What is the legal penalty for leaving the scene of an accident? Leaving the scene of an accident (12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) Fled from the scene of an accident that threatens.

"Leaving the scene of an accident. Is it possible to avoid deprivation?"

Question: I accidentally hit someone else's car (hit a pedestrian, a dog, etc.), did not notice and left on my own business. What awaits me and what can I do?

Answer:

Formally, responsibility for such an act is provided for under part 2 of article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Article 12.27. Failure to perform duties due to a traffic accident

1. Failure by a driver to fulfill the obligations provided for by the Rules of the Road in connection with a traffic accident in which he is a participant, except for the cases provided for by part 2 of this article, -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand roubles.

2. Leaving by a driver, in violation of the Rules of the Road, the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant, -
entails deprivation of the right to drive transport vehicles for a term of one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for a term of up to fifteen days.
(as amended by Federal Laws No. 116-FZ of 22.06.2007, No. 210-FZ of 24.07.2007)
3. Failure to comply with the requirement of the Rules of the Road to prohibit the driver from consuming alcoholic beverages, narcotic or psychotropic substances after a traffic accident in which he is involved, or after the vehicle was stopped at the request of a police officer, until an authorized officer conducts an examination in for the purpose of establishing the state of intoxication or until an authorized official makes a decision on exemption from conducting such an examination -
(as amended by Federal Law No. 4-FZ of February 7, 2011)
entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one and a half to two years.

Before considering defense options, be aware that the statute of limitations for this offense is 3 months. The later you meet with the police, the better. Try not to show up at their invitations "for inspection", "for analysis", etc. For you show up and a protocol will be drawn up immediately, and then the case will go to court. Sometimes deprivation can be successfully avoided in this way. Although, of course, if you are to blame, resolve the issue of compensation to the victim so as not to spoil your karma.

In order not to become a pedestrian, there are 6 protection options

1. Trying to convince the court that there are no elements of an administrative violation, since the concealment from the scene of an accident occurred unintentionally
examples of jurisprudence

Administrative case No. 5-хх/2010

P O S T A N O V L E N I E

On the termination of proceedings on the case of an administrative offense

Zaeltsovsky District Court of the city of Novosibirsk composed of Judge Koneva Yew.A. under Secretary Belonosova K.V. , with the participation of the person brought to administrative responsibility, having considered the materials of an administrative offense, under the Article. 12.27 h. 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to L. A. V., xx JUNE 19xx YEAR OF BIRTH, a native of the city of Novosibirsk, lives in the city of Novosibirsk, st. M., xxx

Installed:

L. A. V. is accused of the fact that at 15 o'clock. 05 min. APRIL 4, 2010, driving a car LIAZ xxx state number XX xxx and moving near the house xxx on the street. K. Prospekt in the Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk, collided with a Toyota Crown Premium car number X xxx RV 54 driven by K. A.M. ; in violation of paragraph. 2.5 of the Rules of the road in the Russian Federation L.A.The. failed to fulfill the duties of a driver: left the scene of a traffic accident, of which he was a participant. His actions are qualified by Art. 12.27 h. 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

L.A.V. he did not agree with the offense and explained that he worked as a driver on a LIAZ bus, state number XX 732, at PTP-1 LLC, on April 4, 2010, he was on route No. 1038 and drove the indicated bus, the route also passes through Kalinin Square. In the daytime, an unknown person called him on the phone and said that he hit a foreign car, he went to the scene of an accident, but they called him back and explained that the traffic police had already arrived at the scene and they would call him. Returning along the route in 30-40 minutes, there was no one there. Later inspecting the car, he saw minor damage to the bumper. Since the bus is very large, 15 meters long, with a capacity of about 100 passengers and in conditions of heavy traffic, he did not notice any traffic accident, no one gave him signals, so he had no intention to leave the scene of a traffic accident.

victim K.A.M. did not appear at the hearing, was notified, asked to consider the case in his absence, on the explanations given to the traffic police on April 4, 2010, insists.

The judge, after hearing the explanations of the person brought to administrative responsibility, examining the written materials of the case, finds guilt L.A.The. in leaving the scene of a traffic accident unidentified, the proceedings on an administrative offense subject to termination due to the absence of an administrative offense in L.'s actions.

So, from the explanations of the victim, given on April 4, 2010 to the traffic police, it does not follow that L.A.The. noticed the fact of hitting the car of the victim and deliberately left the scene of an accident. From the circumstances of the incident, the scheme of the accident, the location of the damage reflected in the report of the traffic police, the explanations of the participants in the accident, the court established that L. drove a passenger bus on a busy street in the daytime, the nature of the damage indicates that the rear bumper of the bus when driving to the roundabout tangential movement hit the front of the car. Evidence that L. noticed, understood and realized the fact of the collision and causing damage and deliberately failed to fulfill the driver's duties under paragraph 2.5 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation was not established by the court. The victim's explanation does not contain any indication that he was trying to get the driver's attention. The victim himself, exercising his right, did not appear at the hearing. In such circumstances, the court takes into account the rules of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the presumption of innocence and that all irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in his favor, and therefore terminates the proceedings due to the absence of an administrative offense in L.'s actions.

Guided by Article.Article. 12.27 h. 2, 29.9.2, 29.10 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, court

P O S T A N O V I L:

Terminate proceedings in the case of an administrative offense against L. A. V. under Art. 12.27 h. 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the absence in his actions of an administrative offense under paragraph 2 of h. 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The judgment may be appealed to the Novosibirsk Regional Court within 10 days from receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Judge ________ Koneva Yu.A.

The Resolution entered into force on May 21, 2010. SAINT PETERSBURG CITY COURT

judge Mochalov E.K. Case N 5-66/11

Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Shirokova E.A., with Secretary Ts., having considered on February 17, 2011 in a court session in the court premises an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of a judge of the Vyborgsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011 in respect of
E.,<...>,

Installed:

According to the protocol on an administrative offense 78 N 28-20784-10 on December 22, 2010 at 13.20 at house 14, building 4 on the street. Smolyachkov in St. Petersburg, the driver E. violated clause 2.5 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, driving a Ford Transit state car. number<...>, became a participant in an accident with a car Honda Civic state. number<...>. In violation of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, he left the place of the accident, did not report the incident to the police department.
By the decision of the judge of the Vyborgsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011, the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to E. terminated on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
victim M.E. appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court with a complaint about the annulment of the court decision and the direction of the case for a new trial, indicating that the court had correctly established the event of an accident. At the same time, it does not follow from the decision how the court established that E.'s car was of considerable dimensions, the fact that the Ford Transit car was equipped with a diesel engine and the conclusion that it was noisy was not confirmed by anything. Witness F.S. reported that driver E. immediately after hitting a Honda car stopped for 5 - 10 seconds, after which he continued to move, scratching the Honda car, heard a rattle. During the collision, 2 elements were damaged near the Honda car, which was unlawfully assessed by the court as minor damage.
victim M.E. in the St. Petersburg City Court did not appear, the place and time of consideration of the complaint was notified, submitted an application for its consideration in his absence.
Ye. did not agree with the complaint, he explained that he could only drive to the indicated place at 10 o'clock, and at 13.20 he was in another place.
After examining the case file, I consider the complaint not subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
When considering the present case, the judge examined all the evidence presented, including the explanations of E., the testimony of the victim M.E. and witness F.S. and the event of an accident involving a Ford Transit and a Honda Civic was reasonably established.
However, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility shall be interpreted in favor of this person.
The court investigated the subjective side of the offense imputed to E., assessed the testimony of an eyewitness to the accident, other evidence in the case, according to well-known facts, characterized the vehicle driven by E. and made a reasonable conclusion that the fact that the latter was not aware of the accident event, that is, that he had intent to leave the scene of an accident.
Under such circumstances, the court made the correct conclusion about the absence in the actions of E. of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the grounds for terminating the proceedings are indicated in the reasoning part of the decision.

Resolution of the judge of the Vyborgsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 27, 2011 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to E. left unchanged, the complaint of the victim M.E. - without satisfaction.

Judge
SHIROKOVA E.A.

2. Trying to convince the court to terminate the proceedings due to the insignificance of the administrative offense

MOSCOW CITY COURT

Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court Dmitriev A.N., having considered K.’s complaint against the decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow dated 05.11.2008 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated 02.12.2008 in the case of an administrative offense,

Installed:

On November 5, 2008, by a decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow, K. was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was sentenced to an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 year.
By the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated 02.12.2008, the said decision of the judge was left unchanged, and K.'s complaint was not satisfied.
In the supervisory appeal, K. asks for the cancellation of the court decisions held in the case, referring to the fact that the scuffs on the Peugeot Boxer car, discovered during the inspection of the car by the traffic police inspector, could not have occurred at the time of the accident on 10.10.2008, no damage was identified on the car Ford Fiesta and Peugeot Boxer.
Having checked the case materials on an administrative offense, having studied the arguments of the complaint, I find the contested decisions subject to cancellation on the following grounds.
When considering the case by the judge of the district court, it was established that on 10.10.2008, at 17:42, K., driving a Peugeot Boxer state car. reg. sign<...>, following the Kashirskoye Highway in the area of ​​21 in Moscow, being a participant in an accident with a Ford Fiesta state car. reg. sign<...>under the control of Z., in violation of clause 2.5 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, left the scene of an accident, thereby committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
Since the fact of committing an administrative offense and the guilt of K. is confirmed by the protocol in the case of an administrative offense, the report of the traffic police officer, the accident diagram with a description of the damage on the Ford Fiesta car, the act of inspecting the Peugeot Boxer car, the testimony of witness Z., the conclusion of the district court judge that there are actions K. composition of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is correct.
At the same time, it is seen from the materials of the case that, by leaving the place of the accident, K. did not significantly violate protected public legal relations by his actions, while there was no harm caused and no negative consequences occurred. Thus, from the testimony of the driver of the Ford Fiesta Z., it follows that, due to the braking of the Peugeot Boxer car in front, she touched the front bumper of her car on the rear bumper of the Peugeot Boxer car, whose driver got out of the car, inspected his car and disappeared from the scene of an accident. At the same time, Z. does not indicate any damage to her car, the inspection report shows damage to the front bumper of her car, but the nature of the damage is not specified. It follows from K.'s testimony that while driving he felt a slight blow to the back of the car, immediately stopped, got out of the car, examined the back, did not notice any damage and thought that the pallet had moved. He saw a Ford Fiesta car standing behind him, but the driver of the car was talking on the phone, did not get out of the car, and he, thinking that there had been no accident, left. These circumstances of the accident allowed K. to rely on his innocence in the accident, his actions were not aimed at avoiding liability, his car was not damaged, he had reason to believe that the other car was not damaged either.
Thus, the actions of K., although formally, contain signs of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, but taking into account the nature of the offense committed and the role of the offender, the amount of harm and the severity of the consequences that have occurred, they do not represent a significant violation of protected public legal relations, i.e. are minor administrative offences.
In accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, if the committed administrative offense is insignificant, the judge authorized to decide the case of an administrative offense may release the person who committed the administrative offense from administrative responsibility and confine himself to an oral remark.
If the insignificance of the committed administrative offense is established when considering a complaint in the supervisory procedure for a decision in a case on an administrative offense, a decision based on the results of the consideration of the complaint, then on the basis of paragraph 4 of part 2 of Art. 30.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision is made to cancel the resolution and decision and terminate the proceedings.
Based on the above, guided by n. 4 h. 2 Article. 30.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

Resolved:

The decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow dated 05.11.2008 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated 02.12.2008 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to K. cancel, the proceedings on an administrative offense should be terminated due to the insignificance of the administrative offense committed.

