The important court decision cited below demonstrates that with proper presentation and exposition of the facts and appropriate legal reasoning, the presumption that the driver who violated a STOP sign is at fault for a traffic accident can be rebutted.
Our firm’s client, although he violated a STOP sign, was vindicated by the legally significant and interesting decision of the Athens Court of First Instance.
With the decision of the Athens Magistrate Court No. 1375/2020, it was held that the sole fault for the collision was not the driver of the car that violated the STOP sign, but the driver of the motorcycle, who was held solely at fault in that, as detailed in the Lawsuit and legally and factually documented in the hearing, he was not driving with caution nor was he paying attention.
In particular, in the above decision, it was held that the driver of the motorcycle and the sole perpetrator of the accident at issue violated the general provision of Article 12 para. 1 of the Road Traffic Code, according to which “drivers are obliged to drive with caution and to keep their attention constantly tense”.
According to the cited court decision, the Athens Magistrate Court, inter alia, held the following:
“[…]The action is lawful. It is based on the provisions of Articles 297, 298, 330(2), 346, 914 of the Civil Code, 2, 4, 9 and 10 of Law No. 1911, 10 of Law No. 489/1976 and 907, 908 and 176 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It must therefore be further examined to determine whether it is also well-founded in substance.
The cases are heard under the special procedure provided for in Article 614 para. 6 of the CCP by the court with jurisdiction in the matter and in the place of jurisdiction (Article 14(1a) of Article 22 of the CCP).
The following facts have been established from the assessment of the examination of the first applicant in the first action and the applicant in the second action, which were examined at the hearing and are contained in the minutes of the public hearing of the Court, the documents lawfully produced and relied on by the parties and the proceedings as a whole: On […] and at about […] hours, in the area of […] and on roads that intersect perpendicularly with each other, the car with registration number […], driven by the first plaintiff in the A action and belonging to the second plaintiff in the B action (hereinafter referred to as Vehicle A) and the motorcycle with registration number […], driven by the plaintiff in the B action and belonging to the second defendant in the A action, were driven in the area of […] and on roads that intersect perpendicularly with each other. Both vehicles were insured with the same defendant insurance company. Vehicle A was travelling on […] Road in the direction of […] and Vehicle B was travelling on […] Road in the direction from […] to […] The first plaintiff in the A action alleges that he stopped the car he was driving at the STOP sign at the intersection of […] Road and […] Road. ] in order to check for the movement of vehicles thereon, to which he was required to give way, and to continue straight ahead on the extension of […] road towards […] the two vehicles collided on the carriageway of […] road and the colliding surfaces were the front left for the car and unidentified for the motorcycle, since it was dragged on the carriageway. The parties submit the autopsy report of the accident, which was prepared by the B Department of Traffic Police B/A Attica, due to the plaintiff’s injury caused by the collision. The attached sketch, which was drawn up by two traffic police officers on the spot half an hour after the accident occurred, shows that the road […] is […] wide […] and that the marks from the cuts in the road surface caused by the motorcycle’s dragging on it start at a distance of 6 metres from the end of the opposite direction to the one in which the plaintiff in the B action was travelling. The road […] is not marked on its carriageway, is two-way and has one lane in each direction, the width of which is […] It is therefore established that the driver of vehicle A had crossed the whole of the lane on which vehicle B was travelling and that the collision took place in the opposite lane. For an unclear reason, the plaintiff in the B action did not continue straight ahead on the […] road, lost control of his vehicle and collided with the left front of the A vehicle. Two days after the accident, the plaintiff in the action submitted a statement to the defendant’s accident care […] stating that he was driving on […] road in the direction of […], vehicle A was double parked and at the time he was passing it he swerved to the left and the two vehicles collided. However, in his affidavit of […] at the […] Attica Traffic Police Department he changed his initial statement and testified that vehicle A suddenly left […] and cut him off, causing him to collide with the front part of the motorcycle on the front left-hand side of the car. If this had been the case, however, the collision would have taken place in the direction of traffic on which he was travelling, the two vehicles would have collided at an angle of 90 degrees and it would not have been possible for the motorcycle to be dragged along the road until the end of the oncoming traffic. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is concluded that he is solely responsible for the occurrence of the collision in question, having infringed the general provision of Article 12(1)(b) of the Highway Code. 1 of the Highway Code, according to which drivers are obliged to drive with caution and to maintain a constant state of attention’.
