source of increased danger at the time of causing harm should not be in the possession of its legal "owner" (owner, tenant, etc.). Secondly, it is necessary that the transfer of possession (“disposal, withdrawal”) of a source of increased danger from a legal owner to an illegal one should be unlawful (i.e., not corresponding to the requirements of the norms of objective law), in connection with which a person who possessed a source of increased danger at the time of causing harm (delinquent) did not have a legal basis (right) for this. Thirdly, this transition of a source of increased danger into the possession of an illegal owner must be due to the unlawful (illegal) actions of the latter. At the same time, the significance of the conditionality of the transfer of possession of a source of increased danger by the illegal actions of the illegal owner, in our opinion, is overestimated. Apparently, this sign should be completely excluded from the text of the law, since its incorrect interpretation leads to statements about the need to establish the fact of the transfer of possession of a source of increased danger against the will of the rightful owner, bad faith on the part of the illegal owner. This is also facilitated by the use by the legislator in paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the terms "confiscation" and "seizure", which are also used to define the concepts of theft and theft of vehicles (see paragraph 1 of the note to Article 158 and Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). It is natural that in the literature (see also Part 1, Clause 21 of the Resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court RF dated April 28, 1994, No. 3) as an example of “illegal seizure” of a source of increased danger, only vehicle theft is given. Meanwhile, a source of increased danger may fall into the possession of an illegal owner at the will of the rightful owner, as a result of the illegal actions of the latter. Thus, illegal possession of a source of increased danger may occur due to the illegal alienation of a source to a bona fide purchaser by a legal owner (for example, a tenant). Possession of a source of increased danger may become illegal after its transfer as a result of the recognition of the transaction as invalid. How in this case to qualify the actual owner as a source of increased danger - he lost his legal basis (title) of possession (and, therefore, paragraph 1 of article 1079 of the Civil Code is not applicable); however, no illegal actions were taken to seize the source, the acquisition of the source was in good faith (i.e., at first glance, there are no signs of the subject specified in clause 2 of article 1079 of the Civil Code). Who will be responsible and on what grounds in case of harm caused by a bona fide purchaser of a source of increased danger? The following options are possible: a) bring to justice the owner (the last legal owner) of the source of increased danger; b) hold the bona fide purchaser liable under Art. 1064 of the Civil Code or c) according to the rules of art. 1079 of the Civil Code applied by analogy with the law. None of these decisions corresponds, in our opinion, to the meaning of the law. Signs of such a delict make it possible to unambiguously qualify it under Art. 1079 GK; but, former owner source of increased danger cannot be recognized as the subject of this liability. As for the analogy, its use in such a case seems redundant - general system liability for causing harm is built on the principle of a general tort, which does not allow gaps in legal regulation, without which there can be no analogy designed to eliminate these gaps. Opinions have been expressed in the literature about the inadmissibility of applying the rules on liability for causing harm, both by analogy and with the help of their broad interpretation. Meanwhile, in our opinion, the rules of paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code is in need of a broad (distributive) interpretation, since the literal meaning of individual phrases of the law does not correspond to its true meaning. Why should only kidnappers, hijackers, i.e., criminals, be classified as persons "illegally taking possession of a source of increased danger"?
In cases of “seizure” of a vehicle under emergency circumstances (for delivering a seriously ill patient to a hospital, detaining a dangerous criminal, etc.), judicial practice exempts from criminal liability for theft of the persons who carried out such a seizure A “Under such circumstances, it should be considered that the car lawfully passed into the temporary possession of another person, and if this person, managing it, caused harm to someone, then it was he or the organization concerned (if this person acted in the performance of official duties) and must compensate the victim. The responsibility of the original owner in this case should completely disappear. In our opinion, such a “socially useful” possession of a source of increased danger should still be recognized as illegal, and such an “invader” should be held liable under paragraph 2 of Art. 1079 GK.
