With the no. 194/2021 Decision of, on a case that was successfully handled by our office, the Magistrate's Court of Thessaloniki, after deciding that the opposing driver is solely to blame for the accident, awarded the plaintiffs full compensation due to total destruction of their car, and compensation for moral damage and distress they have suffered, to the detriment of the defendants' insurance company.
Going to court is often necessary when there is a dispute between the drivers as to the fault of the accident. According to the Jurisprudence of our Courts, among the compensation funds that the injured driver can request is the restoration of material damage to the car of or the full compensation in case of total disaster of the vehicle, h recovery of his moral damage, medical expenses, i.e. the costs of medical visits and medical examinations, the cost of improved nutrition, the cost of hiring a dedicated nurse, the travel expenses, the Court fees, as well as the lost profit (e.g. in case of temporary incapacity for work). The amount of compensation depends on the amount of material and physical damage, as well as on the specific circumstances of the specific accident.
The following is an excerpt from No. 194/2020 of the Decision of the Magistrate's Court of Thessaloniki.
NUMBER I94/2021
THESSALONIKI JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR PROPERTY DISPUTES
(DISPUTES FOR DAMAGE FROM VEHICLES)
COLLECTED by Justice of the Peace Evdokia Selisiou, appointed by the President of the Three-member Board of Directors of the Justice of the Peace, and by the Secretary Konstantinos Papathanasiou.
SIT in public in his audience, on October 16, 2020, to try the following cases, between:
A) OF EN AGOUSA: …..who was represented at the trial by her attorney-at-law ….
OF THE DEFENDANT: the anonymous insurance company under the name “….. which was represented at the trial by the attorney of ………
B) OF THE PARTIES: 1)….. which was represented at the trial by its attorneys Thomas Kalokiris (A.M. 11982) and Ioannis Thomaidis (A.M. 11713) and 2) ……… who appeared at the trial together with her attorneys Thomas Kalokiris (A.M. 11982) and Ioannis Thomaidis (A.M. 11713).
OF THE DEFENDANTS: 1) ……. 2) …… and 3) of the anonymous insurance company with the name ……
The plaintiff under element A brought before this Court the action with filing number 913/26461/4-7-2019. The plaintiffs under element B brought before this Court the action with filing number 1590/42874/9-12-2019. During the discussion of the cases, in the hearing noted at the beginning of the decision, the parties legally appeared and their attorneys requested that what is written in the minutes of the meeting and in their motions filed on the bench be accepted.
AFTER STUDYING THE LITIGATION
CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THE LAW
The plaintiff under item A claims, that on 28-11-2018 at approximately 1:45 p.m., …….., driving on Poseidonos street in Pylaia Thessaloniki with registration number……. a car owned by …….., which was insured for the damages that it might cause to third parties during its operation in the defendant insurance company, caused damages and damages to its (plaintiff's) car with the registration number ……… through its fault, which the accused was driving…….., during the collision of the said vehicles, which took place under the circumstances described in her lawsuit. For this reason, she requests that the defendants be obliged to pay her, each of them in their entirety and with legal interest from the service of the lawsuit, the amount of 2,651.60 euros, for the restoration of her positive damage and as her reasonable monetary satisfaction, due of the moral damage she suffered from the accident, as the specific amount is broken down into individual funds in her lawsuit. It also requests that the decision be declared provisionally enforceable and that the defendant be ordered to pay her court costs.
The defendant of the first action claimed, with an oral statement of her attorney at the hearing of the Court, which is developed with her motions filed on the bench, that the plaintiff's defendant was solely to blame for the conflict in question, for the reasons cited her shape guide……. This claim constitutes a reasoned denial of the basis of the lawsuit based on the provisions of articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code, and an objection to the basis of the claim based on the provisions of Law GPN/1911, which (objection) is legal (article 5 of Law GPN/1911) and must be investigated as to its essential validity. Additionally, moreover, the above defendant proposed the plea of complicity of the above-mentioned driver in the accident, at a rate of 95%, which (plea), as legal (articles 300, 922 of the Civil Code and 6 of the Law, GPN/1911), must to be investigated on the merits, while she denied with her written proposals the individual funds of the lawsuit. […]
The defendants of the second action claimed, with an oral statement of their attorney at the hearing of the Court and with their motions filed on the bench, that the sole fault of the legal conflict, for the reasons they invoke, was the driver added by the first plaintiff of her vehicle, second plaintiff, ………. This claim constitutes a reasoned denial of the basis of the action based on the provisions of articles 914 et seq. of the Civil Code, and an objection to the basis based on the provisions of Law GPN/1911, which (objection) is legal (article 5 of Law GPN/1911) and must be investigated as to its essential validity. Additionally, moreover, the above defendants proposed the plea of complicity of the above-mentioned driver in the accident, at a rate of 95%, which (plea), as legal (articles 300, 922 of the Civil Code and 6 of Law GPN/1911), must to be investigated in substance, while they refused with their written proposals the individual funds of the lawsuit.
