On 5 March, the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court upheld judgement of the Chamber of Civil Cases of 5 February 2013, which rejected claim filed against "Rīgas satiksme" Ltd. due to severe trauma obtained during ride on route bus, as a result of this trauma the plaintiff became disabled person (second degree of disability). The Supreme Court recognised that the legislator directly and clearly imposed an obligation to reimburse moral injury in case bodily injury is caused, the same as non-received gain, to the person guilty of commitment of traffic accident. In this particular case, the guilty person is not driver of the bus of “Rīgas satiksme” Ltd., but the driver of unknown vehicle. The Supreme Court pointed out in its judgement that civil liability of a legal possessor of the vehicle, who, in accordance with the first sentence of Paragraph Two Section 2347 of the Civil Law, is liable irrespective of guilt, is included in compulsory civil liability insurance covering. Legal norms effective at the moment of traffic accident, namely, the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law, provided to the plaintiff right to receive compensation for damages, for which the legal possessor of the vehicle, in accordance with the first sentence of Paragraph Two Section 2347 of the Civil Law, is liable irrespective of guilt, and to receive compensation for  non-pecuniary damage, which, in accordance with Regulations No. 331 of 17 May 2005 of the Cabinet of Ministers “Regulations on amount and procedure of calculation of insurance indemnity for non-pecuniary damage caused to a person” (Regulations No. 331), which were effective at that time, was inadequately low.

Legal issue to be resolved in the case was whether the respondent, “Rīgas satiksme” Ltd., which must not be blamed for causing of traffic accident, must reimburse moral injury and lost profit caused to the victim. It is not contested in the case that the claimant received compensation and recovery of losses for necessary medical treatment, purchase of medicine, and difference between claimant’s income before traffic accident and current income. These payments were given to the claimant due to traffic accident. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage was paid in accordance with the Regulations No. 331 issued pursuant to Paragraph Three Section 19 of the Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law. The claim actually was brought to the court due to the reason that the claimant recognised compensation for non-pecuniary damage paid in accordance with the above mentioned Regulations No. 331 to be inadequately low.

Regulations No. 331 became invalid on 11 July 2014, when Regulations No. 340 of 17 June 2014 of the Cabinet of Ministers “Regulations on amount and procedure of calculation of insurance indemnity for non-pecuniary damage caused to a person” entered into force. With judgement of the Constitutional Court of 29 December 2014, were recognised as non-complying with the Constitution.

Abstract of the project of Regulations No. 340 shows that these Regulations ensure compliance with judgements by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is possible to conclude from these judgements that Directives in field of compulsory civil liability insurance of owners of motor vehicles, which are consolidated by the Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, also refer to non-pecuniary damage caused to  person, and thus such kind of damage may not have limit of insurance indemnity that would be less than it is established in the Directive 2009/103/EC. Maximum amount of insurance indemnity is not established, but an opportunity to assess each case individually and thus to reduce number of cases solved in court is ensured. Minimum salary established in the state is used as criterion for determination of amount of non-pecuniary damage. Assessment of harm caused to health, in turn, is established in proportion. Rate applicable to calculation of insurance indemnity is elaborated, so that respective proportional amount would be set for bodily injuries of respective severity, depending on how this harm caused to health affects state of health of injured person.  

Grounding on foregoing facts, the Supreme Court in its judgement urged the association “Latvian Motor Insurers’ Bureau”, observing respective amendments made to legislation during period of proceedings, to achieve fair solution on reimbursement of non-pecuniary damage to injured person. 

The case contains following facts:

The claimant filed the claim to the court in November 2008. On 18 March 2006, the claimant went by route bus No. 53 “Zolitūde – Katedrāle” of “Rīgas satiksme” Ltd, when the bus driver, to avoid clash with unknown car, which changed carriageway lanes from the left to the right just near the bus, braked sharply. Due to inertia, the claimant fell and ran against the wall of bus driver’s cabin. From the place of accident, the claimant was taken to Riga Hospital No. 1. She was stated serious spinal trauma, and she underwent surgery and long-term treatment.  In result of the trauma, the claimant became the disabled person with the second degree of disability. In claimant’s opinion, the situation, in which the claimant became a disabled person in couple of minutes after taking the public transport, was grievous moral stress not only for her, but also for her family. The respondent, being passenger carrier, has not ensured safe ride in its vehicle. The claimant asked to recover compensation for mutilation, moral injury, and profit lost due to loss of ability to work, from the respondent.

On 5 December 2011, when hearing the case at the first instance, Riga regional court satisfied the claim partly and recovered from "Rīgas satiksme" Ltd. Ls 5000 for mutilation and Ls 3000 for moral and mental sufferings for the sake of the claimant. When hearing the case at appellate instance, the Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court rejected the claim.


Information prepared by Baiba Kataja, the Press secretary of the Supreme Court
Telephone: 67020396; e-pasts: baiba.kataja@at.gov.lv