Who is liable in a traffic accident and to what extent?

Responsibility for traffic accident (traffic accident) The injured party may seek compensation from both the person at fault for the accident and his or her motor third party liability insurance insurer.

Can the injured party receive compensation from both?

The Supreme Court of Cassation (VKS) answered this question back in early 2017, when, with an Interpretative Decision in Case No. 1/2016, it accepted that the right of the injured party to receive compensation may be exercised under the conditions of alternativeness orby the insurer, or from the person who caused the damage (the delinquent).

The rights against each of the responsible parties (the guilty party and the insurer) arise simultaneously. This type of rights are so-called competing, i.e., in the event that the injured party receives compensation from one of the two parties (the insurer or the delinquent party), his right to compensation is extinguished upon satisfaction of the claim by one of the two parties.

The assessment of who to seek compensation from is up to the injured party. The liability of the tortfeasor and the insurer arise from the tort and, although they have different grounds, they are functionally related. In view of which, payment by one of these persons releases the other from liability.

How is the satisfaction of the injured party proven?

It is natural and logical for the person who repays his debt to the injured party to request to certify this circumstance in a document. Often, when paying compensation, insurers also offer an agreement, the signing of which is a condition for making the payment.

This agreement, in addition to concerning the amount of the paid amount, also certifies the basis for the right to compensation. Practice shows that most often the agreement includes the following text in its content: "„the amount paid in the amount of ………….. fully satisfies the material and non-material damages caused to me as a result of the traffic accident“". This text aims to fend off future claims by the victim.

The Supreme Court of Cassation accepts that "„the satisfaction and statement of the injured party that he considers the compensation received to be adequate to the amount of the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages he has suffered should be considered as extinguishment of his right to seek alternative performance“.

Once the injured party has accepted performance from one of the liable parties and has made a clear statement that the amount received satisfies him, he has no subsequent right to seek the same or a larger amount from other persons. This practice sounds logically justified, since with the receipt of compensation the function of the insurance indemnity is fulfilled, namely to compensate the damages of the injured party. However, this often has an unfavorable result for the injured party, who, in case he does not make a correct assessment, both of the amount of compensation that he can claim and of the person from whom he can seek liability, loses his opportunity to receive fair compensation later.

How did the victim receive only 500 BGN out of the 50,000 BGN in compensation claimed?

The Supreme Court of Cassation recently ruled on an interesting case involving payment by the guilty party to the injured party. We leave it to our readers to assess the moral dimensions of the victim's actions.

In a traffic accident in 2015, a 72-year-old woman was injured and suffered multiple injuries - head trauma, stunning, disorientation, traumatic contusion in the occipital region of the head, contusion of the right lumbosacral nerve plexus, dorsiflexion, inability to walk on the heel with the right foot, etc.

After the accident, the person at fault paid the victim the sum of 500 leva, for which she signed a receipt containing the statement that the amount thus received fully satisfies the pain and suffering caused to her and that she has no claims against the person at fault for the accident.

The court recognized the victim's right to determine the compensation by making concessions, and that the victim's statement and refusal to have other claims were clearly expressed.

History of the dispute – agreement to settle liability in a traffic accident         

The victim filed a claim for compensation from the same accident against the insurer of the person at fault for the accident. She claimed the amount of BGN 50,000, and at first instance the court partially upheld her claim, awarding compensation for the pain and suffering caused to her in the amount of BGN 27,000. The decision was appealed by both parties, and the second instance overturned it in full and dismissed the victim's claim.

The dispute also reached the Supreme Court of Cassation, which accepted that once there is a statement to one of the responsible persons that the victim has received a certain amount of money (in this case – 500 BGN) and has no other claims, The injured party has no right to seek the difference above the amount of BGN 500 from either the person at fault for the accident or his insurer under "Motorists' Third Party Liability" insurance.

The above decision clearly shows why timely consultation with a lawyer in the event of an accident is of utmost importance.