From the evaluation of the unsworn examination according to art. 415 – 417 C.Pol.D of the parties ….. .. in the audience of the Court contained in the minutes that have the same number as this one, from the documents that the parties legally present and refer to, in order to serve as independent means of evidence and others for the collection of judicial documents, including the photographs provided by the parties, the authenticity of which is not disputed, except for the responsible declaration of Law 1599/1986 from 14-10-2020 which the plaintiffs of B' lawsuit, which contains the testimony of a third person, which was given to be used in the specific trial and constitutes an inadmissible means of evidence, so it will not be taken into account even for the inference of judicial evidence (OlAP 8/1987, AP 524/2018, AP 624/ 2013, AP 1446/2012, AP 1182/2012, AP 311/2012, AP 743/2011, AP 266/2011, AP 1076/2010, AP 709/2010, AP 582/2010, AP 930/2008, EfDod 27/ 2012, EfThes 145/2009 T.N.P. LAW), from the direct and indirect confessions resulting from the claims of the parties, which were developed in the audience, but are also contained in their documents {art. 261, 352, 339 of the Civil Code), and from the lessons of common experience, which the Court takes ex officio into account (Article 336 no. 4 of the Civil Code), the following incidents were proven:
On 11-28-2018 at approximately 1:45 p.m., the second plaintiff of the second of the co-litigation lawsuits, ……, assisted in driving by the first plaintiff of the same lawsuit, was driving the car with registration number….. owned by her (first plaintiff ), which was insured for the damages it might cause during operation to third parties, in the defendant of the first of the co-litigation lawsuits, the insurance company, with the same (first plaintiff) on board, moving on Poseidonos Street in the area of Pylaia in Thessaloniki, in the direction of the "MACEDONIA" Shopping Center, towards Erythrou Stavrou Street, at the appropriate speed for the circumstances, occupying the left lane of its current. Posidonos Street is a two-way street, the two traffic streams, each of which has a road surface width of 7.00 meters, have two traffic lanes, and are separated by a dividing island, which is interrupted at any point on the street where left or right turns are allowed turn change of direction. The legal accident took place at the height of Poseidonos Street, where there is an intersection on the left, with an unmarked road leading to the "AGIOS PAULOS" Hospital, at which (intersection) the island is interrupted as it is allowed to enter the unmarked road on the left, for vehicles moving in the direction of Erythrou Stavrou Street, where the aforementioned plaintiffs were moving. At the time when the car driven by the second plaintiff of the second lawsuit approached the above intersection, and as she intended to enter the unnamed street with a left turn, the latter activated the left direction indicator (blinker), and after she reduced the already appropriate speed with which she was moving, stopped her vehicle, at the point where the central islet separating the two currents is interrupted, in the gap formed between the two parts of the islet, facing the unnamed road where they would enter , (see the rough traffic plan from 28-11-2018), waiting for the opposite flow of Poseidonos Street to be freed in order to carry out the left maneuver safely. It should also be noted that the road, at the point where the plaintiff was moving, is straight with a slight elevation, while at the same point opposite to the course of the current, the road shows a slight slope, furthermore, and with regard to the other conditions of the road, natural lighting and summer conditions prevailed, the road surface was dry, and visibility was not limited by physical or technical obstacles. At the same time, in the opposite direction of traffic on Posidonos Street, heading from Erythrou Stavrou Street towards the "MACEDONIA" Shopping Center, the vehicle with registration number... owned by the first defendant of the second action, the plaintiff of the first action, was moving ……. the second defendant in the second suit……. which was insured for the damages it might cause to third parties during its operation, in the third defendant of the second lawsuit, the insurance company, who, as he had developed a high speed, greater than the legally permitted in the area of 50 thousand/hour, (which was not can be precisely determined, because no signs of braking were found, nor does a specific speed emerge from the file, but the Court is led to this conclusion by the results of the collision of the vehicles), he lost control of the vehicle he was driving and after deviating from his straight path , crashed with his front part (left corner towards the center), on the front part of the car of the first plaintiff of the second action, which was stopped in the gap of the dividing island, …… Solely to blame for the accident is the second defendant of the second action ……., driver of the registration number …….. car of the first defendant of the second action, plaintiff in the first of the co-litigation actions ……., because he did not pay due diligence, which the circumstances required and which he