The transfer of possession of a source of increased danger through an invalid transaction will be exactly the same unlawful. We believe that it is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the following provision: "when concluding a transaction, recognized as invalid, the owner of the source of increased danger is the acquirer of the source of increased danger."
The study of legislation, theory and practice relating to civil liability for causing harm by a source of increased danger shows, first of all, that the relevance and practical significance of this institution is increasing every year. This is due to the complexity modern production, as well as an increase in the number and expansion of the species composition of sources that are carriers of increased danger, which automatically causes an increase in the scale of their negative impact.
A study of the problem of liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger reveals that both the theoretical and practical base of this institution is far from ideal. Obviously, there are gaps regarding the solution of some issues and inconsistency in relation to others.
Uncertainty is present even in the definition of the concept of a source of increased danger.
There are many gaps in the legislation regarding the subject of liability under Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. So, for example, there are no clear answers to the question of who will bear the burden of responsibility for causing harm to a source of increased danger located in common property, in possession legal entity; who will be responsible if the subject owns a source of increased danger under a rental agreement.
It should be noted that there is no clear distinction between legislative level simple negligence of the victim from gross leads to disagreements about whether the tortfeasor in a particular situation has the right to full or at least partial exemption from liability.
As for the judicial practice regarding the imposition of liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger, its shortcoming is seen in the extremely narrowly focused application of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The bulk of court decisions under this article is related to the recovery of damage caused by a vehicle and other mechanisms. It is extremely rarely used when large-scale harm is caused to natural objects and public health by the increased danger of enterprises that poison and pollute the environment. The absence of such cases means the extremely low activity of practical workers who do not want to use the opportunities given to them by the legislator. Yes, and in the most developed area, when causing harm to vehicles, problems arise. There is no well-established mechanism for establishing the degree of guilt of the owners of sources of increased danger in case of mutual harm and infliction of harm if the victim was grossly negligent.
In connection with the above, in order to improve the legal norms governing the liability of the owner of a source of increased danger, it is proposed:
1. Activities associated with increased danger to others and the source of increased danger of the phenomenon are different, but interconnected, and each of them is necessary for the qualification of a tort.
2. The definition of the concept of a source of increased danger is formulated: “A source of increased danger is objects of the material world that have harmful properties, are not controlled or not completely controlled by a person, during the operation of which the possibility of accidentally causing harm to others is created, even when measures are taken to prevent it.”
3. It is advisable to expand the circle of subjects responsible for causing harm by a source of increased danger. When establishing the fact of concluding a vehicle lease agreement, the responsibility for causing harm must be assigned to the employer-tenant.
4. It is necessary to legislate in Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation definition of the concept of “owner of a source of increased danger”, indicating that “the owner of a source of increased danger is a person who owns a source of increased danger on the basis of ownership, the right of economic management or the right of operational management, or on another legal basis (on the right of lease, by proxy to the right to drive a vehicle, by virtue of the order of the relevant authority to transfer to him a source of increased danger, etc.)”.
5. Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the provision that an employee who uses personal vehicles for official purposes on the basis of a vehicle rental agreement concluded with an employer is not the owner of a source of increased danger.
6. When transferring a source of increased danger by virtue of instructions from state authorities or local authorities and other persons authorized by law without removing the driver from driving the vehicle, the title owner of the source remains the subject of ownership.
7. It is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the following provision: "when concluding a transaction that is recognized as invalid, the owner of a source of increased danger is its purchaser."
8. Art. 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as follows: “Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is carried out regardless of the fault of the tortfeasor in cases where: the damage was caused during the use or action of a source of increased danger;
harm was caused to a citizen as a result of his unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful application of detention or recognizance not to leave as a preventive measure, unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of arrest or corrective labor; the damage was caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation; in other cases provided for by law.
9. It is necessary to supplement clause 2 of Art. 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the concepts of gross and simple negligence, formulating them as follows: “In case of gross negligence, a person does not comply, violates the usual elementary requirements under the circumstances of care, discretion, safety, as a result of which either foresees a possible harmful result, but expects to prevent it, or, although and does not foresee, but is aware that the actions taken may cause a similar result. In case of simple negligence, a person observes the usual, elementary under the circumstances, measures of foresight, caution, attentiveness, which turn out to be insufficient to prevent harm.
