PRAVO.RU. THE EXPERT COULD NOT DETERMINE THE GUILTY PARTY OF THE ACCIDENT: WHAT TO DO? ELENA GLADYSHEVA, MANAGING PARTNER OF RI-CONSULTING

The car collided with a motorcycle on a road without markings. The accident participants themselves could not determine who was responsible for the accident. The expert made only an assumption that the motorist could have caused the accident. And the courts based their decision on his conclusion. They were corrected by the Supreme Court: that was not the right thing to do; a repeated or additional forensic examination should have been performed.

You can read more about the case on https://pravo.ru/auto/story/235820/

Elena Gladysheva's expert opinion: "In this case, in sending the case for a new review to the appellate instance, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted the violations committed by the courts precisely in terms of procedural evaluation of evidence.

Исходя из текста определения Верховного суда РФ следует, что экспертное заключение, построенное на предположении и не содержащее четкого вывода на поставленные судом вопросы, не может быть положено в основу судебных актов. Руководствуясь данным доводом Верховный суд РФ вынес определение об отмене актов, принятых апелляционным и кассационным судом.

The case was sent for reconsideration with an indication that the courts had improperly examined all the evidence and had not provided any reasons for the courts to give preference to particular evidence. By this argument the RF Supreme Court once again emphasized that an expert opinion is evaluated by the court on an equal basis with other evidence in the case.

We believe that at a new hearing in the court of appeals all the evidence in the case file will be evaluated and, if the court has any doubts, a second trace examination will be appointed.

According to Elena Gladysheva, Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, "this definition was made in connection with procedural violations of the courts related to the evaluation of evidence and does not contain conclusions that may constitute grounds for revision of judicial acts in other cases." - noted the attorney.

Other publications
VEDOMOSTI. LARGEST SUGAR PRODUCER FOUND GUILTY OF CREATING SPECULATIVE DEMAND
VEDOMOSTI. LARGEST SUGAR PRODUCER FOUND GUILTY OF CREATING SPECULATIVE DEMAND

17.02.2023

Earlier the FAS started anti-cartel inspections of the largest sugar producers - Rusagro Group LLC, Rusagro-Center LLC, Prodimex LLC, GC Dominant LLC, Trade House Dominant LLC and ChekhovSugar LLC, as well as the Union of Sugar Producers of Russia non-profit organization. The FAS also audited market...

THE COURT REJECTED CREDITOR'S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE THE TRANSACTION OF ASSETS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE LOSS CENTER
THE COURT REJECTED CREDITOR'S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE THE TRANSACTION OF ASSETS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE LOSS CENTER

13.02.2023

The Supreme Court has consolidated the issue of qualification of transactions in bankruptcy proceedings. The application of the concept of "higher standard of proof" must be justified and cannot be applied arbitrarily. Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, Advocate Elena Gladysheva, evaluates the...

ADVOKATSKAYA GAZETA. FORMALISM IS INADMISSIBLE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED TO THE COURTS THAT A CHANGE IN THE LEGAL ENTITY FORM SHOULD NOT DEPRIVE A FORMER SHAREHOLDER OF HIS PROPERTY
ADVOKATSKAYA GAZETA. FORMALISM IS INADMISSIBLE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED TO THE COURTS THAT A CHANGE IN THE LEGAL ENTITY FORM SHOULD NOT DEPRIVE A FORMER SHAREHOLDER OF HIS PROPERTY

11.01.2023

Elena Gladyysheva, Advocate, Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, and Vladimir Krylov, Senior Lawyer, Head of Corporate Law Department of RI-Consulting on case No. A40-213998/2021. The Russian Supreme Court clarified to lower courts the rules of compensation for losses in the case when a former...

Office in Moscow Phone: +7 (495) 632-14-50. Duty Lawyer (24/7): +7 (985) 307-31-76. E-mail: info@ri-consulting.ru Address: 22 Baumanskaya str., office 201