According to Supreme Court decision no. 167\/2020, it was held that, in the case of a combine harvester which, at the time of the accident, was operating as a tool, harvesting crops while its wheels were immobilized in a field and necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is required not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose, the damage is not connected to the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle. This is because the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool and not as a motor vehicle.<\/p>\n
Law 489\/1976, as codified by Presidential Decree 237\/1986 and supplemented by subsequent legislation, provides as follows:<\/p>\n
Article1<\/strong><\/p>\n For the purposes of this Law: Article2\u00a71<\/strong> Article6\u00a73(a)<\/strong> Article10\u00a71<\/strong> From these provisions, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911, according to which a motor vehicle within the meaning of that Law is a vehicle or wheeled machine moved by mechanical power and not on rails, it follows that, in the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident, in order to establish liability either under Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911 or under general tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code), as well as to establish the liability of the insurance company under Articles 6 \u00a73(a) and 10 \u00a71 of Law 489\/1976, a basic prerequisite is that the accident is caused \u201cduring the operation\u201d of the motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is considered to be in operation even when it is stationary but its engine is running, as well as when it is moving without its engine operating.<\/p>\n However, an accident is not considered to have occurred during the operation of a motor vehicle when it arises from a composite vehicle (consisting of a motor vehicle and a tool), where the vehicle is immobilized and the engine of the motor vehicle is necessarily operating solely in order to power the tool, provided that the accident is not connected with the specific typical risks generated by the operation of the motor vehicle.<\/p>\n Accordingly, an incident caused by a combine harvester during its operation as a tool does not constitute an accident occurring during the operation of a motor vehicle. This applies when the machine, while immobilized on its wheels in a field, performs harvesting operations, necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is essential not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose. In such a case, the damage is not connected with the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle, since the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool. Therefore, it is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911 and Article 1(a) of Law 489\/1976 (see Supreme Court decisions AP 646\/2014, AP 504\/2012, AP 1168\/2007; cf. contrary decisions AP 209\/2017, AP 238\/2015, AP 519\/1963 NoV 16\/98, AP 1031\/2018, all of which classify the composite machine as a motor vehicle, but in those cases the machine was in any event moving on its wheels).<\/p>\n Consequently, in such cases, against the insurance company that has insured the civil liability of the machine for accidents occurring during its operation as a motor vehicle under the compulsory insurance regime of Law 489\/1976, since the machine does not qualify as a motor vehicle, the injured third party has no direct claim against the insurer under that law. The injured party may only pursue a claim against the policyholder, whose culpable acts or omissions gave rise to the claim, pursuant to the general provisions of tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code).<\/p>\n The third party has the right to bring a claim against the insurer only indirectly, in the case of optional insurance, such as civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring during the operation of a machine as a tool.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" According to Supreme Court decision no. 167\/2020, it was held that, in the case of a combine harvester which, at the time of the accident, was operating as a tool, harvesting crops while its wheels were immobilized in a field and necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is required not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose, the damage is not connected to the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle. This is because the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool and not as a motor vehicle. For the purposes of this Law:
\n(a) A motor vehicle is any vehicle moving on the ground and not on rails by mechanical force or electric power, regardless of the number of wheels. A motor vehicle is also considered to be any towed vehicle, whether coupled to the main motor vehicle or not, as well as a bicycle equipped with an auxiliary engine.<\/p>\n
\nThe owner or possessor of a motor vehicle circulating in Greece on a road is obliged to insure civil liability towards third parties arising therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Circulation on land accessible to the public or to a certain number of persons entitled to frequent it is deemed equivalent to circulation on a road.<\/p>\n
\nThe insurer is liable towards third parties who have suffered damage from the circulation of a motor vehicle.<\/p>\n
\nThe person who has suffered damage has, by virtue of the insurance contract and up to its insured amount, a direct claim against the insurer.<\/p>\n
\nLaw 489\/1976, as codified by Presidential Decree 237\/1986 and supplemented by subsequent legislation, provides as follows:
\nArticle1<\/p>\n
\n(a) A motor vehicle is any vehicle moving on the ground and not on rails by mechanical force or electric power, regardless of the number of wheels. A motor vehicle is also considered to be any towed vehicle, whether coupled to the main motor vehicle or not, as well as a bicycle equipped with an auxiliary engine.
\nArticle2\u00a71
\nThe owner or possessor of a motor vehicle circulating in Greece on a road is obliged to insure civil liability towards third parties arising therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Circulation on land accessible to the public or to a certain number of persons entitled to frequent it is deemed equivalent to circulation on a road.
\nArticle6\u00a73(a)
\nThe insurer is liable towards third parties who have suffered damage from the circulation of a motor vehicle.
\nArticle10\u00a71
\nThe person who has suffered damage has, by virtue of the insurance contract and up to its insured amount, a direct claim against the insurer.
\nFrom these provisions, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911, according to which a motor vehicle within the meaning of that Law is a vehicle or wheeled machine moved by mechanical power and not on rails, it follows that, in the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident, in order to establish liability either under Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911 or under general tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code), as well as to establish the liability of the insurance company under Articles 6 \u00a73(a) and 10 \u00a71 of Law 489\/1976, a basic prerequisite is that the accident is caused \u201cduring the operation\u201d of the motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is considered to be in operation even when it is stationary but its engine is running, as well as when it is moving without its engine operating.
\nHowever, an accident is not considered to have occurred during the operation of a motor vehicle when it arises from a composite vehicle (consisting of a motor vehicle and a tool), where the vehicle is immobilized and the engine of the motor vehicle is necessarily operating solely in order to power the tool, provided that the accident is not connected with the specific typical risks generated by the operation of the motor vehicle.
\nAccordingly, an incident caused by a combine harvester during its operation as a tool does not constitute an accident occurring during the operation of a motor vehicle. This applies when the machine, while immobilized on its wheels in a field, performs harvesting operations, necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is essential not only for its self-propelled movement on its wheels but also for the fulfillment of its functional purpose. In such a case, the damage is not connected with the specific typical risks of a motor vehicle, since the predominant element is the operation of the machine as a tool. Therefore, it is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Law \u0393\u03c0\u039d\/1911 and Article 1(a) of Law 489\/1976 (see Supreme Court decisions AP 646\/2014, AP 504\/2012, AP 1168\/2007; cf. contrary decisions AP 209\/2017, AP 238\/2015, AP 519\/1963 NoV 16\/98, AP 1031\/2018, all of which classify the composite machine as a motor vehicle, but in those cases the machine was in any event moving on its wheels).
\nConsequently, in such cases, against the insurance company that has insured the civil liability of the machine for accidents occurring during its operation as a motor vehicle under the compulsory insurance regime of Law 489\/1976, since the machine does not qualify as a motor vehicle, the injured third party has no direct claim against the insurer under that law. The injured party may only pursue a claim against the policyholder, whose culpable acts or omissions gave rise to the claim, pursuant to the general provisions of tort law (Articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code).
\nThe third party has the right to bring a claim against the insurer only indirectly, in the case of optional insurance, such as civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring during the operation of a machine as a tool.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pgc_meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[526],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5664","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-issues-for-individuals"],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"spiliopouloslaw","author_link":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/author\/root2christos\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Legal Issues for Individuals<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"According to Supreme Court decision no. 167\/2020, it was held that, in the case of a combine harvester which, at the time of the accident, was operating as a tool, harvesting crops while its wheels were immobilized in a field and necessarily using its engine, the operation of which is required not only for its…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5664","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5664\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}