Vice-chairman
Moscow City Court
A.N.DMITRIEV

Judge Romashova T.B. Case N 5-295/10

The judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Lidiya Antonovna Litova, having considered on January 18, 2011 in an open court session in the courtroom with the participation of the Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of St. Petersburg Merkusheva M.A. under Secretary Ts., an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of a judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 03, 2010 in respect of
Sh.,<...>

Installed:

According to the traffic accident report N 04965 on an administrative offense, drawn up by the inspector for the search of the traffic police department of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Petrogradsky district of St. Petersburg V.A. September 02, 2010 (case file 3), driver Sh.<...>V<...>driving a car VAZ-2112, m.r.z.<...>, y<...>while reversing, he collided with a parked car "Nissan Primera", r.r.z.<...>in the absence of the driver Ya.A., after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, he left the scene of the incident.
By a decision of the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 03, 2010 (case files 36 - 39), Sh. was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was sentenced to an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
Sh. filed a complaint with the St. Petersburg City Court (case files 49 - 51), in which he indicates that he does not agree with the judge's decision, based on the following. Being in the car park<...>driving a VAZ-2112 car,<...>near<...>making sure that the maneuver was safe and giving a preliminary sound signal, he began to move in reverse, made a U-turn and continued moving. He, Sh., did not collide with other cars, no one informed him about any collisions, none of the people who were in the parking lot made any attempts to stop his car. Believes that the court incorrectly assessed the actual circumstances of the case. Gives his assessment of the testimony of the only witness of the accident M.A. He, Sh., told Inspector V.A. that already at the time of purchase of the VAZ-2112 car there were a large number of different scratches (in particular, on the rear bumper) and asked to appoint an examination that would unequivocally establish whether (and if so, which of the existing) damage was caused in the collision of these particular cars. However, the inspector refused to appoint an examination, instead he inspected the vehicles, drew up a protocol in which he reflected his point of view. He considers that the protocol on an administrative offense is drawn up in violation of the requirements of Art. 28.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - M.A. is not indicated there as a witness. Therefore, he asks the decision of the judge of the district court to cancel and send the case for a new trial.
The second participant in the accident, the victim Ya.A. was notified of the place and time of consideration of Sh.'s complaint by telephone message, which he received personally (case file 56), but did not appear at the St. Petersburg City Court. Petition to postpone the hearing from Ya.A. did not go to the City Court. Since the case materials are sufficient to consider the case on the merits, the victim was duly notified of the date of the court session and Sh. appeared in court, in respect of which a decision was made in the case of an administrative offense, I consider it possible to consider the case in the absence of the victim Ya.A.
At the hearing Sh. supported the arguments of his complaint. He testified that he did not feel any impact during the turn, did not hear sounds indicative of an accident, no one stopped his car. If he knew that he had damaged someone else's car, he would definitely have stayed at the scene of the accident, since his OSAGO has additional options and the insurance company would compensate for the damage. After he, Sh., went on business and returned to the same parking lot to pick up his wife and child, no one approached him either.
Having checked the case materials and administrative materials on the fact of an accident dated August 08, 2010, received from the Petrograd OGIBDD, after listening to the conclusion of the prosecutor Merkusheva M.A., who believed that, given the insignificance of the offense committed, it is possible to release Sh. complaint subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
As seen from the case file, according to the certificate of a traffic accident on a car "Nisan", r.z.<...>damage was found to the left front fender, front bumper on the left (case file 18). When examining a car VAZ-21120, m.r.z.<...>damage was found to the rear bumper on the left (case file 17). According to witness M.A. it was driver Sh. who was involved in the accident he left.
In addition, Sh. himself, in his explanations, did not deny the fact of travel<...>at the car park<...>, but I didn’t hear the sounds indicating an accident, I didn’t feel the impact. Grounds for slander witness M.A. Sh. not established. In addition, the totality of the evidence presented in the present case is sufficient, the appointment of an autotechnical examination in the present case is not required, since the damage received by Ya.A. and Sh., are characteristic of this accident, are established by the vehicle inspection protocol (case sheet 17), drawn up by the appropriate official.
Thus, during the consideration of the present case, the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court examined all the evidence presented in the case, reasonably established both the fact of a traffic accident, in which Sh. was a participant, and the fact that he left the scene of an accident.
In view of the foregoing, taking into account the circumstances of the case, that the victim Ya.A. considers the damage caused to his car insignificant and does not insist on severe punishment for Sh. Sh.'s actions contain all the elements of an offence, it in itself does not contain any dangerous threats to the individual, society or the state, and therefore I believe it is possible to release Sh. from administrative responsibility due to the insignificance of the offense with the announcement of an oral reprimand.
Guided by Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

Cancel the decision of the judge of the Petrogradsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated November 03, 2010 in respect of Sh.
Based on Art. 2.9 Administrative Code proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to Sh. to stop due to the insignificance of the offense committed and release him from administrative responsibility, limiting himself to an oral remark.

Judge
Litova L.A.

SAINT PETERSBURG CITY COURT

Judge Portnov A.M. Case N 5-222/10

Judge of the St. Petersburg City Court Lidiya Antonovna Litova, having considered on July 8, 2010 in an open court session in the courtroom under Secretary R., an administrative case on a complaint against the decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St.
L.,<...>

Installed:

According to protocol 78 BX N 2228-10 on an administrative offense of April 29, 2010 (case file 8) driver L. April 2, 2010 at 20 h. 00 min., driving a car "Honda Civic", m.r.z. N<...>, when driving along the street. Kamyshovaya, d. 2, in St. Petersburg, made contact with a Ford Transit car, m.r.z. N<...>, under the control of the driver S.I., after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, he left the scene of an accident, of which he was a participant.
By a decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated May 12, 2010 (case files 34 - 35), L. was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was sentenced to an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
Defender L. Murzin I.G., acting on the basis of a notarized power of attorney dated May 18, 2010 (case file 41), and L. sent complaints to the St. Petersburg City Court (case files 39 - 40, 42 - 44 ), similar in content, in which (each on his own behalf) indicate that they do not agree with the decision of the judge of the district court. Analyze the evidence available in the case file S.I. It is noted that the judge's decision did not assess the evidence underlying the accusation, did not examine and evaluate him, L., the explanations refuting the circumstances set forth in the case file, as well as the explanations of witnesses P.A. and F.A. Since the conclusions of the judge are not based on a comprehensive and complete clarification of all the circumstances of the case, they ask that the decision of the judge of the district court be canceled and the case sent for a new trial.
A telegram was sent to L.'s place of residence to appear before the St. Petersburg City Court (case file 52). As follows from the postal notification (case sheet 54), the apartment is closed, the addressee for the telegram is not. Defender L. Murzin I.G. appeared at the hearing and confirmed that L. had been notified of the date of the hearing. Since Chapter 30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which establishes the procedure for reviewing decisions on cases of administrative offenses, does not contain a requirement according to which the presence of a person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted on the basis of his complaint or the complaint of his defense counsel in a higher court is mandatory, and the court were involved in the accident victim C.AND. and defender L. Murzin I.G., and there are enough materials to consider the case on the merits, I consider it possible to consider the case in the absence of L.
At the hearing defender Murzin AND.T. upheld the complaints.
The second participant in the accident, the victim S.I. testified that on April 2, 2010, from contact with him, S.I., the car "Ford Transit", g.r.z. N<...>, with the car "Honda Civic", m.r.z. N<...>, which happened at the sight of driver L., the polishing on his car was damaged - a strip of red paint about 20 - 25 cm remained on the right side. He considers such damage to be insignificant. Currently, L. has no claims against the driver and does not insist on his severe punishment.
Having checked the case file, I believe that, taking into account the insignificance of the offense committed, it is possible to release L. from administrative responsibility with the announcement of an oral reprimand on the following grounds.
As seen from the case file, according to the certificate of a traffic accident on a car "Ford Transit", r.z. N<...>, damage was found to the right sidewall (it is not indicated what exactly the damage was - dents, scratches, chips, etc.). According to the testimony of the victim C.AND. it was driver L. who was involved in the accident he left. In addition, L. himself in his explanations (case file 16) did not deny the fact of contact with the Ford car, which hit his mirror.
Thus, during the consideration of the present case, the judge of the Primorsky District Court examined all the evidence presented in the case, reasonably established both the fact of a traffic accident, in which L. was a participant, and the fact that the latter left the scene of an accident.
In view of the above, taking into account the circumstances of the case, what the victim C.AND. has no claims against L. and he has suffered minor material damage, I believe that although L.’s actions formally contain all the elements of an offense, it in itself does not contain any dangerous threats to the individual, society or state, and therefore I believe it is possible to release L. from administrative responsibility due to the insignificance of the offense with the announcement of an oral reprimand.
Guided by Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

The decision of the judge of the Primorsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated May 12, 2010 in relation to L. is canceled.
Based on Art. 2.9 Administrative Code proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to L. to stop due to the insignificance of the offense committed and release him from administrative responsibility, limiting himself to an oral remark.

Judge
Litova L.A.

3. Hiding from the court for more than 3 months from the date of the offense (traffic accident)

Article 25.1. The person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted in a case of an administrative offense

1. A person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted on a case of an administrative offense shall have the right to get acquainted with all the materials of the case, give explanations, present evidence, file petitions and challenges, use legal assistance of a defense counsel, as well as other procedural rights in accordance with this Code.
2. The case on an administrative offense is considered with the participation of the person in respect of whom the proceedings on the case on an administrative offense are being conducted. In the absence of the specified person, the case may be considered only in the cases provided for by paragraph 3 of Article 28.6 of this Code, or if there is evidence that the person was duly notified of the place and time of the consideration of the case, and if the person did not file a request to postpone the consideration of the case, or if such a request was left without satisfaction.
(as amended by Federal Law No. 210-FZ of July 24, 2007)
3. A judge, body, official considering a case on an administrative offense shall have the right to recognize as obligatory the presence during the consideration of the case of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted.
When considering a case on an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest or administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or a stateless person, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
4. A minor who is being prosecuted in a case of an administrative offense may be removed for the time of consideration of the circumstances of the case, the discussion of which may have a negative impact on the specified person.

Since the punishment under article 12.27 part 2 includes, among other things, arrest, the court cannot consider the case in the absence of the LVOK. If he prodynamizes somewhere for 3 months, then the case is subject to termination due to the statute of limitations

Example

BULLETIN
JUDICIAL PRACTICE
SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL COURT

(FOURTH QUARTER 2009)
9. When considering a case on an administrative offense entailing an administrative arrest, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.

