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.