By Supreme Court decision no. 1176\/2019, it was held that in a collision between a vehicle and a train, in addition to the fault of the vehicle driver, there may also exist concurrent contributory negligence on the part of the employees of the train operating company and, by extension, of the train operating company itself. This contributory negligence arose from the improper maintenance of the warning and regulation systems at the level crossing, which are intended to alert approaching vehicle drivers to the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to a significant extent to the occurrence of the accident.<\/p>\n
More specifically, the above decision found that the occurrence of the accident was also attributable to fault on the part of the bodies of the respondent train operating company, which is responsible, pursuant to Article 3 of Law 3891\/2010, for the construction of new railway infrastructure, the maintenance and operation of existing infrastructure, and the management of railway traffic regulation and safety systems. These bodies failed to ensure that, in the event of a malfunction of the automated level crossing system, a backup operating system for the audiovisual warning signals and the half-barriers was installed at the crossing, in order to warn drivers approaching the crossing of the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to the causation of the accident.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Supreme Court decision no. 1176\/2019, it was held that in a collision between a vehicle and a train, in addition to the fault of the vehicle driver, there may also exist concurrent contributory negligence on the part of the employees of the train operating company and, by extension, of the train operating company itself. This contributory negligence arose from the improper maintenance of the warning and regulation systems at the level crossing, which are intended to alert approaching vehicle drivers to the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to a significant extent to the occurrence of the accident.
\nMore specifically, the above decision found that the occurrence of the accident was also attributable to fault on the part of the bodies of the respondent train operating company, which is responsible, pursuant to Article 3 of Law 3891\/2010, for the construction of new railway infrastructure, the maintenance and operation of existing infrastructure, and the management of railway traffic regulation and safety systems. These bodies failed to ensure that, in the event of a malfunction of the automated level crossing system, a backup operating system for the audiovisual warning signals and the half-barriers was installed at the crossing, in order to warn drivers approaching the crossing of the arrival of a train. This omission contributed to the causation of the accident.<\/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-5667","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":"By Supreme Court decision no. 1176\/2019, it was held that in a collision between a vehicle and a train, in addition to the fault of the vehicle driver, there may also exist concurrent contributory negligence on the part of the employees of the train operating company and, by extension, of the train operating company itself.…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5667","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=5667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spiliopouloslaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}