(extract)

By the decision of the judge of the Novouralsk City Court Z., an administrative penalty was imposed in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 year for committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The specified punishment was imposed on him for the fact that he, driving a VAZ-21102 car, in Novouralsk on the street. Promyshlennoy ran over a parked VAZ-2107 car belonging to V., after which, in violation of clause 2.5 of the Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, he left the scene of the traffic accident.
In the complaint, Z. raised the issue of canceling the decision and releasing him from punishment due to the insignificance of the offense. In support of the arguments, he indicated that he had not noticed how he had hit another car, the damage to the car was minor, the victim had been paid an insurance premium.
Having checked the materials of the administrative case, having studied the arguments of the complaint, after listening to the speech of the defense counsel E., the judge of the regional court found the decision to be canceled on the following grounds.
The sanction of part 2 of article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for punishment in the form of administrative arrest, in this case, in accordance with paragraph 2 of part 3 of article 25.1 of the said Code, the presence of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
However, the judge of the Novouralsk city court violated these requirements of the law and the case on an administrative offense was considered in the absence of Z.
In this regard, the decision of the judge of the Novouralsk City Court was canceled, and the proceedings were terminated on the basis of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Solution
Judge of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court
dated September 04, 2009, case N 71-307 / 2009

Another example

MOSCOW CITY COURT

Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court Dmitriev A.N., having considered R.’s supervisory complaint against the decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of the City of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 05, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense,

Installed:

On March 19, 2009, R. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and he was sentenced to an administrative penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of 1 (one) year.
By the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 05, 2009, the said decision of the judge of the district court was left unchanged, and R.'s complaint was not satisfied.
In this complaint, R. asks for the cancellation of the court decisions that took place in the case, referring to the fact that the case was considered incompletely and not comprehensively, that he was not present at the court session during the consideration of the case in the district court due to illness, although in accordance with Part 3 Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, his participation in the hearing was mandatory.
Having checked the materials of the administrative case, having studied the arguments of the complaint, I find the decision of the justice of the peace and the decision of the judge of the district court to be canceled on the following grounds.
In accordance with Art. 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the tasks of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution of the decision, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of administrative offenses.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a case on an administrative offense is considered with the participation of the person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted on the case of an administrative offense. In the absence of the said person, the case may be considered only in cases where there is evidence that the person was duly notified of the place and time of the consideration of the case, and if the person did not file a petition to postpone the consideration of the case, or if such a petition was left without satisfaction.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a judge, body, official considering a case of an administrative offense has the right to recognize the mandatory presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted during the consideration of the case. When considering a case on an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest or administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or a stateless person, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
It can be seen from the materials of the case that the judge of the district court, considering the case of an administrative offense in the absence of R., came to the conclusion that his presence is not necessary when considering the case of an administrative offense, however, this conclusion of the judge of the district court is not based on the law.
Considering the case in the absence of R., the judge of the district court did not take into account that the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for, among other things, administrative arrest. By virtue of the above provision h. 3 Article. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the presence of R. during the consideration of the case was mandatory, regardless of what punishment was imposed on him following the results of the consideration of the case.
The judge of the Moscow City Court did not give a proper assessment to the noted violation of the law.
Thus, the decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of the City of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 05, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation cannot be recognized as legal and are subject to cancellation.
In accordance with paragraph 6 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility is a circumstance excluding the proceedings.
Proceedings in the present case in accordance with paragraph. 6 h. 1 Article. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is subject to termination due to the expiration of the established paragraph 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of a two-month limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility.
Based on the above, guided by art. 30.13, Art. 30.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Resolved:

The decision of the judge of the Nagatinskiy District Court of the City of Moscow dated March 19, 2009 and the decision of the judge of the Moscow City Court dated May 05, 2009 in the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to R. cancel, terminate the proceedings on the basis of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.

Vice-chairman
Moscow City Court
A.N.DMITRIEV

NEWS BULLETIN
JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF THE ARKHANGELSK REGIONAL COURT
ON CASES ON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2009
3.4. Consideration of a case on an administrative offense

When considering a case on an administrative offense entailing an administrative arrest, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.

The decision of the justice of the peace gr. T. found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, with the imposition of punishment in the form of administrative arrest.
The deputy chairman of the regional court canceled the decision of the magistrate, terminating the proceedings, stating the following.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when considering a case on an administrative offense entailing an administrative arrest, the presence of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted is mandatory.
In violation of this norm, the case was considered in the absence of c. T than violated his right to judicial protection.
This violation of the law is a significant violation of the procedural rights of the person in respect of whom the proceedings are being conducted, and is an unconditional basis for the cancellation of the judge's decision (Decree No. 4a-203).

4. Seek arrest

Part 2 of Article 12.27 provides for punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive or arrest for up to 15 days.
For some citizens, it is easier, morally and for other reasons, to serve several days under arrest than to lose their right.
But the courts do not always go for the application of such punishment, especially for minor accidents. Only if you like)))

5. Negotiate with the victim until the moment of communication with traffic cops

This is the most ideal and simple option. Sometimes it works. To do this, try to find the victim before visiting the traffic police and agree with him that he does not recognize you and your car when you and he are called to the traffic police for identification.
Then he "does not recognize" you and your car, writes a statement about the termination of proceedings on the case, the traffic cop will simply close the case. And you feel good and the victim - you will not remain a pedestrian, the victim does not need to breed bureaucracy and he will restore his losses as quickly as possible. I recommend starting with this option.

6. State in court that the vehicle was not driven by you, but by another person by proxy

At the time of the trial, the court takes time, then the court is presented with evidence of the transfer of the vehicle to another person - a power of attorney, acts of acceptance and transfer, you can bring this other person to court to testify.
Taking into account the statute of limitations of 3 months from the date of the accident, this other person simply will not have time to bring to administrative responsibility.
But the damage will have to be compensated to him - to another person. So solve all the questions with him in this regard.
And remember that in this case, the insurance company, after the insurance payment, has the right to file a recourse claim against your kind assistant.

So, which option to choose - decide for yourself, taking into account the prevailing practice in your region.

Reading time: 16 minutes

Some motorists who are unwittingly involved in an accident believe that leaving the scene of an accident will allow them to avoid the difficulties that the proceedings entail. Perhaps they are in a hurry on business, are in shock, or simply believe that they are not caught - not a thief. However, it cannot be ruled out that the traffic police will be able to find witnesses who saw the numbers of the car involved in the collision. Even if there were no casualties, and the runaway driver is innocent, his actions can cause a lot of unpleasant consequences.

Accident and duties of drivers

To understand what leaving a place is, it is necessary to determine which event can be considered an accident and which is not. The Rules of the Road (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) define a traffic accident as a situation that occurred during the movement of a vehicle and its participation, as a result of which material damage was caused or harm was caused to the health or life of people.

According to the law, each participant must act according to the scheme prescribed by the Rules.

One of the points of the Rules requires that the driver involved in the incident remains at the scene. If he leaves, then, as follows from the traffic rules, this is leaving the scene of an accident, for which certain sanctions are provided.

The second section of the Rules implies that this requirement applies not only to the guilty driver, but also to the injured person. Consequently, anyone who escaped from the scene of an accident will face sanctions, also stipulated by the Rules.

However, there are exceptions to each rule, therefore, under certain conditions, participants are given the right to independently determine whether it is possible to leave the scene of an accident without informing the traffic police. In particular, the new procedure for drivers, which came into force in July 2015, involves the registration of some incidents without the participation of the police and insurers.

Legal requirements

In connection with a traffic accident, each participant has certain responsibilities. Non-fulfillment of duty, which is hiding from the scene of an accident, is regulated by article 12.27 (part 2) of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses, as well as other legal acts.

It should be noted that the boundaries within which this article of the Code of Administrative Offenses applies for leaving the scene of an accident are determined by the circumstances accompanying the accident. For example, the lack of agreement between the participants in the collision or damage to health indicates that it is forbidden to leave the scene of the accident.

The measure of responsibility for the fact that the driver fled the scene of an accident is assigned under the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, taking into account:

• data contained in the protocol of the traffic police;
• the severity of the accident;
• the presence of victims;
• characteristics of the offender and other factors.

As an administrative penalty for leaving the scene of an accident, the driver may be deprived of the right to drive a car for a period of 1–1.5 years or arrested for 15 days. Practice shows that most of the processes end with the deprivation of the offender's driver's license.

The driver may face even more severe consequences if his case is considered under the article for leaving the scene of an accident as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Such a person may be found guilty of committing a crime under the influence of alcohol if, after being detained (paragraph 102 of the Decree of December 9, 2008 No. 25 “On judicial practice in cases of crimes related to traffic violations”).

If the victim was seriously injured or died, the driver will be punished for leaving the scene of an accident under a different article and even under a different law. In this situation, the punishment will be determined in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Article 264).

If there are no victims of the accident, the driver will not be left without his license in every situation. As indicated in paragraph 6 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is impossible to proceed with the case of leaving the scene of an accident, and the initiated proceedings should be terminated if the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility has expired. These terms are not subject to restoration (as amended on December 4, 2006 No. 203-FZ).

In addition, in some cases, the court takes into account Part 1 of Art. 4.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. According to this article, sanctions for leaving the scene of an accident may be imposed, taking into account circumstances mitigating liability.

Responsibility of participants in the collision

First of all, you need to figure out what kind of responsibility awaits the driver who fled the scene of an accident? Whether he will be fined, arrested or deprived of his rights depends on what kind of charge he will be charged with. In this situation, two options are possible:

1. In the absence of victims, the act is qualified as an administrative offense. Formally, a citizen who:
   • left the scene in his car;
   • left, leaving the car at the scene of the accident;
   • left (to the store, for documents, and so on) and was not in place at the time of the arrival of the traffic police patrol.

   If, for a good reason, the driver left the scene of an accident, but returned, according to the rules of 2020, he will still incur responsibility, but not so severe. Since this act cannot be called an escape, it will most likely be qualified not under the 2nd, but under the 1st part of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and will be punished with a fine.

2. If there are victims, the fugitive faces criminal liability for leaving the scene of an accident. Only an experienced auto-lawyer can refute the presented accusation. To help a citizen avoid severe sanctions in the form of deprivation of a driver's license, it is necessary to develop a competent protection strategy. The violator himself is unlikely to succeed, so he should seek the help of a specialist who deals mainly with “traffic” law in advance.

Unfortunately, there is still no law imposing responsibility on the one who provoked the accident and left. Still, there are reasons to expect that the situation will change. For example, the court of St. Petersburg issued a guilty verdict on a person who created an emergency situation by not giving way to an oncoming car, as a result of which it crashed into a tree. Law-abiding motorists believe that this precedent will protect their rights.

If the perpetrator left the scene of the accident

Both the innocent and the guilty party may be interested in: if the culprit of the accident fled the scene, what threatens him? The legislation provides for different types of punishment, the degree of which depends on the severity of the offense and the presence of intentional intent. The culprit may:

• deliberately leave the scene of a collision in order to avoid liability;
• not notice minor contact;
• have objective reasons to be elsewhere.

The purpose of each preventive measure is to exclude attempts to evade responsibility or distort the causes of the incident.