himself, within the scope of the possibilities of a reasonable and prudent driver, he owed and could pay. In particular, he drove without the required prudence and special attention, he did not have full control of his vehicle, he had developed a speed that exceeded the legal limit of 50 km per hour and he did not adjust the speed of his vehicle taking into account the prevailing conditions, as he was approaching an intersection, as a result of which he lost control of his vehicle and the latter deviated from its course and hit the first plaintiff's stationary car, which was normally on the left and in a stationary position. The driving behavior of the second defendant of the present B' lawsuit resulted in him acting in violation of the provisions of articles 12 par. 1, 19 par. 1, 2 and 3 of Law 2696/1999 (K.O.K.) . On the contrary, the occurrence of the accident did not involve the fault of the second plaintiff of the present B' lawsuit, the driver, since she had the intention to enter the unmarked road on the left, activated the left direction indicator (blinker) and stopped her vehicle in the gap of the divider island, in order to make sure that she can perform the maneuver safely, when it happened suddenly and without her being able to make any maneuver to avoid it, the plaintiff's vehicle... autopsy report of a traffic accident drawn up by the competent police bodies in conjunction with the accompanying draft diagram, as well as from the sworn pre-investigation statements of the two plaintiffs under item B of the lawsuit dated 4-3-2019 and 4-15-2019 and from the 24-6-2019 examination report of the defendant of the second defendant of the second action, the driver of the car of the plaintiff of the first action, and they are also deduced, indirectly but not clearly, from the collision points of the two cars. The plaintiffs of the second lawsuit are unequivocal in their statements, regarding the circumstances of the accident, that the vehicle they were riding in was stationary next to the dividing island, with the turn signal activated, in order to enter the unnamed street on the left and the driver... .. moving at a very high speed, "dizzying" as the first of them characteristically mentioned, he lost control of his car and crashed head-on into their own vehicle, while exactly the same incidents were also testified by the second plaintiff driver of the vehicle, during without oath her examination before the Court. On the contrary, contradictions arise between what the driver testified before the investigation... and what he testified without oath before this Court. In particular, while in the examination report from 6-24-2019 it states that "...approaching the intersection and at a distance of 20 m in front of me, I saw a vehicle coming out from my left and cutting my way, moving towards Agios Pavlos, then i braked but the distance was very short and therefore the collision was unavoidable….my left front light collided with the front center of the other vehicle………………………………………… . only the driver's airbag had opened, while the passenger's airbag had not, as apparently she had not...", as it unhesitatingly emerged from the review of the evidence brought to the attention of the Court, including the unsworn testimony of the same (driver) before the Court, no signs of braking were found (see his unsworn testimony in the relevant meeting minutes and the auto accident report from 28-11-2018), the passenger's airbag was found to be open after the collision (see related photos of the interior of the vehicle) , while the collision points of the two vehicles are located head-on for the plaintiff's car ……. and side-on for the plaintiff's car…… a fact which supports the judgment of the Court that the car driven by the party ……. it was the one that, as it veered off course, hit the stationary vehicle of ……., since if the accident happened while the driver ……. attempted to cross the oncoming traffic to enter the unnamed road, blocking the straight path of the party…….., the damaged parts of the cars, would be the left corner of her vehicle….. and the front part of her vehicle ….. and in no case would the collision be located head-on. In addition, while the plaintiff of the first action claims with this one that the driver ……. without warning, without even turning on the left turn signal, she attempted to make a left turn and suddenly intervened in the straight path of her own driver..., the latter testified before the Court that the lady had her turn signal on and turned on the spot to go to St. Pavlos……… had his flasher on and was turning… the lady was stopped……..' Finally, the validity of the claims of the plaintiffs of the second lawsuit regarding the circumstances of the legal accident, also emerges from the diagram drawn up by the traffic authorities immediately after the accident, according to which the fragments from the collision of the two vehicles are located depicted with the element "Θ", before entering the opposite direction of travel that the driver was moving ……exactly between the gap of the dividing island, which reinforces the judgment of the Court that the driver ….. did not interrupt his straight path, entering in its own stream, as the plaintiff in the first suit unfoundedly claims.
