Responsibility for leaving the scene of an accident in a parking lot
Leaving the scene of an accident is a punishment in 2019
An accident is a nuisance from which no driver is insured. Traffic rules regulate the actions of a driver who is involved in a traffic accident and oblige him to take the necessary measures, including providing assistance to victims. If the instructions are not followed, the consequences may be unfavorable for the driver.
For leaving the scene of an accident, punishment is provided for in Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The second part of this article describes in detail what happens when, in a state of shock or on purpose, a driver leaves the scene of an accident. If you leave the scene of an accident, the driver may be subject to one of the following penalties in 2019:
- After fleeing the scene of an accident, the punishment is deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 1-1.5 years;
- or
- Administrative arrest for 15 days.
If you are wondering what the fine is for this, then you should know that the current legislation does not indicate that the driver must pay a fine for driving away after an accident without stopping and without checking to see if there were injuries or property damage.
When leaving the scene of an accident for a legal or illegal reason, as well as being an innocent person, it is important to remember that without documentary evidence of the incident there is a high probability of:
- be found at fault for the accident;
- answer administratively for leaving the scene of an accident;
- compensation for damage to the car, for moral damage caused, as well as for damage to health, up to lifelong recourse.
To avoid this, it is better to stay at the scene of the accident and, if possible, hire a lawyer who will arrive at the scene of the accident to monitor the correctness of the paperwork and give useful advice.
What is the basis for punishment?
The extent of liability is determined in court. The basis for considering a case in court is a protocol drawn up by traffic police officers. Evidence of guilt can be the testimony of witnesses, eyewitnesses, video from digital media (dash cams, traffic cameras). In 95% of cases, accidents are solved by investigators, and the culprit is found.
Often, in a state of shock, when a person leaves the scene of an accident, he drinks. Clause 2.7 of the traffic rules indicates the prohibition of taking alcoholic beverages, narcotic, psychotropic or any other drugs until the examination is completed. Such violations only aggravate the situation and may result in additional penalties in the form of a fine for drunk driving.
What terms are acceptable for punishment?
In cases where a person leaves the scene of an accident irrevocably, hides from responsibility, there are exceptions to the rules that remain unpunished. These exceptions include an expired statute of limitations. The completed departure from the scene of the accident is recorded by the traffic police, after which they begin interviewing witnesses to find the offender. For search work, bringing charges against the culprit who did not remain at the scene of the accident, in accordance with Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is given 90 days (3 months). After the statute of limitations has expired, it is illegal to bring any charges against the driver and draw up an administrative offense resolution in his name.
When is the driver responsible?
If a person driving a car that was involved in a traffic accident leaves the scene for reasons that are not listed in the traffic rules, his actions are regarded as a crime. For leaving the scene of an accident in 2019, persons who fled in a car in such situations, even if they are not the owners of the vehicle, bear full responsibility.
Leaving the scene of an accident is not justified even if the driver is in a hurry to get to a flight, meeting or other events, even if he stopped and left his data, coordinates, contact numbers, and business card.
By not remaining at the scene of the accident, a person can affect the mitigation of liability. This requires a confession, assistance in the investigation, and voluntary compensation for damage. Partial justification for the fact that a person did not stay at the scene of an accident can be a serious mental state, being a minor, or being pregnant.
In what cases is liability not provided?
There are situations when the driver is not responsible for not stopping or leaving the scene of the accident. Such situations include the following situations.
When an accident occurred, but the drivers were able to come to an agreement, they have no claims against each other regarding the circumstances that occurred. You can leave the scene of the accident if there are no casualties in the incident. In such a situation, it is advisable to draw up a diagram of the arrangement of cars after the accident at the scene of an accident, indicate on the diagram the road markings, street names, house numbers, road signs and other important information. Each driver must have a diagram signed by both parties involved in the accident. Driving away from an accident will be legally correct if both drivers go to the nearest traffic police station, where they draw up documents.
When, at the scene of the accident, the drivers mutually decided to file an accident according to the European protocol (filling out a notification of an accident, which the insurer will rely on). Under MTPL, such a procedure is allowed when only 2 cars, the owners of which have a valid MTPL policy, were damaged at the scene of an accident. There should be no people injured or injured at the scene of the incident. In this case, leaving the scene of the accident is possible, and the drivers should not have any claims against each other, and the nature of the damage should be agreed upon.
Often in court, the driver is justified by the fact that he was forced to leave the scene of an accident in order to deliver the victim of an accident or collision to the hospital. In this case, having left the scene of the incident, the driver is obliged to return after the person is taken to a medical facility for emergency assistance. Before leaving, it is important to document (indicate on the diagram) the position of the car on a video or photo camera. At the scene of an accident, objects should be left in the position in which they were after the accident. To prevent them from interfering with other traffic participants, according to clause 2.5 of the traffic rules, it is necessary to provide a detour for transport.