It is logical that the victim may wonder what to do if the culprit fled during an accident. First of all, you should give up persecution. Instead, follow these simple guidelines:

• fulfill the requirements of traffic rules for the current situation;
• report the accident to the traffic police and ask for instructions (perhaps, in case of a simple accident, the driver will be invited to the traffic police post);
• collect testimonies and contact details of eyewitnesses of the incident (passengers, pedestrians, taxi drivers);
• save the recording from the DVR.

Since every driver can become the culprit of an accident, you need to be prepared for all the consequences of what will happen if you fled the scene of an accident. For example, we must not forget about the rights of victims, whose property, life and health are protected by the Federal OSAGO Law. The insurance company will compensate for the damage, but if the culprit escapes, the insurer will show him. As a result, all material damage will have to be paid by the guilty party at its own expense.

If the victim leaves

There is a misconception that if the victim left the scene of an accident, this is his own business. However, as mentioned above, the duties of the perpetrator and the victim are identical. And this applies not only to an accident that occurred while the vehicle was moving, but to any participation of the car in the incident.

Having discovered damage to a car left in the courtyard of the house, its owner must acknowledge the fact of the accident and take the actions prescribed by the Rules for its registration.

Otherwise, he faces charges for leaving the scene of the accident, even if he was not present when the damage was done. Although it will take some time for the patrol to arrive, registering the event will protect against the hassle of waiting for a subpoena or a call from the police. If time is limited, you can call the traffic police and offer to personally appear at the post or the nearest unit.

Also, one cannot discount what will happen if in 2020 the victim leaves the scene of an accident, and the culprit decides to return. It is possible that he will still call the patrol and present the scheme of the incident in a favorable light for himself. After that, it will be incredibly difficult to refute the recorded data in court.

Both leave the scene of the incident

You can often hear about how both participants left the scene of an accident, deciding that there were no obstacles to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It cannot be ruled out that later internal damage to cars will be revealed, which remained unnoticed during a cursory inspection. The insurance company does not compensate for the replacement of an expensive part, since the fact of the accident was not recorded.

In addition, it may turn out that in a state of shock, the victim did not feel pain, but his health was harmed.

If both drivers left the scene of an accident, both of them lose: the victim does not receive insurance payment for treatment, and the culprit is prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law."

Another reason to strictly follow the requirements of traffic rules is as follows: the court may decide that both participants in the accident left the scene of the accident, even if they were only trying to clear the roadway. Having a diagram of the incident and other collected facts will help prove the absence of intent.

It is important to remember this requirement: what punishment awaits the accused for leaving the scene of an accident depends on a number of factors, including how the court qualifies their violation - as a failure to fulfill the duty of a driver or as an escape.

Preventive measure

The question of what punishment violators should be subjected to for leaving the scene of an accident in 2020 is of interest not only to potential participants in the accident, but also to legislators. Some politicians believe that the punishment should be differentiated. In their opinion, what threatens a person who left the scene of an accident for the first time in 2020 should be different from the consequences provided for a driver who has repeatedly violated traffic rules. Vyacheslav Lysakov, a deputy from United Russia, believes that in case of minor damage, a fine of no more than 5,000 rubles can be imposed, but depriving rights is too strict.

Arguing about what punishment for leaving the scene of an accident in 2020 awaits violators, lawmakers suggest taking into account the presence of victims, as well as the scale of material damage.

If we talk about compensation for harm, victims often wonder how to find the culprit of the accident if he disappeared, because the insurer may assume that the accident was set up on purpose. In this situation, you should try to write down everything that you managed to remember about the "fugitive" and his car:

• model, color, special features of the vehicle;
• registration numbers;
• damage received;
• gender, age and external features of the driver.

This data will help in finding the car and identifying the culprit. If it is not found, the victim can apply for compensation for damage to health in the Russian Union of Motor Insurers (RSA). Upon completion of the investigation, the case materials from the traffic police and an application should be submitted to the PCA.

To justify the amount of the requested compensation, the victim must present the results of an independent examination. If the vehicle has been repaired, proof of payment for parts and services must be provided.

Penalties

If the court qualifies the driver's actions as non-fulfillment of duties, he will face a monetary penalty in the amount of 1,000 rubles (as amended by federal laws No. 116-FZ of 22.06.2007 and No. 210-FZ of 24.07.2007). What is the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident? In 2020, the current legislation does not provide for material sanctions for this offense.

Since in most cases the court qualifies this offense in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 12.27, only the following punishment is provided for leaving the scene of an accident: stay in a penitentiary institution or deprivation of a certificate. Instead of a fine, the specified measures will still be applied to the violator, even if the parties managed to reach an agreement.

A driver who, after escaping, wants to relieve stress with the help of alcoholic beverages, needs to know what kind of fine awaits him if he left the scene of an accident.

According to the Code of Administrative Offenses, the violator will have to pay 30,000 rubles if he uses alcohol, drugs or psychotropic drugs before the investigation is completed and his condition is examined.

Along with retribution for the fact that the violator fled the scene of an accident, there are also fines for violating the Rules that led to an accident: driving into the oncoming lane, ignoring the requirements of road signs, untimely switching on of direction indicators, and so on.

Deprivation of rights

When choosing preventive measures, the drafters of the SDA sought to reduce the number of those who want to break the law. Considering what threatens if you leave the scene of an accident, a much larger number of participants in the accident are ready to go through the procedure for its registration.

When choosing a punishment, in most cases, judges impose deprivation of a driver's license. The severity of punishment that threatens a driver who fled the scene of an accident may be explained by the assumption that the culprit deliberately wanted to avoid punishment for what he had done.

According to the analysis of the results of the consideration of cases under Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the metropolitan justice of the peace courts imposed deprivation of rights for leaving the scene of an accident in almost 95% of cases. This applies even to simple situations like minor contact with a neighbor's car in the yard.

When assigning deprivation of rights for leaving the scene of an accident, the judge, as a rule, does not take into account the personal reasons why the offender asks to change the sentence (for example, if he needs the rights to perform professional duties). Defending your interests, it is better to focus on the absence of malicious intent. Perhaps the court qualifies the actions of the driver under the 1st part of the article, which provides for a fine

There are people injured

Despite the efforts of law enforcement agencies, there are constant reports in the media about accidents with victims who were not provided with assistance. Under the circumstances, the court has a completely different approach to what punishment to apply if the driver fled the scene of an accident in 2020. Often in such situations, a criminal investigation begins, after which the judge passes a sentence, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors.

Often a person who hit a pedestrian and fled the scene of an accident is afraid that he is facing a sentence, so he resorts to the help of lawyers. It must be remembered that even a good lawyer will find it difficult to convince the court that the one who left the victim without help and fled from justice did not have bad motives.

Considering what threatens if he left the scene of an accident, if a pedestrian was injured, drivers should remember: no matter how shocked this event plunges them, in no case should they leave the scene of the accident. Perhaps the injuries are not very severe, and running away will definitely aggravate the guilt. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that timely assistance will save the life of the victim.

Even if the driver left the car at the scene of the accident and left in a state of shock without taking care of the victim, this is considered an escape. It will not be difficult to find the hiding person by registration numbers. If the victim needs long-term treatment, the offender can spend from 6 months to 5 years in prison.

What should be done by drivers who are involved in such an incident is described in the article "".

But if the victim assures that everything is in order? In order to protect yourself from what will happen if you leave the scene of an accident in 2020, it is recommended to take a receipt from the victim: this document must confirm the absence of claims and the need for emergency assistance.

Fatal outcome

The traffic rules contain guidance on how to act if people are injured as a result of an accident. When victims appear, the driver may not be able to resist the temptation to hide. He is driven by the fear of facing the consequences - a criminal penalty imposed in 2020 for leaving the scene of an accident.

The offender must be aware that many specialists will be involved in his search: operatives, investigators, investigators on the wanted list. Therefore, retribution is only a matter of time.

It is not worth counting on mitigation of consequences for someone who fled the scene of an accident. The severity of the misconduct will be aggravated by the fact that death could have occurred as a result of failure to provide timely assistance.

No casualties

As mentioned above, for leaving the scene of an accident without victims in 2020, a punishment is provided in the form of deprivation of a driver's license. If the car with which the collision occurred was equipped with a DVR, it will not be difficult to identify the violator by license plates. In addition, in the village there will always be witnesses to the incident.

For information on what to do when becoming a member of "", read the corresponding article.

One of the reasons why someone leaves the scene of an accident is urgent business (airplane, business meeting, etc.). Because there may be reasons for the driver to rush, the penalties for leaving the scene of an accident uninjured vary in some cases. For example, once a participant in the accident, delivering an asphalt roller, left the scene of a collision so as not to delay the progress of road work. The Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg came to the conclusion that the driver acted out of extreme necessity and did not deprive him of his rights.

Can an accident in which an animal was injured or killed be considered an accident without casualties? It is not uncommon for drivers to hit a dog in a car and leave the area of ​​the accident. It is likely that their actions are due to the fact that they do not consider hitting small domestic animals a violation, such as hitting cattle.

And yet, according to Article 137 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, pets are considered property, and in this case, the rules on property apply.

Hitting an animal is a traffic accident. It can be assumed that in this case it is necessary to act as in a normal accident.

There are precedents for bringing drivers to administrative responsibility for hitting a pet.

in the parking lot

Quite often there is an accident in the parking lot, the culprit of which disappeared. Often the contact between cars is so insignificant that it can go unnoticed by one of the drivers. How to act in this case? It is impossible to leave this place, especially since it is quite easy to identify the culprit in the parking lot: surveillance cameras, video recorders in cars, and witnesses can notice him.

If the person involved in the accident believes that the damage is too small to be significant, and it is not known when the second driver will return, do not leave a note with your contact details and leave. This is also a violation of the Rules and is subject to liability for leaving the scene of an accident.

In the case when the accused did not notice the contact, but received a summons, it is extremely undesirable to avoid a visit to the court session. In case of failure to appear, the court will decide without him what punishment to impose for leaving the scene of an accident in the parking lot; on the contrary, being present, you can always say something in your defense. If the court considers the offense insignificant, the accused may be released from administrative liability.

What to do if, after an accident in a parking lot, the culprit fled, and the victim did not see how everything happened? As in other cases, the actions provided for by the SDA should be taken. While waiting for a traffic police patrol, it's worth a try.

statute of limitations

Although the law provides for punishment for leaving the scene of an accident, the statute of limitations in some cases allows it to be avoided. However, it should be remembered that this applies only to minor damage.

According to article 12.27 (part 2), the maximum period for searching for a person who has fled the scene of an accident is 2 months. This period is intended to search for the offender, draw up a protocol and transfer the case to court. The judge has 30 more days to choose a measure of restraint.

A participant in an accident who fled the scene of an accident may be interested in: “How do I know if they are looking for me?” They are undoubtedly looking for the culprit, since the victim needs to repair the car for something, and the officials need to bring the violator to justice.

You can find out if the car is on the wanted list of the traffic police by reading the instructions in the article: "".

Another question that a violator of the law may have is how quickly they will find someone who fled the scene of an accident. Given the number of security cameras in major cities, the fugitive will be tracked down pretty soon. The Potok number scanning system, which is equipped with traffic police posts, also helps with this.