10. It is necessary to change the wording of paragraph 2 of Art. 15 of the Civil Code, indicating that losses are understood to be expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make as a result of a violation of a right, loss or damage to his property (actual damage).
Regulations
1. Constitution Russian Federation[Text]: official. text. // Russian newspaper. –1993. – № 237.
2. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part one) [Text]: [ the federal law No. 51-FZ, adopted on November 30, 1994 as of December 6, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1994. - No. 32. - Art. 3301.
3. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Two) [Text]: [Federal Law No. 14-FZ, adopted on 10/26/1996 as of 12/06/2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1996. - No. 5. - Art. 410.
4. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Three) [Text]: [Federal Law No. 146-FZ, adopted on November 26, 2001 as of November 29, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. -2001. - No. 49. - Art. 4552.
5. Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 138-FZ, adopted on November 14, 2002, as of December 4, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 46. - Art. 4532.
6. Air Code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 60-FZ, adopted on February 19, 1997, as of June 26, 2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1997. - No. 12. - St. 1383.
7. On the industrial safety of hazardous production facilities [Text]: [Federal Law No. 116-FZ, adopted on July 21, 1997, as of December 18, 2006] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1997. - No. 30. - Art. 3588.
8. About compulsory insurance civil liability owners of vehicles [Text]: [Federal Law No. 40-FZ, adopted on April 25, 2002, as of December 1, 2007] // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 18. - St. 1720.
9. On licensing certain types of activities [Text]: [Federal Law No. 128-FZ, adopted on 08.08.2001, as of 06.12.2007]// Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation.-2001.- No. 33 (Part I).-Art. . 3430.
10. Charter railway transport Russian Federation [Text]: [Federal Law No. 18-FZ, adopted on January 10, 2003, as of November 8, 2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2003. - No. 2. - Art. 170.
11. On the use of atomic energy [Federal Law No. 170-FZ, adopted on 11/21/1995, as of 12/01/2007] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1995. - Art. 4552.
12. On the passage of a mandatory psychiatric examination by employees engaged in certain types of activities, including activities associated with sources of increased danger (with the influence of harmful substances and adverse production factors), as well as those working in conditions of increased danger [Text]: [Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 695, adopted on September 23, 2002, as of December 1, 2005] // Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2002. - No. 39. - Art. 3796.
Scientific and educational literature
13. Antimonov B.S. Civil liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text]. M., Legal Literature, 1952. - 456 p.
14. Balandin V.S. Vehicle as a source of increased danger [Text] // Notary.- 2006.- No. 5.- P.30.
15. Belyakova A.M. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger (Responsibility of the owner of a source of increased danger). [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1967. - 344 p.
16. Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2004. - 180 p.
17. Big economic dictionary[Text] / Ed. Azrilyana A.N. M., Economics, 1997. - 1003 p.
18. Bykov A. Compensation for harm caused by the interaction of sources of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1970. - No. 13. - S. 10.
19. Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. M., Prospekt, 2007.- 890 p.
20. Civil and commercial law of capitalist states [Text] / Ed. Yaichkova K.K. M.: International relationships, 1986. - 455 p.
21. Civil Code: Project of the Highest Established Editorial Commission for the Compilation of the Civil Code [Text] / Ed. Tyutryumova I. M. T. 2. - M.: Statute, 2001. - 1800 p.
22. Dmitrieva O.V. Liability without fault in civil law: Proc. allowance. Voronezh, 1997. - 45 p.
23. Dontsov S.E., Glyantsev V.V. Compensation for harm under Soviet law. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1990. - 340 p.
24. Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1980. - No. 11. - S. 12-13.
25. Emelyanov D.V. Topical issues practice of applying the rules governing relations for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident [Text] / / Law and Politics. - 2007. - No. 4. - P.34.