Based on the above evidence, every counter claim and objection of the defendants of the action under item B regarding the circumstances of the accident is rejected, as essentially unfounded, while the action under item A is rejected, as essentially unfounded, for the same reason ' treatment. Subsequently, it was proven that the car of the first plaintiff, of the second lawsuit, was a factory-built ……… gasoline engine, with the date of the first registration on 11-12-2001 (see the provided photocopy of its registration). At the time of the accident, the specific vehicle was in good condition, having traveled 204,457 kilometers, and its commercial value, determined on the basis of its condition before the accident, with a critical time for determining this (value) being the time of the discussion of the case in Court (OLAP 38/1996 HellD 38/42, ATI 1493/2014 TNP LAW, AP 68/2005 ISOKRATES), amounted, according to the lessons of common experience, to the amount of 1,500.00 euros, and not to the amount of 2,000.00 euros as the plaintiff claims. As a result of the collision, the first plaintiff's car suffered extensive material damage to its front part (see the attached photos), for the restoration of which she would have to spend the total amount of 2,883.00 euros including VAT (see on behalf of the presented and relied upon expert report of the expert - property damage accident analyst Charalambos Pouta). In view of this fact, as the amount required for its repair far exceeds its commercial value (1,500.00 euros), the Court considers that the car in question suffered total destruction, in a financial sense, a fact which they agree the defendants, while its residual value, as determined by the same fact-based opinion as above, amounts to 300.00 euros, and therefore, deducting this, the damage of the first plaintiff of the second action from the destruction of her car, amounts to (1,500.00 – 300.00) 1,200.00 euros.
Further, due to the collision, in addition to the material damages suffered by the vehicle of the first plaintiff, the second of the co-litigation actions, both she who was a passenger in it in the passenger seat, and the driver of the second plaintiff, were slightly injured, as established by their transfer on the same day to G.N.Th "G. PAPANIKOLAOU", despite what both plaintiffs claim about their severe physical injuries which made them multiple injuries with unfavorable consequences for their physical and mental health, since no evidence of such serious injury emerged. In particular, the first plaintiff, as appears from the Medical Opinion dated 28-11-2018 (admission date) of the above hospital "G. PAPANIKOLAOU", was admitted to the D* Surgical Clinic, after she was transferred to the Outpatient Department, following a reported traffic accident, with a sternum injury and instructions were given to submit her to a laboratory test, as can be seen from the patient admission sheet of the same date as well as the two with the same date referrals for radiological examinations, which the said plaintiff produces and relies on. From these referrals, it appears that the plaintiff did indeed undergo a radiological examination, AMSS and TMSS of the spine, pelvis - pelvis, chest and sternum, but, as appears from the presented and cited by the same conclusion of the specific examinations, the thorax was in good condition, and without a fracture image, only mild degenerative changes of the TMJ, as without a fracture image, the hip joints and the pelvis were found, while mild degenerative changes of the ACL (neck – in the A2 and A3 vertebra) were found . But even after the repeated x-ray examination to which he was subjected, following the recommendation of the experts, to the sternum and chest, all the findings refer to mild sensitivity in the body of the sternum and DE hemithorax, without changes, and without any acid (see those from 28 -11-2018 certifications of the G.N.TH "G. PAPANIKOLAOU"), i.e. the physical damage that the first plaintiff suffered from the legal traffic accident, was an injury to the right hemithorax and sternum while the findings of mild degenerative changes in the neck, it is considered that they are not related to the legal event, despite what the plaintiff claimed to the contrary. The latter remained in the Hospital from the day of her admission (28-11-2018) until 30-11-2018, when she was given medical instructions to treat the initially mentioned chest pain, and specifically for intravenous heparinization and receiving the simple painkiller Arioi for pain (see related nursing history – receipt and medical instructions), she left for her home. […]
Finally, as can be seen from the receipt dated 4-10-2019 and the note of the same date from Orthopedician Konstantinos Terzidis that the first plaintiff invokes and provides, about a year after the accident, the latter visited the doctor in question, complaining for persistent presternal pain, with an intermittent nature, resulting from a traffic accident reported three months ago, for which he paid the amount of 30.00 euros. Therefore, the total positive damage of the first claimant under element B' of the claim amounts to 1,230.00 (1,200.00 + 30.00) euros. Subsequently, the Court, taking into account the circumstances of the accident, the degree of fault of the second defendant of the claim under item B, the type and extent of the damage to the health of the first plaintiff (slight physical injury), the grief and the pain that this (injury) caused her, and in addition the type and extent of her property damage, the sadness she experienced from the total destruction of her car and the social and economic situation of the parties, except for the third defendant insurance company, the whose liability is guaranteed, judges that the specific plaintiff is entitled to the amount of 1,000.00 euros, as reasonable monetary satisfaction due to the moral damage she suffered from the legal accident. Therefore, her property and non-pecuniary damage amounts to the amount of 2.230,00 (1,230.00+1,000.00) euros.
