Prilog razumevanju pravila o solidarnoj odgovornosti imalaca motornih vozila : čl. 178 st. 4 Zakona o obligacionim odnosima

Abstract

Prema pravilu iz čl. 178 st. 4 Zakona o obligacionim odnosima (ZOO) u slučaju udesa izazvanog motornim vozilima u pokretu imaoci vozila koja su učestvovala u udesu solidarno su odgovorni, i to po objektivnom principu, za štetu koja usled udesa pogodi neko treće lice, recimo suvozača, pešaka ili biciklistu. Predmet ovoga rada su dva uža pitanja u vezi sa solidarnom objektivnom odgovornošću učesnika u udesu prema trećim licima. Prvo je pitanje mogućnosti da jedan učesnik u udesu istakne prema oštećeniku isključivu radnju drugog učesnika u udesu kao oslobađajući razlog iz čl. 177 st. 2 ZOO. Drugo je pitanje nasledivosti prava trećeg lica da zahteva naknadu neimovinske štete neposredno od osiguravača kod kojeg je učesnik u udesu bio osiguran od odgovornosti.

Where there were two or more motor vehicles involved in a road traffic accident, there is an explicit statutory rule on joint and several (strict) liability of the proprietors of the implicated vehicles towards the injured party. The victim may be a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a passenger in either of the colliding vehicles, the owner of a parked car affected by the colliding vehicles, etc. This paper focuses on two narrow issues. Firstly, the proprietor shall be excused from liability if he refutes the presumption of causation by proving that, despite the fact damage occurred in connection to the motor vehicle, it was exclusively caused by the injured party, or by a third party. It is necessary that the injurious action in question was unforeseeable to the proprietor, and that he was not able to avoid or eliminate its consequences. However, the question arises of whether a proprietor of another motor vehicle involved in the accident may qualify as a third person in this context. The answer to this is negative: the proprietors of motor vehicles implicated in the accident can release themselves from liability to the victim by proving neither factual contribution, nor fault of one another. The proprietor of another motor vehicle involved in a crash cannot be considered a ‘third party’ for the purposes of the defendants’ release from liability. The second question relates to the inheritability of a direct claim against the insurer for compensation of non-pecuniary damage. The answer to this is also negative, and derives from: the purely subjective conception of moral damage; the statutory rules on uninheritability of claims for compensation of non-pecuniary losses; and the understanding that the victim’s direct request against the injurer’s insurer represents a delictual claim.