26. Ioffe O.S. Compensation obligations. [Text] L., Gosizdat, 1952. - 788 p.
27. Kalmykov Yu.Kh. Compensation for damage caused to property. [Text] Saratov.: Slovo Publishing House, 2005. - 155 p.
28. Kandybina T. Civil liability for harm caused to health or life by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1969. - No. 9. - S. 4-5.
29. Commentary on the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part two (item-by-article). [Text] / Ans. ed. Sadikov O.N. M.: Norma, 2007. - 870 p.
30. Krasavchikov O.A. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1966.- 344 p.
31. Krasnova I.O. Legal regulation compensation for environmental damage [Text] //Environmental Law.- 2008.- No. 4.- P.27.
32. Kulagin M.I. Entrepreneurship and law: the experience of the West. [Text] // Selected works. M., Lawyer, 1997. - 434 p.
33. Maydanik L., Shiminova M., Malein N. Significance of the pedestrian's guilt in the obligation to compensate for damage caused by a car accident. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1970. - No. 24. - S. 3-4.
34. Matveev G.K. Guilt in Soviet civil law. [Text] Kyiv. Life, 1955. - 301 p.
35. Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1963. - No. 8. - S. 100-101.
36. Mokhov A.A. Poor quality medical care as a source of increased danger to others [Text] / / Modern law. - No. 10. - 2004. - P.23.
37. Narysheva N.G. Trends in differentiation of legal regulation of compensation for damage caused to the environment [Text]//Environmental law.- 2008.-№ 1.- P.22.
38. Pavlodsky E.A. Causation of harm under the action of force majeure. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1972. - No. 7. - S. 102.
39. Pavlodsky E.A. Case and force majeure in civil law. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2005. – 190 p.
40. Pokrovsky I.A. Basic Problems of Civil Law (after 1917 ed.). [Text] M.: Statute, 1998. - 769 p.
41. Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - P. 61.
42. Rozhkova M.A. On the source of increased danger [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.- 2002.- No. 2.- P.122.
43. Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1988. - No. 18. - S. 22-23.
44. Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The general doctrine of tort obligations in Soviet civil law: [Text] Tutorial. L., Gosizdat, 1983. - 190 p.
45. Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence, 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144.
46. Modern philosophical dictionary. [Text] / Under the general ed. Kemerova V.E. London, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk, 1998. - 901 p.
47. Subbotin A. Subjects of responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1982. - No. 12. - S. 25.
48. Sukhorukov S., Sitnikov N. Causing harm during operation dangerous object[Text] //EJ-Jurist.-2008.- No. 26.- P.5.
49. Tarkhov V.A. Responsibility under Soviet civil law. [Text] Saratov.: Saratov University Press, 1973. - 402 p.
50. Tarkhov V.A. Civil law. a common part: [Text] Textbook. Cheboksary, 2006. - 789 p.
51. Tebryaev A.A. The general basis and conditions for the emergence of liability and protection measures due to harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text] / / Lawyer - 2002. - No. 6. - P.34.
52. Trofimov S.V. Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger and the realities of scientific and technological progress [Text] / / Transport law. - 2007. - No. 3. - P.19.
53. Tumanov V.A. The concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Issues of Soviet civil law. [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1955. - 459 p.
54. Shershenevich G.F. General theory of law. T. 2. [Text] M., Gorodets, 2006. - 920 p.
55. Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties [Text] // Russian justice.-2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.
56. Shishkin S. Source of increased danger and its types [Text] // Russian justice. - 2002. - No. 12. - P.35.
57. Yakovlev I.V. Compensation for moral damage caused by activities that create an increased danger to others [Text] // Law in the Armed Forces.- 2007.- No. 11.- P.12.
58. Yaroshenko K.B. Special cases of liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1977. - 456 p.
Legal Practice Materials
59. On some issues related to the application of part one of the civil code of the Russian Federation [Text]: [Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6, Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8 of 07/01/1996] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 1996. - No. 9. - P. 27.