Furthermore, the second plaintiff, who was similarly transferred after the accident to the outpatient clinics of G.N.Th "G. PAPANIKOLAOU", after being examined on the same day (28-11-2018), he underwent a neurosurgical and cardiosurgical evaluation and it was found after the X-ray examination, which did not show any fracture, to have a DE scapula, neck and AR shoulder injury, while for the treatment of her injuries, she was recommended to be suspended with a plaster cast and straightening of the neck (AMSS), and after she was given instructions for medication, she left for her home the same day. [….] On the contrary, the amount of 10.67 euros that the plaintiff paid for participation, in addition to the amount paid by her insurance company to "EIIKOMEIOOA", on 2-15-2019, submitted to a CT scan, is deemed to be substantially valid thorax - mediastinum, as well as the funds of 5.00 euros for OT accompanying medical services, and 9.51 euros for the iodine contrast required for the examination in question, i.e. in total he paid for medical examinations the amount of 25.18 ( 10.67+5.00+9.51) euros. Subsequently, it was not proven that the plaintiff was recommended to receive improved alimony, which, moreover, in this particular case, is not considered mandatory, in accordance with the lessons of common sense and experience, which the court takes into account ex officio (Article 336 §4 of the Civil Code) , due to the nature of her injury as mentioned above, which does not cause the weakening of her body, while as the plaintiff herself testified without oath before the Court, she was already following a normal Mediterranean diet, fully meeting the needs for her recovery, and therefore the amount of 600.00 euros that the plaintiff requests for receiving improved maintenance, must be rejected as unfounded from a substantive point of view. Following this, the Court, taking into account the circumstances of the accident, the degree of fault of the second defendant, the type and extent of the damage to the health of the second plaintiff (slight physical injury), the grief and pain that he ( injury) caused her, and the social and economic situation of the parties, except for the third defendant insurance company, whose liability is a surety, judges that the specific plaintiff is entitled to the amount of 600.00 euros, as reasonable monetary satisfaction due to moral damage who suffered from her physical injury. According to the above, the total amount of money awarded to the second plaintiff, for the restoration of her positive damage and as monetary satisfaction due to the moral damage, which she suffered in general from the accident, amounts to 625,18 (25.18 + 600.00) euros. Consequently, the claim under point A must be dismissed as essentially unfounded and the plaintiff must be ordered to pay the legal costs of the defendant's above-mentioned claim, following the relevant request of the latter (articles 176 and 191 par. 2 of the Civil Code). Furthermore, the action under point B must be partially accepted, as well founded, and the obligation of the defendants of this action to pay, in their entirety, to the plaintiff... the total amount of 2,230.00 euros, with legal interest from the day after the day of service of the lawsuit, until payment, and to the plaintiff …… the total amount of 625.18 euros, with legal interest from the day after the day of service of the lawsuit, until repayment. Finally, part of the legal costs of the plaintiffs of the above action, upon their relevant request, must be imposed against the defendants (articles 178 par. 1 and 191 par. 2 of the Civil Code), in accordance with what is specifically defined in the operative part of the decision.
GO FOR THESE REASONS
JOINTLY litigates the two related lawsuits, which are mentioned in the reasoning of the decision, against the parties' objection.
DISMISSES the action under element A', with filing report number 913/26461/4-7-2019.
JUDGMENTS the plaintiff of the above action …… to pay the court costs of the defendant, which he sets at one hundred and fifty (150.00) euros.
ACCEPTS in part the action under item B, with filing report number 1590/42874/9-12-2019.
ACKNOWLEDGES the obligation of the defendants of the said action to pay each of them in full, to the first plaintiff.... the amount of two thousand two hundred and thirty (2,230.00) euros, and to the second plaintiff …… the amount of six hundred and twenty-five euros and eighteen cents (625.18), with the legal interest, from the day after the service of the action until payment.
JUDGMENTS the defendants of the action under item B in part of the legal costs of the plaintiffs, which he sets at two hundred (200.00) euros.
DECIDED, decided and published in the audience of this Court, in Thessaloniki, in its extraordinary public session, on June 25, 2021, without the presence of the parties and their attorneys.
Thomas Steph. Summer
MDE lawyer
Min. Doctor of Law, AUTH
English 
Greek 
French 
Chinese 
German