It is not considered a crime punishable under Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when a vehicle responsible for or involved in an accident is removed from the road in order to clear the roadway for traffic flow, but the driver himself remains in place. Before removing a car, its location must be described in a document or recorded in any other way. It is undesirable to move when there are no eyewitnesses to the accident, and also when the drivers have disagreements regarding the guilt and causes of the accident.
Having left the scene of an accident in other situations, the driver will be charged with leaving the scene and punished in accordance with the law. When the driver leaves the scene of an accident, only after the investigation is it determined whether there is a crime or its absence for the reasons provided for by the Traffic Rules. The final verdict on whether the driver’s actions were lawful or unlawful, and what the punishment for leaving the scene of an accident will be, is determined by the court.
Knowing whether it is possible to leave in the event of an accident and in which specific cases liability does not arise for leaving the scene of an accident without authorization, you can avoid punishments and deprivation of rights.
Responsibility for leaving the scene of an accident in a parking lot
Decision of the Moscow City Court No. 7-1231/13
Judge Chubarova O.G.
Case No. 7-1231
DECISION
On May 22, 2013, judge of the Moscow City Court Nesterenko G.A., having considered in open court the case based on complaints from Maslova O.V., defense attorney *** M.A.
on the decision of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated April 16, 2013, by which Maslova O.V. found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and she was given an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 year,
u st a n o v i l:
On March 28, 2013, a case of administrative offense was opened and an administrative investigation was ordered into the fact that the driver left the scene of an accident in which he was a participant.
On March 30, 2013, the traffic police inspector of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Southern Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow in relation to O.V. Maslova.
for violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, protocol 77 MR N 0507365 was drawn up on an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The case was transferred for consideration to the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow, whose judge issued the above decision.
Maslova O.V., defense attorney *** M.A.
filed complaints against the said decision, which raise the question of canceling the decision and terminating the proceedings on the grounds that the intent of O.V. Maslova was not established. to leave the scene of a traffic accident, since she did not feel the collision with the car *** E.V. and not seeing any damage to her car, she drove home to change the child’s clothes, but later returned to the scene of the accident, but the traffic police officers had already left; by car Maslova O.V. no damage. The defense lawyer’s complaint filed with the court of second instance states that the diagram indicates a collision of vehicles in a courtyard area, which is not an accident, in the case there is a resolution to terminate the proceedings for lack of an offense, the time of the accident has not been established, explanations by O.V Maslova . not signed, the ratio of damage to vehicles was not checked. At the hearing of the second instance court, Maslova O.V.
and defender *** M.A. supported the arguments of the complaints. After checking the case materials, listening to Maslova O.V., defense attorney *** M.A., Kim E.V., questioned as a witness, warned of administrative liability under Art.
17.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, having discussed the arguments of the complaints, I do not see any grounds for canceling the said judge’s decision. From the case materials it follows that the driver Maslova O.V., driving on March 28, 2013 at approximately 17:00 a car brand ***, state registration plate *** at house 26 building 2 on Dorozhnaya street in Moscow, became participant in a traffic accident with a car ***, state registration plate ***, after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Regulations of the Russian Federation, she left the scene of an accident in which she was a participant.
The fact of an administrative offense and the guilt of O.V. Maslova
its commission is confirmed by the report of the traffic police inspector of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Southern Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow; diagram of a traffic accident dated March 28, 2013; explanations *** E.V. given by him during the administrative investigation; certificate of traffic accident dated March 28, 2013; protocol on administrative offense 77 MR N 0507365 dated March 30, 2013, drawn up in relation to O.V. Maslova. according to Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; the testimony of witness *** E.V., given by him during the court hearing on April 16, 2013. The protocol on the administrative offense and other materials of the case were drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the law, by the appropriate official, there was no reason not to trust the information specified in them, and therefore, the judge rightly recognized them as admissible evidence and used them as the basis for the appealed decision.
The totality of the evidence examined by the judge is sufficient to establish O.V. Maslova’s guilt.
in committing the act accused of her. The evidence examined in the case, which was given a proper legal assessment by the court in accordance with the requirements of Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, allows the court to establish the guilt of O.V. Maslova.
in an administrative offense committed by her, since, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Regulations of the Russian Federation, she deliberately left the scene of a traffic accident in which she was a participant, since, as follows from her explanations and other materials of the case, immediately after the accident she, getting out of the car, Having examined her car and the victim’s car, not seeing any damage, she left the scene of the accident in which she was a participant. Questioned as a witness in the court of second instance *** E.V.
testified that on March 28, 2013, he arrived at work at the specified address, parked his car, went to work, during the day he saw his car from the window of the second floor of the building, in the evening he saw from the window how the car *** was grinding the rear fender of his car, he opened the window, shouted, but the driver did not hear him, after which he ran out into the street, there was no other driver, he called hundreds of traffic police officers, to whom he informed the number of the vehicle that had driven away when registering the accident. By car *** E.V. Large scratches and traces of blue paint were found. There is no reason not to trust the witness’s testimony, since it is consistent and consistent with the explanations given to him during the administrative investigation and in the court of first instance.