60. Resolution of the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court of March 30, 1998 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 1999. - No. 5. - P. 23.
61. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 1, 2007 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 2008. - No. 5. - S.Z.
62. Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of April 3, 2005 No. 949/05. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme arbitration court RF. - 2005. - No. 8. - S. 14.
63. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 18, 2006 No. 431/06. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2006. - No. 6. - P. 12.
64. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 25, 2008 in case No. A49-4898 / 2007-182 / 6 / / Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. -2008. - No. 5.-C.67.
66. Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District of March 14, 2008 in case No. A552-1759 / 07-X147 / / Justice in the Volga Region. - 2008. - No. 5. - P. 44.
67. Extract from the decision of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court No. 0706/478 dated September 14, 2006 [Text]// Arbitrage practice(Supplement to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara region). - 2007. - No. 4 (23). - P.11.
68. Extract from the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 11/22/2006 [Text] / / Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .-C.6.
69. Extract from the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 01.12.2007//Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara Region) .- 2008.- No. 1(15) .- C.2
Kulagin M.I. Entrepreneurship and law: the experience of the West. [Text] // Selected works. M., Lawyer, 1997. - S. 280.
Civil Code: Project of the Highest Established Editorial Commission for the Compilation of the Civil Code [Text] / Ed. Tyutryumova I. M. T. 2. - M .: Statute, 2001. - S. 1282.
Pokrovsky I.A. Basic Problems of Civil Law (after 1917 ed.). [Text] M.: Statute, 1998. - S. 287.
There. - S. 288.
Pokrovsky I.A. Decree. slave. - S. 288.
Civil and commercial law of capitalist states [Text] / Ed. Yaichkova K.K. M.: International relations, 1986. - S. 118.
Ioffe O.S. Compensation obligations. [Text] L., Gosizdat, 1952. - S. 48.
Krasavchikov O.A. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1966.- P.111; Belyakova A.M. Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger (Responsibility of the owner of a source of increased danger). [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1967. - P.22; Kandybina T. Civil liability for harm caused to health or life by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1969. - No. 9. - S. 4-5; Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1980. - No. 11. - S. 12-13; Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. 1988. - No. 18. - S. 22-23.
Antimonov B.S. Civil liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text]. M., Legal Literature, 1952. - S. 45.
Shishkin S. Source of increased danger and its types [Text] // Russian Justice. - 2002. - No. 12. - P.35.
Rozhkova M.A. On the source of increased danger [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.- 2002.- No. 2.- P.122.
Narysheva N.G. Trends in differentiation of legal regulation of compensation for damage caused to the environment [Text]//Environmental law.- 2008.-№ 1.- P.22.
Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. -1980. - No. 11. - S. 12; Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144-145; Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Soviet justice, 1988. - No. 18. - S. 23; Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Liability for damage to health. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1968. - S. 48; Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M., Modern law, 1986. - S. 111 ..
Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - P. 61; Dontsov S.E., Glyantsev V.V. Compensation for harm under Soviet law. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1990. - S. 219, 222.
Tarkhov V.A. Responsibility under Soviet civil law. [Text] Saratov.: Publishing house of the Saratov University, 1973. - P.222.
Ioffe O.S. Obligation law. - S. 804; Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 144.
Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. M., Prospekt, 2007.- S. 733-734.
Civil law. [Text] Textbook / Ed. Sergeeva A.P., Tolstoy. Yu.K. Part 2. - S. 733.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. slave. - S. 36.
Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence.-1964. - No. 2. - S. 145.
Egorov N. The concept of a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1980. - No. 11. - S. 13.
Sobchak A., Smirnov V. The general doctrine of tort obligations in Soviet civil law: [Text] Textbook. L., Gosizdat, 1983. - S.23.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. work. - S. 61-62.
There. - P.13-14.
Modern Philosophical Dictionary. [Text] / Under the general ed. Kemerova V.E. London, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk, 1998. - S. 236.
