Complicity on the part of a parent if the minor victim was traveling without a seat belt fastened?

This article aims to answer the questions of who is responsible for the safety of children in the vehicle and in which cases there is complicity if the injured child was not wearing a seatbelt.

В our previous article We've told you more about co-causation.

In your own solution On June 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) ruled on the above issues, categorically resolving the issue of complicity in favor of the victim in a tragic situation.

What do the supreme judges accept in their most current practice?

This decision developed the existing constant practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) on the application of the norm of Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA), according to which it matters whether the injured party himself contributed to the occurrence of the damage, as well as what is the significance of the existence of a causal link between the injured party's behavior and the harmful result that occurred.

What are the specific facts of the case?

In case No. 1879/2019 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the plaintiff is the father of a child who died in a road traffic accident (RTA) while traveling without a seat belt. The disputed issue is whether the father, also traveling in the vehicle, contributed to the consequences of the accident by not wearing a seat belt for his daughter.

Examining the legal framework in Art. 137a – Art. 137e of the Road Traffic Act (RTA), the Supreme Court of Cassation established that the obligation to ensure the safety of travelling minors, including fastening the seat belts of a child seat, is solely the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle. This norm is special in relation to the general obligation of parents to take care of their children, enshrined in Art. 125, para. 1 of the Family Code.

What is the final conclusion of the judges?

„"The parent traveling as a passenger has no obligation that he has not fulfilled and which would lead to complicity within the meaning of Art. 51, para. 2 of the Obligations and Contracts Act."“

accept as a final conclusion the supreme judges

With these arguments, the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the second instance court, which established complicity on the part of the parent-passenger in the amount of 50%. The Supreme Court ruled that There is no complicity, because the child's travel in the car without a fastened seat belt in a child seat is the result of the unlawful behavior of the driver, but not of the passenger in the car, even if he is his parent.

Therefore, the court holds that the lack of supervision exercised by a parent who is not driving the vehicle does not lead to complicity in the occurrence or in view of the increase in damages in the event of a traffic accident (traffic accident).