According to statistics, the effectiveness of search activities exceeds 82%.

Any negligent driver would like to know how to avoid statute of limitations for fleeing the scene of an accident. If conscience does not induce to confess to a misconduct and give the victim the opportunity to receive insurance compensation, then all that remains is to wait. If the police do not meet the deadline, a decision will be made to stop the search.

This issue is discussed in more detail in the article "".

Insurance

Typically, the payment of compensation for losses occurs upon the provision of a set of documents to the insurance company. But is it possible to count on if there was a departure from the scene of an accident with one participant, and the insurer of the guilty party is unknown?

OSAGO

Today it is widely believed that if the culprit of the accident fled the scene, then it is impossible to receive payments under OSAGO. But in fact, such issues can be resolved even in the absence of the guilty party.

In order for the IC of the victim to make a payment, you need to file a claim with the court. Through an examination, the court will find out how justified the claims of the victim are and which party is to blame for the accident.

The driver-culprit, who fled the scene of an accident, will have to incur not only an administrative penalty, but also pay damages to the victim. Federal legislation and OSAGO Rules (clause 76-d) give the insurer the right to present recourse claims to the perpetrator of the accident.

So, before you leave, you should think about what material expenses are coming if the participant in the accident fled the scene, being his culprit. Other expenses (state duty, lawyer's services) will also have to be reimbursed.

More information about the calculation of compensation is described in the material called "".

CASCO

The CASCO insurance policy provides for the payment of funds even if the perpetrator leaves the scene of the accident. In order to receive compensation, you must take a number of actions:

• call the traffic police;
• do not move the car;
• carefully read the accident protocol and make sure that the inspector took into account all the details of the event.

About what documents will be needed, and what mistakes should be avoided when contacting the UK, is described in the article "".

When can you leave the scene?

The law stipulates several situations in which it is allowed to leave the scene of an accident:

1. A trip to the nearest traffic police post to register the incident (after drawing up the scheme together with the second driver).
2. Minor damage and no claims (by agreement).
3. Europrotocol procedure.

These options are valid only in case of material damage. If people were injured in the accident, it is forbidden to leave the scene of the accident. The only exception is the presence of victims in need of emergency care. In this situation, the driver is obliged to take them, immediately return and continue to act in accordance with the traffic rules.

If there is no damage

If both drivers admit that there are no injuries or they are insignificant, it is not necessary to call the traffic police. Participants in a collision can confirm that the parties:

• no traces of contact were found (or they are insignificant);
• do not see the need to call the police;
• have no claims to each other;
• continued to move by mutual agreement.

If the culprit immediately covered a small amount of damage in cash, this should be mentioned in the receipt. The presence of this document will protect it from subsequent claims of the injured party.

Europrotocol

Fearing what threatens for leaving the scene of an accident, drivers sometimes hesitate to register an event without a traffic inspection. However, the law will not prosecute the participants in the accident if they have drawn up an accident notice in accordance with the Europrotocol procedure.

To file an accident, you need to make sure that the following conditions are met:

1. 2 cars collided.
2. Both drivers are insured under OSAGO.
3. Damage was caused only to vehicles.
4. There were no casualties.
5. Disagreements between the parties are permissible, but they determine the amount of compensation that can be received for the damage caused.

It should be remembered that insurance compensation for damage under these circumstances does not exceed 100,000 rubles. But from October 1, 2019, this amount can be increased to 400 thousand rubles, provided that the participants do not have disagreements in determining the culprit and the circumstances of the accident are recorded using the special application “Accident. Europrotocol”.

The subtleties of registration of such an accident are discussed in the material called "".

Other nuances

Situations often arise in which none of the participants suspects that they are leaving the scene of a collision. Unfortunately, even the lack of intent or inattention will not affect what will happen if you leave the scene of an accident. Of course, most drivers prefer administrative arrest to deprivation of their rights, but the final decision is made by the court.

Unintentional abandonment

Sometimes the service of the subpoena takes the motorist by surprise. Only at this moment does he find out that he became a participant in the accident. What is waiting for him?

The issue of leaving the scene of an accident if the driver did not notice contact with another car is considered the most controversial in judicial practice, since in this situation it is quite difficult to identify the presence of intent.

Although the driver who left the scene of the accident without noticing it did not intend to break the law, he may be left without a driver's license for at least a year. Therefore, it is better not to ignore the invitation to court, because failure to appear will be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

At the same time, the legislation provides for mitigation of punishment for unintentionally leaving the scene of an accident in 2020. However, it is quite difficult for a driver who finds himself in such a situation to achieve a commutation of the sentence on his own. It is better to seek the help of a lawyer.

Of course, if the participant left the scene of an accident in a state of shock, one cannot speak of an offense due to inattention. In this case, the line of defense will be built differently.

How to avoid punishment

Forfeiture and recourse action is a good reason to look for ways to avoid liability for leaving the scene of an accident. One way is to try to justify your actions with special circumstances and provide documentary evidence.

The second way to avoid punishment for leaving the scene of an accident is to emphasize the insignificance of the offense. In some cases, a case may be dismissed if:

• the victim suffered insignificant damage (determined taking into account his financial situation);
• his material claims are satisfied by the culprit voluntarily (there is a corresponding petition).

An experienced lawyer will be able to find the so-called loopholes in the law if the client left with an accident. This is better than lying low and waiting for the end of the period appointed for the search for the offender.

How to prove innocence

In the event of an offense, one cannot count on the sympathy of officials. But are the actions of traffic police officers who draw up a protocol on leaving the scene of an accident always reasonable? In order to refute the accusation, it is necessary to carefully analyze the information about the circumstances of the “flight”. It may be possible to identify them:

• contradictions;
• errors in the collection of evidence;
• unreliability of explanations of the second participant/witnesses;
• the absence of irrefutable facts regarding the time of the collision;
• bias in schema fixation.

What should I do if I fled the scene of an accident in which there are no eyewitnesses to the event, and the second participant incorrectly describes the events? It makes sense to initiate the appointment of a technical expertise.

Only an expert can make adequate conclusions regarding the nature of the damage to the vehicle or restore the picture of events. Even if you have to pay a substantial amount, it is still cheaper than the cost of compensation for material, moral damage, as well as harm to life or health and a recourse claim.

It is especially important to conduct an examination if they try to accuse the driver of what he did not commit. There is a scheme according to which the owner of the car chooses a "victim" and informs the traffic police of her registration numbers. Instead of immediately paying for repairs out of your own pocket, you can try to prove that you were not involved in the accident. An expert trasologist will help with this.

How such an investigation is carried out is described in the article "".

Judicial practice shows that unintentional leaving the scene of an accident entails various consequences. To a large extent, the decision of the court is influenced by the presence of intent.

Example 1

If the perpetrator of the accident in which people were injured left, his actions can be qualified as leaving the victim in danger. Here is one of the cases. The driver, who at night hit a pedestrian on the highway, left him lying on the side of the road in an unconscious state and fled the scene of the accident. A few hours later, a truck driver took the victim to the hospital, but he still died.

The expert found that the timely assistance of specialists could save a person's life.

Two articles were applied to the culprit: Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - violation of the rules for operating the vehicle, which led to severe damage to health, and Art. 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - leaving a person in danger; he was sentenced to prison.

Example 2

An offense is considered quite differently if the driver did not notice the accident and left. In judicial practice, there are many cases when lawyers managed to achieve the abolition of punishment in the form of deprivation of rights. For example, in March 2012, a driver who did not notice the accident was found guilty of an offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and was deprived of his rights for a period of 1 year.

During the investigation, a forensic examination was carried out, which did not allow to exclude the possibility of contact between the cars. The lawyer built a defense strategy on the fact that the collision did not take place. The results of the forensic examination were analyzed by independent experts. They came to the unequivocal conclusion that there was no contact between the cars (the location of the hooks of the manipulator of the client's car did not coincide with the place of damage on the plaintiff's vehicle).

During the consideration of the case in the court of second instance, the witness was interrogated again. He said that he did not see the collision, only heard a sound, after which the alarm went off. Since construction work was taking place in the yard, anything could be the source of the sound. As a result, the client was found not guilty, and the rights were returned to him.

How to leave the scene of an accident: Video

The meaning of this concept, which and whose actions fall under it, what [responsibility is established by law for leaving the scene of an accident] and how such cases are considered in practice, on what the result of their consideration may depend - this article is devoted to these and other interesting issues.

Legislation with comments

In order to understand all this, it is necessary to analyze a number of legislative norms, and you need to start with Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which actually determines what threatens the driver who left the scene of an accident.

You can easily get acquainted with the norm itself by simply clicking on the link. But is it clear what the phrase “leaving the scene of an accident” used by the legislator means? What is meant by the word "abandonment", how are the boundaries of the "place" defined? what kind of actions should be performed by a citizen in order to have grounds for bringing him to the aforesaid responsibility?

Believe me, it will not be possible to find clearly formulated and understandable answers to these questions in the law, which is often used by some not very conscientious traffic police officers, trying to mislead citizens regarding the legal qualification of their actions.

That is why the meaning of the concept of “leaving the scene of an accident” is the most important issue that needs to be sorted out, which we will certainly do. But first, let's analyze this norm in those parts of it that are clearly stated by the legislator.

Who is responsible for leaving the scene of an accident?

The answer to this question is contained in the norm itself: only the driver who was involved in the accident. And no one else.

For legal prosecution, a necessary condition is the fact that a citizen was driving a vehicle at the time of the incident, and the incident itself must meet all the signs of an accident, that is, be an event in which people died or were injured, or someone was damaged: vehicles were damaged , cargo, etc. (up to damage to clothing or any personal belongings - mainly concerns accidents with pedestrians).

Thus, a citizen cannot be held liable if, for example, as a result of contact of his vehicle with some other object, no damage was formed (this is rare, but it happens).

Similarly, one cannot be held liable for leaving the scene of an accident even if the citizen did not drive the vehicle at all directly at the time of the accident. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the main sign of driving a vehicle is its being in motion. Therefore, if the vehicle is not moving, no action is taken to set it in motion by a citizen, then such a citizen is not a driver. However, this should not be taken too literally and exaggeratedly, as, for example, one of our failed clients did, who, in all seriousness, was going to convince the court that he was not liable for leaving the scene of an accident, since the accident itself occurred under those circumstances that he stopped in front of a traffic light, after which another car crashed into the back of his already parked car. And since his car was standing at the time of the accident, he “did not drive” it and, accordingly, is not the subject of an offense. Of course, as it became known later, his arguments were not accepted by any of the courts through which his case passed, although he reached the supervisory authority with these arguments.

You should also be aware that now the arguments about the unlawfulness of bringing to responsibility do not work if the incident occurred not on the “road”, but on the “adjacent territory” (RF traffic rules share these concepts), although, it would seem, these arguments themselves suggest themselves from the definition of "accident". The fact is that back in February 2012, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made certain changes, according to which, in such cases, it “officially” ceased to matter where exactly the incident occurred - on the road or in the surrounding area. However, even before the introduction of these changes, the courts agreed with such arguments very reluctantly and infrequently.