Big Economic Dictionary [Text] / Ed. Azrilyana A.N. M., Economics, 1997. - S. 129.
Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation.-2001.- No. 33 (Part I).- Art. 3430.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 12-13.
Mokhov A.A. Poor quality medical care as a source of increased danger to others [Text] / / Modern law. - No. 10. - 2004. - P.23.
Dmitrieva O.V. Liability without fault in civil law: Proc. allowance. Voronezh, 1997. - S. 36.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 98.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 803.
There. - S. 107.
Yaroshenko K.B. Special cases of liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Legal Literature, 1977. - S. 34.
Resolution of the Presdium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of March 25, 2008 in case No. A49-4898 / 2007-182 / 6 / / Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. -2008. - No. 5.-C.67.
Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - S. 65.
Yakovlev I.V. Compensation for moral damage caused by activities that create an increased danger to others [Text] // Law in the Armed Forces.- 2007.- No. 11.- P.12.
Sobchak A.A. On the concept of a source of increased danger in civil law. [Text] // Jurisprudence. - 1964. - No. 2. - S. 147.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 164.
Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - P.71.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. slave. - P.35.
There. - P.36-37.
There. - S. 109.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S.453.
There. - S. 454.
Kalmykov Yu.Kh. Compensation for damage caused to property. [Text] Saratov.: Publishing House "Slovo", 2005. - P.45.
Rakhmilovich V.A. On wrongfulness as a basis for civil liability. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1964. - No. 3. - S. 61.
Matveev G.K. Guilt in Soviet civil law. [Text] Kyiv. Life, 1955. - S. 298.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - P.47.
Pokrovsky I.A. Decree. work. - S. 286.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 148.
Krasnova I.O. Legal regulation of compensation for environmental damage [Text] //Environmental Law.- 2008.- No. 4.- P.27.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. Op. - S. 150.
Tebryaev A.A. The general basis and conditions for the emergence of liability and protection measures due to harm caused by a source of increased danger [Text] / / Lawyer - 2002. - No. 6. - P.34.
Extract from the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 01.12.2007//Court practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department in the Samara Region).- 2008.- No. 1(15).- C.2
Ioffe O.S. Decree. work. - S. 186.
Tarkhov V.A. Decree. work. - S.363.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court of March 30, 1998 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 1999. - No. 5. - P. 23.
Balandin V.S. Vehicle as a source of increased danger [Text] // Notary.- 2006.- No. 5.- P.30.
Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 1, 2007 [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. - 2008. - No. 5. - S.Z.
Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties. [Text] // Russian justice.-2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.
Shishkin S. Tort obligations of owners of sources of increased danger to third parties. [Text] // Russian justice. - 2001. - No. 11. - S. 38.
Sukhorukov S., Sitnikov N. Causing harm during the operation of a hazardous facility [Text] // EZH-Jurist.-2008.- No. 26.- P.5.
Extract from the decision of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court No. 0706/478 dated 14.09.2006 [Text]// Judicial practice (Appendix to the newsletter of the Judicial Department in the Samara region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .- P.11.
Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 3, 2005 No. 949/05. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2005. - No. 8. - S. 14.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 18, 2006 No. 431/06. [Text] // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. - 2006. - No. 6. - P. 12.
Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated March 14, 2008 in case No. A552-1759 / 07-X147 / / Justice in the Volga Region. - 2008. - No. 5. - P. 44.
Emelyanov D.V. Topical issues of the practice of applying the rules governing relations for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident [Text] / / Law and Politics. - 2007. - No. 4. - P.34.
Extract from the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases dated 11/22/2006 [Text]// Judicial practice (Appendix to the information bulletin of the Judicial Department Administration in the Samara Region) .- 2007.- No. 4 (23) .-C.6
Smirnov V.T., Sobchak A.A. Decree. work. - S. 93.
Dmitrieva O.V. Decree. work. - S. 91.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 137.
