Exemption from Liability for the Operator of a Motor Vehicle

Under Article 86 of the Highway Traffic Law, the vehicle operator or the owner of the business to which the vehicle operator is affiliated is liable for damages resulting from their own negligence or a defect in the vehicle.

To be exempt from liability, the operator must prove that the damage was not caused by their own negligence or a defect in the vehicle, but rather by force majeure, the negligence of a third party, or the gross negligence of the person who suffered the damage. If they cannot prove this, the law presumes that the operator was at fault.

Let’s explain the details of the conditions under which a vehicle operator can be exempt from liability:

1. PERFECTION

The term "violation" here refers to a failure to comply with traffic rules. However, the vehicle operator is not required to prove compliance with all traffic rules. It is sufficient for the operator to prove compliance with the specific rules that the injured party alleges were violated.

2. The Vehicle Malfunction Did Not Contribute to the Accident

Similarly, the operator is not required to prove that all parts of the vehicle were in good working order. The operator is only required to prove that the defects alleged to have caused the damage did not exist. For example, in an accident that occurred on a dry day, the operator is not required to prove that the windshield wipers were working.

If there is a defect in the vehicle, regardless of the cause, the operator cannot be relieved of liability. Even if the operator or the person held liable for the operator’s actions and conduct is entirely free of fault, the defect in the vehicle still renders them liable.

A vehicle malfunction is not a force majeure event but rather an unforeseen circumstance. The operator is also liable for unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, this situation does not result in a reduction in the amount of compensation. Technical malfunctions can generally be prevented. Therefore, technical malfunctions do not absolve the vehicle owner of liability.

If the defect in the vehicle stems from the gross negligence of the injured party or a third party, the operator is not liable for the damage. The manufacturer is not a third party. Therefore, the operator is liable for the manufacturer’s gross negligence. Regarding the mechanic’s negligence, we can distinguish between two different scenarios. If the mechanic’s negligence stems from a failure to exercise due care during maintenance and repair, the operator is liable.However, if the mechanic intentionally damaged the vehicle, the operator’s liability is eliminated. The vehicle owner, who is held liable due to the manufacturer’s or mechanic’s negligence, may seek recourse against these parties and claim reimbursement for payments made. If the injured party’s slight negligence contributed to the defect in the vehicle, the operator’s liability continues, but a reduction is applied to the compensation claimed.

Even if the operator can prove that the vehicle underwent a roadworthiness inspection and maintenance and repairs at a service center shortly before the accident, their liability remains.

3. THE FACT THAT HE HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE

In addition to proving that the damage was not caused by the operator’s own negligence or a defect in the vehicle, the operator must also prove that the damage resulted from force majeure, the victim’s gross negligence, or the gross negligence of a third party.

Force majeure refers to extraordinary events that occur outside the scope of the motor vehicle’s operational risks and that cannot reasonably be foreseen or avoided. Events such as earthquakes, floods, and lightning strikes are classified as force majeure. However, events such as heavy snowfall, freezing conditions, or the driver falling asleep or dying at the wheel are considered unforeseeable circumstances. These represent situations inherent to the operation of the vehicle that are foreseeable and preventable. Unlike force majeure, the operator is liable for such situations.

While the amount of compensation is reduced if the injured party is also slightly at fault, the operator is released from liability if the injured party is grossly at fault. In cases where the operator cannot prove their lack of fault or that a defect in the vehicle did not contribute to the accident, the operator is not the sole party liable. Liability arising from the injured party’s gross negligence continues. For example, in cases where a pedestrian crosses against a red light and is struck by a drunk driver or a vehicle with faulty brakes, both the driver and the pedestrian are liable for their respective faults.

In cases involving the negligence of a third party, the operator’s liability ceases if the third party is grossly negligent, but continues if the third party is only slightly negligent. However, in such cases, the operator cannot claim a reduction in compensation by citing the third party’s slight negligence; instead, the operator and the third party are jointly and severally liable.