Argument of the complaint by Maslova O.V.
about the absence of intent in her actions to leave the scene of an accident, is refuted by the evidence examined by the court and is aimed nothing more than at avoiding administrative liability for the administrative offense she committed. Arguments of the complaint by Maslova O.V.
that there is no damage on her car brand “***”, which indicates the absence of guilt, has no legal significance, since the objective side of the administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is the fact of abandonment by a participant in an accident in violation of paragraph .2.5 Traffic regulations of the Russian Federation at the scene of a traffic accident, regardless of the consequences of the accident. In addition, the case materials confirm the presence of damage to E.V. Kim’s car.
as a result of contact with O.V. Maslova’s car. Arguments of the defense lawyer's complaint that the diagram indicates a collision of vehicles in a courtyard area, which is not an accident, the case contains a resolution to terminate the proceedings for lack of evidence of an offense, the time of the accident has not been established, explanations of O.V. Maslova.
not signed, the ratio of damage to the vehicles was not checked, does not indicate incorrect qualification of the actions of O.V. Maslova. and the absence of an administrative violation event. Current legislation does not exclude an incident in a courtyard area from being defined as a traffic accident.
The judge set the time for the commission of the offense to be 17:00.
03/28/2013 based on the case materials. Lack of signature of Maslova O.V.
a written explanation does not deprive the meaning of what she wrote in her own hand. In addition, the protocol contains the same entry as in the explanation by O.V. Maslova. that she does not agree with the fact that she left the scene of the accident, she does not deny the fact of the accident. The protocol was signed by O.V. Maslova. At the hearing of the court of first instance, Maslova O.V. rights and obligations are explained, from the explanations it is clear that she may have hit the car ***, she regrets what happened and asks to take into account the circumstances that she did not know that an accident had occurred, she could not remain at the scene of the accident, since in the cabin there were children. In accordance with clause 2.5 of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations, in the event of a traffic accident, the driver involved in it is obliged to: immediately stop (do not move) the vehicle, turn on the hazard warning lights and display an emergency stop sign in accordance with the requirements of clause 7.2 of the Rules, do not move objects related to the incident;
report the incident to the police, write down the names and addresses of eyewitnesses and wait for the police to arrive. The specified requirements of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations are driver O.V. Maslova.
did not comply, her actions were correctly qualified under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since she, being a driver, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Regulations of the Russian Federation, left the scene of a traffic accident in which she was a participant. Sanction part 2 art.
12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one to one and a half years, or administrative arrest for a period of up to fifteen days. Administrative punishment for Maslova O.V.
appointed within the sanction of Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3.1, 3.8, 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, information about the person, the nature of the offense committed, the object of which is road safety, and is fair and minimal within the sanction of the article. The judge comprehensively, completely and objectively examined the administrative case against O.V. Maslova.
The procedure and statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility have not been violated.
There are no violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law entailing the cancellation or modification of the appealed court decision.
guided by Article 30.6-30.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,
Resolution of the judge of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated April 16, 2013 in relation to O.V. Maslova. Leave unchanged the complaint of O.V. Maslova. - without satisfaction.
Judge of the Moscow
City Court G.A. Nesterenko
Leaving the scene of an accident in a parking lot
While leaving the parking lot, I hit a neighboring car. It was in the evening between 19-20 o'clock, it was already a bit dark. A bunch of young people stood nearby, they saw everything and “commercialized”. I got out of my car and saw that I had scratched the rear fender with the bumper. I thought that it was not necessary to call the traffic police, I could draw up a European protocol. I asked the young people if they had seen the owner, they answered that they had not seen them, they knocked on the car to trigger the alarm, but the car was silent. Then the driver of another newly parked car came up and began to give “advice” that there were cameras everywhere, that the owner will find me if he wants. In general, of course, I was stupid and left. A couple of days later a man called, didn’t introduce himself, and started asking if my car number was such and such, if I was there on such and such a date. I immediately said that I was there and scratched the car. He offered to come not to the traffic police, but to the MREO, where cars are registered, he gave me a cell phone number so that I could call when I arrived, he would come out and meet me, introducing himself by name only. When I arrived, it turned out to be a traffic police officer, he drew up a report, took a photograph of my car, and invited me to write an explanatory note. It turned out that someone who was nearby during this incident wrote a note to the injured car owner with my car number. He read in the protocol that the front bumper and the front fender were also damaged. but I only heard the sound when I hit the rear fender with the bumper, maybe I didn’t notice, of course, but it alarmed me a little. I was driving backwards and didn’t immediately start turning, so I couldn’t scratch the front fender. After writing an explanatory note, the traffic police officer said that we were going to court, that they would decide how to punish me. In general, the judge decided to deprive me of my license for a year for leaving the scene of an accident. Does it make sense to turn to lawyers for help so as not to lose your rights?