For more details on what must be proven in such cases and how they are dealt with in courts in practice, see the Judicial Practice section.

You can still leave the scene of the accident

As it also follows from Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the responsibility established by it does not apply to all drivers who left the scene of an accident, but only to those who did it precisely contrary to the requirements of the Rules of the Road. Thus, the norm under consideration quite clearly indicates: the obligation of participants in an accident to remain in place is not at all unconditional - it all depends on the situation provided for by the legislator.

At the same time, in order to understand in what cases it is possible to leave the scene of an accident, and in what cases it is forbidden to do so, it is necessary to refer to paragraphs 2.6 and 2.6.1 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, and highlight from them the most important, in our opinion, aspects that are directly related to the topic under consideration.

From these paragraphs of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation as a whole, it follows that any possible accidents are divided by the legislator into two conditional groups: “accident with victims” and “accident without victims”.

And just by the circumstance whether people were injured in an accident, the possible options for further actions of drivers are mainly determined:

Leaving the scene of an accident with victims

If it so happened that people were injured in an accident, then the driver, among other things, is obliged to call doctors and police officers, and he cannot leave the scene of the accident upon the arrival of the latter. An exception occurs only in the most urgent situation - when it is urgently necessary to take the victims to the hospital, and only if this cannot be done on passing transport. But then the driver still has to return to the scene of the accident. Otherwise, he may be held liable for leaving the scene of an accident with victims.

Leaving the scene of an accident without injury

Of course, a similar responsibility is provided for leaving the scene of an accident without victims, but in these cases the legislator leaves the driver much more freedom of action.

The obligation to report to the police about an accident in which damage was caused only to property arises for the participants in the accident only in the event of disagreement between them about the circumstances under which the accident itself occurred, or about what damage was caused to their property as a result of the accident.

In other words, if at the scene of an accident, the participants in the accident cannot agree on its causes (for example, one driver claims that the accident occurred due to the fact that the other driver drove through a red traffic light, and the latter does not agree with this and claims, that he was moving on green) and/or visible consequences (for example, the alleged perpetrator of the accident does not agree that any particular body part was damaged as a result of the accident on the opponent’s car, believing that it could have been damaged long before the accident), it is necessary to report such an accident to the police. And then you just need to follow the instructions of the police officers regarding the place of registration of an accident with their participation. If you ignore this requirement and simply leave the scene of the accident, then in the future you can become held accountable under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

However, the law provides for the possibility of leaving the scene of an accident in which there were no victims - but only if its participants do not disagree about the circumstances under which it happened, as well as about the nature and visible damage to vehicles. In such cases, drivers may not report the incident to the police and leave the scene of the incident. They can draw up documents later, both with the participation of police officers, and on their own - by filling out the forms of notification of an accident - but only if two vehicles took part in the accident, the civil liability of the owners of which is insured, and the damage was caused only by these vehicles funds. Moreover, participants in such an accident may not draw up documents about the accident at all, if they do not consider it necessary.

Thus, in an accident in which only vehicles were damaged, and the damage to their owners is not significant, drivers may not report the incident to the police, do not draw up any documents and, by mutual agreement, simply drive away - “leaving the scene of an accident” in the context of Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, this will not be considered.

All drivers left the scene of the accident

However, in order to avoid trouble, in such cases, as in cases of self-registration of documents for an accident, it makes sense to exercise some caution.

Unfortunately, there are examples in practice when drivers, even after fulfilling all the conditions that allow them to leave the scene of an accident without contacting police officers, were subsequently involved under [Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for leaving the scene of an accident].

One of these stories happened to our client. Since the participants in the accident did not have any disagreements about its causes and consequences, they decided to fill out an accident notice themselves, after which both left the scene of the accident. However, the second participant had doubts about whether everything had been done correctly, in connection with which he returned back and called the traffic police. Some time later, our future client was summoned to the traffic police department, where, without thinking twice, a protocol was drawn up against him under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and sent the case to the magistrate, who also did not think long and found the citizen guilty of leaving the scene of an accident. The citizen turned to us, our lawyer filed a complaint against the decision, then participated in the second instance as a defender. This case, fortunately, ended happily.

Check out the solution:

And it wasn't even the hardest part. At least the second participant in the accident did not dispute the actual circumstances, and the court proceeded precisely from what actually happened. Nevertheless, a full-fledged litigation took place with an appeal against the decision, and in order to solve this problem that arose from scratch, the help of professional lawyers was needed.

But there are, after all, more difficult cases - when drivers agree to “disperse amicably” without any paperwork at all; one of them really leaves and honestly forgets about the incident, however, the other, just as in the story above, subsequently turns to the traffic police, but at the same time declares that the one who left the scene of the accident did this in the absence of any agreements. And that's all - they arrived: with a high degree of probability, a case will be initiated against the driver who left the scene of the accident under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and then it will be very difficult to fight off this accusation in court, if it can be done at all.

Therefore, in order to minimize the risks, in order to save money, time and nerves in the future, it is recommended to take care of the evidence right at the scene of the accident confirming that all participants in the accident do not need to document it. Such evidence can be, for example, receipts or video recordings of communication between participants in the incident. It is advisable to keep this evidence for at least 3 months from the date of the accident.

It is not worth hoping only for verbal agreements and “gentlemen's agreements”, because sometimes it goes sideways.

Punishment for leaving the scene of an accident

It also follows from the norm what punishment is provided for leaving the scene of an accident: deprivation of rights for a period of one to one and a half years, or administrative arrest for up to 15 days. Only such an alternative, and there are no other options. That is, having found a citizen guilty of this offense, the judge will not be able to impose on him, for example, [a fine for leaving the scene of an accident], because this would be contrary to the law.

Revision in 2020

At one time, it was rumored in certain circles that in 2020 the legislator wanted to revise the punishment for leaving the scene of an accident - either softening it in principle, or making it more differentiated - depending at least on the consequences of the accident itself. But, obviously, the legislator was busy with more important matters, and the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has not undergone any changes. Therefore, in 2020, the driver, if he left the scene of an accident, faces the same punishment as before.

At the same time, according to the same legislator, administrative arrest, even for the most minimal period, is considered a more severe measure than deprivation of rights, and for any period, which in practice leads to the fact that deprivation of a driver’s license for leaving the scene of an accident is assigned at times more often than administrative arrest.

Deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle - loss of work

From time to time, there are those who disagree with such “humanism”, mainly from among citizens, for whom the deprivation of the right to drive means the loss of their only source of income, who literally beg judges “not to deprive them of their rights”, but “to put them in prison for a day”. However, only a few “lucky ones” really achieve this. Some even try to appeal the rulings, asking the higher courts to replace them with the deprivation of the right to administrative arrest, but this never leads to the desired result, because the law expressly prohibits increasing administrative punishment when appealing against rulings.

In order to fully disclose the issue of punishment for the driver, if he really left the scene of an accident, it is necessary to consider situations in which the driver can generally be exempted from such liability. Fortunately, such cases are provided for by law.

On practice

One such situation is action in a state of emergency. In relation to the topic under consideration, this may mean, for example, that if the driver receives threats to life and health from other participants in the accident or he needs urgent medical care, then he can leave the scene of the accident. He can also do this in the same way if, for example, it is necessary to deliver a pregnant woman who has started premature birth to the maternity hospital, if her delivery is impossible in any other way. And many more such examples could be given. But it should be borne in mind that “emergency” is a condition that needs special proof, that is, in court it will not be enough to say: “I had an emergency.” We will have to substantiate and prove it - both the very fact of the danger that threatened someone, and its seriousness, and the impossibility of eliminating it except by leaving the scene of an accident.

Another situation is the insignificance of an administrative offense. The definition of this concept was given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, but, unfortunately, without clear criteria, which in practice leads to the fact that rarely any administrative offense is recognized as insignificant. We do not want to say that this is a “dead norm”, it is still applied, but this happens so rarely that we would not recommend relying on it alone.

The law does not contain other grounds that unconditionally exempt the driver from [punishment for leaving the scene of an accident]. With the possible exception of Art. 2.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, but we, for obvious reasons, would also not recommend referring to this rule.

Unintentionally leaving the scene of an accident

However, there is a circumstance that, if it is true, it is possible and sometimes even necessary to refer to. And such a circumstance is the absence of intent to commit an offense.

Why is this circumstance so important, what does it affect and why does it make sense to refer to it?

Condition for liability

The fact is that the unlawful act in itself, even if it really took place, is not a sufficient basis for bringing to responsibility. A necessary condition for this is the presence of the offense as a whole. In turn, the composition of the offense is a combination of four elements, one of which is the subjective side (in simple terms, guilt). The absence of any of its elements, including the subjective side (guilt), leads to the absence of an offense as such, which is the basis for terminating the proceedings.

Accordingly, in the absence of guilt in committing an offense, a citizen cannot be held liable, which, by the way, is directly indicated in Part 1 of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

That is why, it is not at all accidental that the provisions of the law prescribe the clarification of not only the presence of the event of the offense itself, but also the guilt of the citizen in committing it.

Subtleties of the question

And here it is important to understand a certain subtlety: an offense under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, on the subjective side, it can be characterized by an exclusively intentional form of guilt, from which it follows that the driver who left the scene of an accident may be held liable for this only if he was at least aware that he was a participant incidents.

In addition, there is another subtlety - in the word "intention". It is believed that the intention of the driver leaving the scene of an accident is to avoid liability arising from the very fact of his participation in the accident, which can be achieved, in particular, by hiding his identity.

Accordingly, under “leaving the scene of an accident” in Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is precisely “hiding from the scene of an accident”, that is, the actions of a driver who knew that he was a participant in the accident, but, despite this, consciously, in order to hide this fact and avoid responsibility for it, fled the scene car accident.

Of course, the guilt of drivers who deliberately left the scene of an accident is not called into question, and the punishment provided for them by law seems to be justified. After all, if such a driver was the culprit of the accident, then the injured party often has practically insoluble problems with compensation for damage, which is most acute in cases of accidents with victims. However, even if there were no victims, then, you see, it is unfair to repair at your own expense your car or other property damaged in an accident, the culprit of which was another person who cannot even be identified in order to make claims to him, since he is the most shameless way disappeared.

Real practice

However, as practice shows, there are not so many cases of intentionally leaving the scene of an accident against the general background.

• Firstly, it often does not make any sense, because at present the liability of almost all vehicle owners is insured, and, as a result, compensation for damage in connection with an accident falls on the insurance company. Moreover, if subsequently the driver who fled the scene of the accident is identified (and in most cases this is exactly what happens), then the insurance company has the right to present a recourse claim against him, which the insurer almost always uses, which ultimately leads to that such a driver, although not immediately, nevertheless compensates for the damage caused actually from his own pocket.
• Secondly, many drivers know what threatens to leave the scene of an accident, and therefore there are rarely those who want to knowingly bring themselves under arrest or deprivation of their rights, while all this can be avoided simply by staying at the scene and solving the problems that have arisen according to the law.

That is why the vast majority of our clients claim that they did not know anything about the fact that they were participants in any accident until they were called to the traffic police. And we tend to believe them, because the vast majority of such cases are completely minor accidents - literally touching the vehicle on another object, which is really impossible to notice and / or feel.

