Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_147665 AI generated

Scope of "injury" in traffic accident definition for scene-of-accident abandonment offense: exclusion of driver's self-injury when sole vehicle involved

Case Number ICCJ_147665
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld the appeal of the Suceava Court of Appeal and established that the statutory definition of "injury to one or more persons" under Article 75(1)(b) of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 does not include self-injury when the driver of the only vehicle involved in an accident is the sole person injured. This declaratory ruling resolves a pending question of law regarding whether such a scenario constitutes a "traffic accident" under Article 338(3) of the Penal Code, which serves as the prerequisite condition for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident under Article 338(1) of the Penal Code. The Court determined that the legal framework excludes the driver's self-injury from the specific provision, thereby clarifying the scope of criminal liability for failure to remain at the scene.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art.75 alin.(1) lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002, art.75 lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002, art. 338 alin. (1) din Codul penal, art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală; Scope of "injury" in traffic accident definition for scene-of-accident abandonment offense: exclusion of driver's self-injury when sole vehicle involved: 195/2002 does not include self-injury when the driver of the only vehicle involved in an accident is the sole person injured. This declaratory ruling resolves a pending question of law regarding whether such a scenario constitutes a "traffic accident" under Article 338(3) of the Penal Code, which serves as the prerequisite condition for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident under Article 338(1) of the Penal Code. The Court determined that the legal framework excludes the driver's self-injury from the specific provision, thereby clarifying the scope of criminal liability for failure to remain at the scene.

Keywords

AI generated
traffic accident exclusion of liability criminal offense emergency ordinance attempted simple bodily injury contributory negligence of the victim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art.75 alin.(1) lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002
art.75 lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002
Provides the definition of injury within the context of a traffic accident, which the court interprets to exclude self-injury.
art. 338 alin. (1) din Codul penal
Defines the crime of leaving the scene of an accident, which is the subject matter of the preliminary legal question resolved.
art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală
Establishes the procedural rule that the decision becomes obligatory from the date of publication in the Official Monitor.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 8/2019
Self-injury excluded from "injury" element in hit-and-run offence; preliminary ruling admitted
ICCJ_140993
Definition of "injury" for the crime of fleeing the scene of a road traffic accident under Article 338 of the Penal Code
Decizia nr. 472/RC/2016
Leaving scene of traffic accident: scope of bodily injury exception under Art. 338(3)(a) Penal Code and revocation of suspended sentence due to obstruction of justice
Decizia nr. 328/2025
Scope of "bodily harm" in traffic accident abandonment offenses: sufficiency of minor injuries versus 90-day medical threshold
Decizia nr. 188/2025
Scope of "traffic accident" in Penal Code art. 338(1): exclusion of intentional acts under Emergency Ordinance 195/2002 art. 75

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 338 alin. (1) din Codul penal

Defines the crime of leaving the scene of an accident, which is the subject matter of the preliminary legal question resolved.

art. 75 lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002

Provides the definition of injury within the context of a traffic accident, which the court interprets to exclude self-injury.

art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală

Establishes the procedural rule that the decision becomes obligatory from the date of publication in the Official Monitor.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

COMPLETUL PENTRU DEZLEGAREA UNOR CHESTIUNI DE DREPT ÎN MATERIE PENALĂ

Minuta deciziei nr. 8 Dosar nr. 228/1/2018

Ședința din data de 21 martie 2019

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Admite sesizarea Curţii de Apel Suceava - Secţia penală și pentru cauze cu minori, în dosarul nr.65/206/2018, prin care se solicită pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea de principiu a următoarei probleme de drept „dacă noțiunea de rănire a uneia sau mai multor persoane prevăzută de art.75 alin.(1) lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002 privind circulația pe drumurile publice rap. la art.338 alin.(3) din Codul penal, articol care definește accidentul de circulație ca situație premisă a infracțiunii de părăsire a locului accidentului prevăzută de art.338 alin.(1) din Codul penal, are în vedere și autorănirea, când singura persoană rănită este însuși conducătorul singurului autovehicul implicat în accident.”

Stabileşte că rănirea uneia sau mai multor persoane prevăzută de art.75 lit.b) din OUG nr.195/2002, cuprinsă în definiţia accidentului de circulaţie, ca situaţie premisă a infracţiunii de părăsire a locului accidentului prevăzută de art.338 alin.(1) din Codul penal, nu are în vedere şi autorănirea, când singura persoană rănită este însuși conducătorul singurului autovehicul implicat în accident.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 21 martie 2019.