In principle, judging by the description of your question, you agree that you left the scene of the accident, and you only have questions about the damage to the victim’s car. According to Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, leaving a driver in violation of the Traffic Rules at the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for a period of up to fifteen days.
In your case, the punishment is minimal; it is unlikely that they will replace it with administrative arrest (there is no such practice). So the issue of damage to the “offender’s” car is better resolved in a civil law environment. I see no point in appealing the court's decision.
Good afternoon. Under such circumstances, you committed an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
2. Leaving by the driver, in violation of the Traffic Rules, the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant, entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for a period of up to fifteen days.
and most likely you will be deprived of your rights if all the documents are drawn up correctly
In general, the judge decided to deprive me of my license for a year for leaving the scene of an accident
Marina
How did you know this?
Does it make sense to turn to lawyers for help so as not to lose your rights?
Marina
Yes, so that the lawyer can assess the correctness of the materials and assess the possibility of terminating the proceedings.
What did you write in the explanations?
In the explanation I wrote as I described it now. About the fact that she came out, she dodged a scratch. That I asked the young people if they had seen the owner, that they were knocking on the car, and that there was an “adviser” whom I foolishly listened to, that I was simply confused, and so I left. I understand that I acted stupidly. I was already in court today, the judge read out her decision to me. She said that within 10 days you can appeal
Then if there are no errors in the materials, you will most likely be deprived of your rights
Who knows if they have errors in the materials.
Then appeal... there is no other way
Is it bad for me that I wrote everything honestly? In general, of course, the fact that I left was bad, I admit, it was just a hard day, by late evening I was having trouble thinking clearly, and naturally I was upset and confused. But was it necessary to describe everything? It turns out that I harmed myself? And then, I was alarmed that the second car had a lot of damage. Who can say now whether I am to blame for this? Or maybe I was entitled to a lawyer in court? They gave me to sign a paper that I have the right to do this, but I don’t go to court every day, and I don’t know how to protect myself at all.
Well, you admitted guilt, so there’s no point in appealing.
Or maybe I was entitled to a lawyer in court?
Marina
No. It is your right to seek a defense lawyer, but the court is not obligated to ensure this right for you.
Yes. Now soft shoes and comfortable clothes are your choice)))
Hello. It will be difficult to appeal the factual side - formally, of course, there is an element of the offense. Try to cite as an argument the insignificance of the act of Art. 2.9 COAP. There are no clear criteria for insignificance in the Code of Administrative Offenses, and no one is obliged to terminate on this basis either - everything is at the discretion of the judge. Nevertheless, deprivation of rights for a year can be considered a punishment disproportionate for a scratch in a parking lot. Moreover, you stopped and tried to find the owner. You can explain that you left your phone number on his car - well, it gets lost somewhere, it happens.
Hello. Thanks for the answer. I consulted in my city, an auto lawyer answered me the same thing that you can try out of insignificance. While I was asked to bring documents that the court would provide. They'll see what they give. Maybe I can defend it. I also found on the Internet that it seems that in six months you can go to court for an early return of your driver’s license for good behavior. It seems that this has already been included in the law. In general, I'm just a fool. I came to the traffic police, they drew up a report, what else do you need? The victim will receive compensation for the damage from insurance, and I could say that I did not notice that I had scratched. But I’m honest, I punished myself. Well, what now? Nowadays you have to be more cunning. But the inspector needs to carry out the plan, now he may receive a bonus for this, he simply fooled me around his little finger. I called and didn’t introduce myself as being from the traffic police, just by name, I thought it was the owner of the car. And when I came, he said that I hadn’t violated anything, I just needed to draw up a report. And little by little he led me to the idea that I needed to write an explanatory note and sign that I agreed with the violation. He's a sly guy too. And this guy in the parking lot, who was also hanging around me like that, directly insisted that I leave already. What interest did he have at all? Then, I saw one scratch, and in the report I scratched both the bumper and the fender, and also the disk. Well, it was really dark, maybe I didn’t notice. Or out of excitement, naturally, I immediately became confused and agitated. And my bumper was sealed, the car was bought recently, it was already used, so where it was sealed, there it naturally burst, and it also cracked because of this. But it’s not particularly strong there, you don’t even have to pay attention to it, just drive around like that. If the bumper had not been glued together, I think it would have remained intact. Please answer, is it really possible now in six months to ask the court for the early return of a driver’s license? Well, I’ll get the documents from the court, and maybe we’ll try to defend what the lawyer says.