But is it possible to talk about the guilt of the driver leaving the scene of such an accident, if at the same time none of the possible witnesses of the incident drew his attention to the fact that it had taken place at all?

Of course not. Indeed, in such cases, the driver does not realize the wrongfulness of his act, and he does not actually “hide” from the scene. As a result, there is no guilt in his actions, which means that there is no corpus delicti under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, he cannot be held liable under this provision.

Therefore, if the driver was not aware of the fact of his participation in an accident, he did not have the intent to hide from the scene, then, of course, this circumstance can and should be referred to when considering the case, because the law does not provide for liability for unintentionally leaving the scene of an accident .

The statute of limitations for leaving the scene of an accident

Another question that always arouses the keenest interest among drivers who nevertheless left the scene of an accident is whether there is a period after which it is no longer possible to hold them accountable for this, and if there is such a period, how much is it and how is it calculated?

Of course, the statute of limitations for bringing the driver to responsibility if he left the scene of an accident is provided by the legislator, and it is three months from the date of the offense. Neither from the moment the driver's identity was established, nor from the day the case was referred to the court or the court accepted the case for proceedings, etc., but precisely from the day the offense was committed.

From which, in turn, it follows that if within three months from the date of the accident the traffic police officers could not take the case to court, or for some reason the judge did not have time to consider this case, then the driver is no longer liable.

However, such a development of events is quite a rarity. Recently, tracing inspectors usually have time to establish the identity of the driver who left the scene of an accident, take the necessary procedural actions, properly draw up administrative material and send the case to court. It is also not worth having high hopes that the judge will not have time to consider the case if it is accepted by him for his proceedings, these are isolated and exceptional cases. Even if the case comes to court literally two or three days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the judge usually makes every effort to ensure that he still makes a decision within this period.

However, it may also happen that the judge does not accept the case and sends it back - to the traffic police, to correct any shortcomings. This also happens infrequently, but if this happens, then the chances of avoiding liability are significantly increased, since the statute of limitations is not interrupted, and while the case is “walking” between the court and the traffic police department, this period may expire.

If the judge does not reveal any shortcomings in the case and the case is accepted for proceedings, then this almost always means that the decision (most often an accusatory one) will be issued within the statute of limitations, and next time it will be appropriate to recall this period only in the event of a possible cancellation of the decision in a higher court on any procedural grounds, when the issue of the possibility or impossibility of sending the case for a new trial to the first court will be decided.

Arbitrage practice

Well, the norms of the legislation have been considered, and now it's time to reinforce the theory with practice.

We want to make a reservation right away: in this section, only cases will be presented that ended in courts with victories in such cases, and in which professional lawyers took part as defenders. Unfortunately, judicial practice in general is such that judges are much more likely to take the side of police officers, and the outcome of each case can largely depend on the personality of the judge and other very subjective circumstances. But nevertheless, as the same judicial practice shows, the outcome of far from any case is a foregone conclusion, and if it is possible to bring convincing arguments in defense of the driver, and the defense itself is carried out correctly, then this often leads to success.

We hope this section will be useful for those who are currently facing a court to leave the scene of an accident - perhaps in the examples given (let there be ten for good measure) there is something in common with the circumstances of the case brought against them ...

It has not been proven that he was the driver

The traffic police received a statement that someone, while driving a vehicle, made a minor collision (actually touching) with another vehicle and left.

The inspectors, having established the owner of the car, called him to the department and, without finding out anything at all (not even interested in who was driving at the time of the incident), compiled material against him under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. When the citizen began to express bewilderment about this and to be indignant, the author of the protocol said that “the court will figure out who was driving there.” Actually, we figured it out. In general, the case is quite rare: traffic police inspectors usually find out at least whether the owner was the driver at the time of the accident.

Check out the solution:

Vehicle contact has not been proven

Also a great story.

The owner of the car was found on it fresh damage interspersed with blue paint. Since there was a blue car parked in the same yard, which he thought had similar damage, he assumed that there had been contact with this particular car and appealed to its owner with the corresponding claims.

But the negotiations reached an impasse and the traffic police intervened. Without examining the damage on the cars - how much they generally correspond to each other, without even measuring at what level they are relative to the supporting surface, they, without thinking twice (the car is blue!) Made up a protocol for leaving the scene of an accident in relation to our future client and sent case to the magistrate, who issued a decision on the deprivation of rights.

Fortunately, the court of second instance was able to convince that the evidence base, to put it mildly, is rather weak.

Check out the solution:

Approximately similar situation, but in this case, the traffic police not only did not compare the damage on the cars, but they even ignored the video, from which it clearly followed that there was no contact between the vehicles. The justice of the peace acquitted the driver.

Check out the solution:

The incident is not an accident because no damage has been caused

Having refueled at a gas station, the driver forgot to remove the fuel dispenser from the tank of the car and started moving. The result is natural: a hose break. At first glance, all the signs of an accident are obvious, and since the driver left the scene of the accident, there is no doubt that he was also guilty of leaving the scene of the accident. Apparently, approximately from such considerations proceeded the magistrate, who issued a decision on the deprivation of rights for leaving the scene of an accident.

But after the intervention of a lawyer in the case, it turned out that the mechanism of the rotary-explosive clutch itself was not damaged. As a result, no damage was caused. Accordingly, the accident is not an accident from the point of view of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation, and therefore there is no corpus delicti in the actions of the driver, in connection with which, in the second instance, the proceedings were terminated.

Check out the solution:

Lack of intent

The driver of a regular bus while following the route allowed a sharp braking, due to which one of the passengers hit his face on the seat in front. As it will be established in the future, the passenger was injured.

But at that time, even the passenger did not know anything about this, so without saying anything to the driver, he got off the bus at the next stop and went home, writing down the state registration number of the bus before that. Already at home, he became ill, and he went to a medical institution, from where, in turn, information about the accident was transferred to the traffic police.

To establish the identity of the bus driver has become a matter of technology. The traffic police officers did an excellent job with this and subsequently drew up a protocol against him under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The case was brought to one of the district courts in Moscow, the judge of which deprived the driver of the right to drive vehicles.

However, the decision was appealed to the Moscow City Court, where the judge fully agreed with the arguments about the innocence of the driver.

Check out the solution:

In general, drivers who have become participants in an accident often get into trouble due to the strange actions of the victims.

That is exactly what happened in this case. The driver inaccurately stopped right at the pedestrian crossing, and one of the pedestrians, crossing the road, ran into a standing car, as a result of which he fell. The driver got out of the car, asked the pedestrian if he was hurt, if he needed medical assistance, but the pedestrian, without saying a word, literally ran away from the scene, writing down, however, the license plate of the car. Later, the victim felt pain in his leg, in connection with which he also sought medical help. And then - everything is the same as in the previous case: the doctors reported the incident to the traffic police, the inspectors identified the driver, drew up a protocol against him under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and referred the case to court.

Fortunately, the judge was able to convince that in the analyzed situation there is no corpus delicti in the actions of the driver.

Check out the solution:

Another casualty case

And again the case of an accident in which a person was injured. In the process of reversing, the driver hit an elderly man with a car, from which the latter fell and received bodily injuries. All this happened in front of the wife of this man and numerous witnesses, between whom and the driver immediately arose hostile relations, which, however, is understandable.

But we must pay tribute to the driver: having steadfastly withstood all the reproaches of eyewitnesses, he did not even attempt to escape from the scene. On the contrary, he communicated with the victim and his wife, offered them his help, left them all his contact details - in general, he behaved extremely decently. Moreover, he waited for the ambulance to arrive and left his data to the doctors, and only after that he left the scene of the incident.

Of course, later he was summoned to the traffic police department, where they compiled material against him under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

Realizing what this situation threatens him with, and immediately preoccupied with the question of how to avoid deprivation of rights for leaving the scene of an accident, the citizen turned to us. The magistrate agreed with the traffic police officers, however, the judge of the city court, who considered the complaint against the decision, appreciated the actions of the driver and agreed with the defense that his actions should be reclassified to Part 1 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. As a result, the driver received a fine for leaving the scene of an accident.

Check out the solution:

Leaving the scene of an accident does not mean that he fled the scene of an accident

In this case, the driver was forced to leave the scene of the accident due to the need to deliver the victim to the hospital, from where he reported to the traffic police about the fact of the incident.

The traffic police inspector, and then the justice of the peace, considered that the driver should be punished under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, with which, in turn, the judge of the city court did not agree, who, at the stage of already considering a complaint against the decision, stopped the proceedings.

Check out the solution:

When distance doesn't matter

At the beginning of this article, we asked ourselves questions about how the boundaries of the scene of an accident are determined, and whether the distance that a citizen can move from the scene of an accident matters. And these are not idle questions!

Because there are traffic police inspectors who seriously believe that if the driver did not stop immediately at the scene of an accident, but drove, for example, several tens of meters, then this is quite a sufficient basis for qualifying his actions under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. And even to put him and his car on the wanted list, and this despite the fact that the car is in close proximity to the scene, which the inspector is well aware of, and the driver himself almost forcibly tries to hand over his documents to the inspector and in every possible way expresses his consent to participation in the preparation of material on the accident.

Moreover, there are even magistrates who share such a strange position. But, fortunately, there are other judges - more literate and experienced, who still understand the absurdity of the accusation and do not agree with the presence of an offense in the actions of such a driver.

Check out the solution:

Expiration of the statute of limitations for liability

And finally, the classic of the genre: the abolition of the decision of the court of first instance on procedural grounds and the termination of the proceedings, due to the impossibility of sending it for a new trial, since at the time of the decision on the complaint, the statute of limitations for bringing to responsibility had expired.

It should be noted that such a situation can arise in any case, regardless of its actual circumstances.

Check out the solution:

Finally

In conclusion, I would like to say the following.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a gross violation of the Rules of the Road, for which the legislator has established a very severe responsibility. And this is probably correct.

But practice shows that often people who did not even think of hiding from the scene of an accident, and in whose actions the composition of this offense is very doubtful, often fall under the distribution. And more often than not, it's because they simply can't properly argue in their defense.

We hope that this article will help someone find a way to avoid liability for leaving the scene of an accident.

Lawyer of the Collegium of Legal Protection. He specializes in administrative and civil cases related to traffic violations, compensation for damages, disputes with insurance companies, appeals against regulations and decisions of the traffic police, consumer protection.

Even the most disciplined and law-abiding driver in the first minutes after an accident, especially a serious one, no, no, and the thought will slip through: “But why not leave the scene of an accident, suddenly they won’t catch it?”. Some, in a state of emotional upheaval, turn this risky plan into reality. What does this threaten and is it possible to avoid punishment? Let's figure it out.

The thought of fleeing the scene of an accident is visited by many drivers, especially if other cars and people were seriously injured through their fault.

Accidents, according to the definition of the Rules of the Road, include events that occur with the participation of a vehicle and cause damage to cars, cargo, structures, harm the health and life of people. The obligation to remain at the scene of a road incident for all drivers - both guilty and injured - is established by the SDA of the Russian Federation.

