Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 327/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:II.DOR.327.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects revision application regarding traffic accident damages and comparative negligence allocation.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 327/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to file a revision against a lower court's decision. The applicant suffered property and non-property damage after losing control of their vehicle by driving through a flooded pothole, while the lower court initially assigned 30% liability to the applicant for failing to avoid the hazard. The Supreme Court determined that the revision request did not meet the statutory criteria for importance regarding legal certainty or uniform application of law, as the lower courts' assessment of the applicant's conduct was consistent with established traffic safety standards.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a(1) ZPP; 367.c(2) ZPP: The Supreme Court grants a revision application only if it can be expected to decide on a legal issue of importance for legal certainty, uniform application of law, or legal development; otherwise, the application is rejected.

Keywords

AI generated
revision application permission to revise comparative negligence traffic accident liability legal certainty uniform application of law Supreme Court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a(1) ZPP
367.c(2) ZPP
324(7) ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 392/2025
Supreme Court dismisses review request regarding individualized tree damage assessment in tort liability case.
VSL sodba I Cp 1655/2009
Court reduces defendant's liability for road damage by 30% due to plaintiff's excessive speeding.
VSC sklep Cp 719/99
Appeal court remands case for retrial due to first instance court's failure to investigate road conditions and temperature.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 2/2026
Supreme Court dismisses revision application regarding liability of road maintenance service provider for icy road conditions.
VSL sodba I Kp 1244/99
Appeal dismissed; first instance court correctly found guilt and sentencing for negligent traffic accident. The appeal was rejected as unfounded. The court upheld the first instance judgment. The court found the first instance court's findings of fact and application of law were correct and sufficient. The appeal was rejected because the first instance court's findings were well-founded and the sentencing was fair. The appeal was dismissed because the first instance court's decision was correct and the sentencing was appropriate. The appeal was rejected as the first instance court's findings were well-founded and the sentencing was fair. The appeal was dismissed because the first instance court's decision was correct and the sentencing was appropriate. The appeal was rejected as the first instance court's findings were well-founded and the sentencing was fair. The appeal was dismissed because the first instance court's decision was correct and the sentencing was appropriate.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Predlog se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka je pri vožnji motornega vozila zapeljala skozi lužo na cestišču, ki pa je dejansko bila luknja, zalita z deževno vodo. Tožeča stranka je izgubila nadzor nad motornim vozilom. Zaradi padca ji je nastala premoženjska in nepremoženjska škoda.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je izdalo vmesno sodbo in razsodilo, da je oškodovanec soodgovoren za nastalo škodo v višini 30%.

3. Pritožbeno sodišče je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke. Navedlo je, da bi se tožeča stranka lahko izognila vožnji skozi lužo in dodalo, da gre za povsem običajno ravnanje v prometu.

4. Zoper takšno sodbo vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije tožeča stranka. Dopustitev revizije predlaga glede naslednjih vprašanj:

- Ali sta sodišče I. stopnje in sodišče II. stopnje zmotno uporabili materialno pravo glede očitane soodgovornosti tožniku oz. ali sta z očitkom soodgovornosti tožniku prekoračili okvir povprečne skrbnosti človeka oz. udeleženca v prometu;

- Ali je sodišče II. stopnje storilo kršitev iz 14. točke I. odst. 339. čl. ZPP, ko v sodbi navaja, da tožena stranka ni podala trditev, da tožnik ni mogel ravnati, tako kot mu očitata sodišči, zaradi drugih vozil.

5. Pomembnost vprašanj tožeča stranka utemeljuje z zagotovitvijo pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ter neenotne sodne prakse višjih sodišč.

6. Predlog ni utemeljen.

7. Vrhovno sodišče dopusti revizijo, če je od njegove odločitve mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, pomembnem za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava prek sodne prakse (prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku – ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je predlog za dopustitev revizije soočilo s sodbama nižjih sodišč in ugotovilo, da v konkretni zadevi predlog tem merilom ne ustreza. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).

8. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, ki je naveden v uvodu odločbe. Odločitev je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).