Pavlodsky E.A. Causation of harm under the action of force majeure. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1972. - No. 7. - S. 102; Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law. - 1963. - No. 8. - S. 100-101.
Tumanov V.A. The concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Issues of Soviet civil law. [Text] M., Legal Literature, 1955. - S. 114-115.
Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2003. - No. 2. - Art. 170.
Trofimov S.V. Responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger and the realities of scientific and technological progress [Text] / / Transport law. - 2007. - No. 3. - P.19.
Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 1995. - Art. 4552.
Tumanov V.A. Decree. work. - S.115.
Matveev G.K. On the concept of force majeure in Soviet civil law. [Text] // Sov. state and law.-1963. - No. 8. - S. 104.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S.196.
Pavlodsky E.A. Case and force majeure in civil law. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2005. - S. 79.
Pavlodsky E.A. Decree. work. - S.83-86.
Tarkhov V.A. Civil law. General part: [Text] Textbook. Cheboksary, 2006. - S. 307.
Shershenevich G.F. General theory of law. T. 2. [Text] M., Gorodets, 2006. - S. 221.
Bykov A. Compensation for harm caused by the interaction of sources of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1970. - No. 13. - S. 10.
Belyakova A.M. Civil liability for causing harm. [Text] M.: Yurist, 2004. - P.132.
Maidanik L., Shiminova M., Malein N. Significance of the pedestrian's guilt in the obligation to compensate for damage caused by a car accident. [Text] // Sov. justice.-1970. - No. 24. - S. 3-4.
Belyakova A.M. Decree. slave. - P.132.
Yaroshenko K.B. Decree. work. - S. 35.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 168.
Commentary on the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part two (item-by-article). [Text] / Ans. ed. Sadikov O.N. M.: Norma, 2007. - S. 684.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. work. - S. 102.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - S. 121.
Ibid. - S. 163-165.
Antimonov B.S. Decree. work .. - S. 117.
Ioffe O.S. Decree. slave. - S. 153.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. slave. - S. 124.
There. - S. 188-195.
Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Decree. slave. - S. 128.
Maidanik L.A., Sergeeva N.Yu. Decree. slave. - S. 132.
Maydanik L. A., Sergeeva N. Yu. Decree. op. - P.61.
Krasavchikov O.A. Decree. worker-S. 94.
Smirnov V.T. , Sobchak A.A. Decree. slave. - S. 31.
Subbotin A. Subjects of responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger. [Text] // Sov. justice. - 1982. - No. 12. - S. 25.
Whether this or that activity (object) of increased danger is often decided by the court, taking into account the opinion of the relevant experts. Special rules on liability for harm caused by a source of increased danger are valid only when the harm is caused by those harmful properties of the object that determine its recognition as such a source. So, the car is a source of increased ...
When a special law or agreement provides for a higher amount of liability and, accordingly, compensation to the victim. Thus, the scope of civil law norms on liability for harm caused to the life and health of a citizen extends beyond the framework of traditional, non-contractual obligations, covering contractual relations, including those developing on the basis of ...
In the event that the insured vehicle has been damaged as a result of unlawful actions of third parties. Compliance with the requirements of insurance companies will allow you to receive an insurance payment without difficulty. The policyholder must remember that the current legislation may require other, additional actions in addition to those listed.
PDTL - illegal actions of third parties that resulted in damage to the insured vehicle. This concept includes situations when the car was scratched, received dents while parked, was doused with paint, or objects were dropped from a height. Also under the concept of damage as a result of PDTL are cases when the vehicle is damaged as a result of an attempted theft or theft of property left in the cabin, for example, doors were broken or glass elements were broken.
What should the insured, who discovered that the car suffered such damage in his absence, do in order to correctly file the incident and not lose the opportunity to receive insurance payment?
It is perfectly prudent to exercise forethought and include the risk of PDTL in the insurance policy. As the calculations on the CASCO calculator show, this only slightly increases the cost of insurance. However, in the event of insured event will save the insured more than one thousand rubles.