According to the traffic rules,after an accident, its participants must take a number of measures, like so:

• take care of the victims (provide emergency assistance, call a medical team, take them to the hospital);
• record the circumstances of the accident by taking photos / video and drawing up a diagram;
• free the road from cars so as not to impede traffic;
• find witnesses and record their contact details;
• call a police squad or agree with other participants in the accident on an independent settlement of the conflict, draw up a European protocol.

If the driver leaves without fulfilling these requirements, he will face imminent punishment.

Why do motorists flee the scene of an accident?

Drivers leave the scene of an accident for a variety of reasons:

Deliberately leaving the scene of an accident

Most often, the participants in the accident try to hide, because they hope to avoid responsibility for their violation of traffic rules, damage to property, harm to the health and life of people. Especially often this mistake is made by the perpetrators of accidents who are in a state of intoxication.

Unintentionally leaving the scene of an accident

Not always the driver, hiding from the scene of an accident, wants to escape from responsibility.

Sometimes the culprit of the accident simply does not notice that he damaged someone else's car.

For example, when leaving a parking lot, it touches the bumper or mirror of a nearby car, scratches the body. The owner of the damaged car is not around, the alarm does not work. The guilty driver does not notice that he has ruined someone else's property, and with a calm soul goes about his business. Another situation is also possible. After the accident, the drivers agreed to resolve the conflict without involving the insurance company and the traffic police, exchanged phone numbers and parted ways. But one of them after some time again came to the scene of the accident and called the police squad. The second one was automatically considered to have fled from the place where the road incident occurred.

When the accident is not serious, the driver can leave the scene of the accident without noticing the damage caused to someone else's car

If the driver left the scene of the accident without malicious intent and can prove it, then it is likely that the court will acquit him.

How will a driver who left the scene of an accident without injury or death be punished?

In paragraph 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, we read that a driver who did not stay in place after a traffic accident that does not contain signs of a criminal offense is deprived of the right to drive a car and other vehicles for 1-1.5 years. He can also be arrested, the arrest period will be a maximum of 15 days.

How will a driver who left the scene of an accident with dead / injured be punished?

If people were injured or killed in a car accident, then the punishment for it is no longer established by the Code of Administrative Offenses, but by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Article 264). In this case, leaving the scene of the accident will be regarded as an aggravating circumstance equivalent to being drunk at the wheel. See the table for the penalties.

How the accident ended	How will they punish
Causing serious harm to human health/people	sent to do forced labor. Maximum term - 3 years or deprived of freedom. Maximum term - 4 years In both cases, the perpetrator of the accident for a period of up to 3 years is prohibited from working in certain positions or performing a number of activities.
The death of a man	imprisoned for 2-7 years;
Death of two or more people	imprisoned for 4-9 years; will be banned for a period of up to 3 years to work in a number of positions or carry out certain types of activities.

How is punishment given?

The traffic police inspector can issue a fine for failure to perform actions related to an accident in the amount of 1,000 rubles. All other types of punishment (forced labour, deprivation of a driver's license, arrest) are decided only by the courts.

Deprive the rights of a negligent driver can only through the court

With regard to the terms of sentencing, they are as follows:

• no more than 2 months are given to receive a decision on administrative cases (Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses);
• 3 months are allocated to receive a court order and punish the perpetrator;
• a decision on an offense (Article 12.8 and Article 12.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) must be issued 1 year in advance.

When should you leave the scene of an accident?

• if a car accident is issued without the participation of the traffic police - after the drafting of the Europrotocol and its transfer to the nearest police department or to the traffic police post;
• if the car accident is registered with the participation of the traffic police - after drawing up and signing the report on the accident, a protocol on an administrative offense. Law enforcement officers can detain a participant in a road conflict. The reason for this may be, for example, the driver's lack of documents, his potential danger to others, etc. Part 1 of Article 27.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes the maximum period of administrative detention. Participants in the accident cannot be forced to stay at the scene of the accident for more than 3 hours from the moment the traffic police was notified of the traffic accident.

If people were seriously injured in an accident, a participant in the accident can take them to a medical facility in a private car. He must immediately report the traffic incident to the traffic police or the police and, after transferring the victim to medical workers, immediately return to the place where the accident occurred. If this is not done, the driver may be considered to have fled the scene of the offense.

Can a driver who left the scene of an accident go unpunished?

If the scene of the accident was left unintentionally and the perpetrator manages to prove this, for example, using recordings from surveillance cameras or the testimony of witnesses, the court may decide in favor of the driver.

You can also avoid punishment if the perpetrator of the accident has good reasons to leave the scene of the accident. For example, he was taking a seriously ill person to the hospital and, having got into an accident, did not stop to perform the actions provided for by traffic rules. But if the driver did the same, being late for a meeting or at the airport, this will not be considered a good reason, since there was no threat to human life.

Thus, in order to avoid punishment, it is necessary to prove to the court that the driver left the scene of the accident without malicious intent.

What is the statute of limitations for leaving the scene of an accident?

Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation states that the decision on the measure of punishment for administrative offenses must be made on time up to 3 months. If during this time the judicial authorities have not issued a decision on arrest, deprivation of rights, direction to perform forced labor, sanctions for disappearance from the scene of an accident will no longer follow.

But it must be remembered that even after 3 months, the injured party may require the driver to compensate for the damage that was caused to her as a result of a car accident. The term for filing a claim with the court, according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 196), is 3 years from the incident. And if there are victims and deaths as a result of an accident, the statute of limitations for criminal cases is from 2 to 15 years, depending on the severity of the crime (Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

In an attempt to avoid liability by leaving the scene of an accident, most drivers only increase their punishment.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a big mistake. To remain unpunished today, when CCTV cameras are installed almost everywhere, and cars are equipped with GLONASS systems, is almost unrealistic. Therefore, the flight will only exacerbate the punishment that awaits the culprit of the accident. Remember this and follow traffic rules and laws.

During the past period of 2017, a number of traffic accidents were registered in the Bryansk region involving vehicles whose drivers fled the scene of the accident. Leaving the scene of an accident threatens the driver with administrative liability (Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Responsibility for leaving the scene of an accident is provided for in Art. 12.27 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. As follows from paragraph 2 of this article, leaving the scene of an accident provides for punishment in the form of deprivation of rights from one to one and a half years or administrative arrest for up to 15 days. The law does not provide for a fine for leaving the scene of an accident. Responsibility for leaving the scene of an accident does not arise in any case, but only if it is prohibited by the rules of the road.

The rules allow you to leave the scene of an accident in the following cases:

1. If there are no victims in the accident, and the drivers have no disagreements about how the event happened, who is to blame, then the traffic police do not call, but you can draw up an accident scheme, sign it for both participants and go to the nearest traffic police post to draw up documents there (clause 2.6 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation). However, if one of the drivers does not agree with the assessment of the circumstances, or someone has been harmed, then this right cannot be exercised and leaving the scene of an accident will result in punishment.

2. The Law on OSAGO provides for the registration of an accident according to the "Europrotocol", i.e. without calling the traffic police. In doing so, the following conditions must be met:

No more than 2 vehicles were involved in the accident.

Both drivers have a valid OSAGO policy for the vehicle involved in the accident,

Only property damaged

There is no disagreement about who was at fault and how the accident happened, and both drivers agree on the list and nature of the injuries sustained in this accident. Only if all four conditions are met, you can fill out an accident notice on the spot, which will be a confirmation of the fact of what happened for the OSAGO insurer, sign it for both drivers and disperse without calling the police (clause 2.6.1 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation).

3. It is possible to temporarily leave the scene of an accident without consequences if people were injured in an accident and they need emergency medical care, while it is impossible to send the victim on a passing transport, then the driver is allowed to leave the scene of an accident to deliver a person to the nearest medical institution. However, he must return back to the scene of the accident, and also, before his departure, fix the position of the car, traces and objects in the presence of witnesses, as well as take measures to preserve them and organize a detour of the accident site (clause 2.5. SDA RF)

4. The driver must clear the roadway if it is impossible for other vehicles to pass. That is, if other cars cannot pass, then your car can be rearranged so as not to interfere. At the same time, again, as in the previous situation, it is necessary to fix the position of the car, traces and objects in front of witnesses, take measures to preserve the traces of the accident, organize a detour (clause 2.5. SDA RF)

All other cases of leaving the scene of an accident that are not provided for by traffic rules will be considered illegal, and any time you leave, whether it’s a plane ticket or you didn’t notice it, or left, but left a note to the victim with your coordinates, will be regarded as leaving the scene of an accident, and you will have to defend your rights in court.

What else threatens to leave the scene of an accident in addition to administrative punishment?

Even if you have an OSAGO policy, when you leave the scene of an accident, you will have to pay for the damage to the victim. According to Art. 14 of the Law on OSAGO and clause 76 of the OSAGO Rules, insurers, after paying insurance compensation to the victim, have the right to present recourse to the culprit of the accident if he fled the scene of the accident. The amount paid by the insurance company will be recovered from the person who left the scene of the accident.

Also, when considering a criminal case for a fatal accident or serious bodily injury, the court may assess the behavior of the driver who fled the scene of the accident and impose a more severe punishment, guided by Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Systematic and planned work aimed at the prevention of road accidents is bearing fruit. Continuous inspections and targeted preventive measures aimed at improving road safety discipline road users. The main purpose of the checks is to prevent driving while intoxicated and to suppress such facts. We remind you that the tactic of "solid" checks involves stopping by the traffic police of all cars, without exception, on a pre-selected section of the road. In the event that the driver of the car smells of alcohol or his behavior seems strange to the traffic police inspectors, he is invited to undergo a sobriety test, and, if necessary, for the use of drugs. If the driver does not arouse suspicion, then he is allowed to continue driving.

The State Automobile Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Pochepsky" informs road users about the conduct of March 3.4 and 8.9, 2017 on the territory of the Pochepsky, Zhiryatinsky and Vygonichsky districts, continuous checks, the purpose of which is to suppress gross violations of the Rules of the Road, in particular, transport management in a state of intoxication, as well as violations of the rules for transporting child passengers.
Operational and preventive measures will be carried out:
in the period from 18:00 to 19:00 on Lenin Street in Pochepa;
in the period from 18:00 to 19:00 on Pionerskaya street, Zhiryatino settlement.
in the period from 18:00 to 19:00 on Zaitseva street, Vygonichi village.

The main goal of such preventive measures is to prevent driving while intoxicated and to suppress such facts, as well as violations related to the transportation of passengers, including children. We remind you that the tactic of "solid" checks involves stopping by the traffic police of all cars, without exception, on a pre-selected section of the road. In the event that the behavior of the driver of the car arouses suspicion among traffic police inspectors, he will be asked to undergo a medical examination for alcohol intoxication, and, if necessary, for the use of drugs.
Dear drivers, passengers and pedestrians! All participants in the road "traffic are equal in rights and obligations, be extremely careful, mutually polite and follow the Rules of the road!
Dear drivers, passengers and pedestrians! All road users are equal! Be extremely attentive, mutually polite and follow the rules of the road! If you have witnessed gross violations of the Rules of the Road, including driving while intoxicated, report this to the nearest traffic police or to the duty department by phone: 02, 848345-3-03-92,848345-3-12- 67, 74-36-84.