Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 25/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:III.DOR.25.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if mandatory traffic insurance law excludes indirect victims' right to compensation.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 25/2023
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted permission for a review against the second-instance judgment dismissing a claim for €4,166.63 in damages. The plaintiff, an indirect victim of a traffic accident involving the insured driver and the plaintiff's employee, argued that the mandatory traffic insurance law should cover her losses. The court permitted the review solely to clarify whether the specific statutory provision excludes the right of all indirect victims to compensation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 18, paragraph 1 of the Act on Mandatory Traffic Accident Insurance; Article 367.a, paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law: The Supreme Court may permit a review to determine if a specific statutory provision excludes the right of all indirect victims to compensation for damages resulting from a traffic accident.

Keywords

AI generated
mandatory traffic insurance indirect victims compensation rights review permission traffic accident liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 18, paragraph 1 of the Act on Mandatory Traffic Accident Insurance
Article 367.a, paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 324, paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II Ips 8/2016
Supreme Court dismisses appeal withdrawal ruling as the appeal was withdrawn after the court had not yet decided on it.
VSC Sodba in sklep Cp 503/2018
Court partially allows claim for mental damages due to visible scars, remanding specific amounts for new trial.
VDSS sklep Pdp 130/2014
Appeal court overturns dismissal of work injury claim, ruling first instance court erred by misinterpreting plaintiff's consistent account of falling from truck side.
VSK Sodba Cpg 6/2023
Court dismisses indirect victim's claim against insurer, distinguishing health funds from other indirect victims under mandatory traffic insurance law.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 3/2025
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court ignores non-property damage claims due to payment details.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali prvi odstavek 18. člena Zakona o obveznem zavarovanju v prometu izključuje pravico vseh posrednih oškodovancev (z izjemo tistih, ki so v določbi navedeni) do povrnitve škode, ki nastane kot posledica prometne nesreče.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali prvi odstavek 18. člena Zakona o obveznem zavarovanju v prometu izključuje pravico vseh posrednih oškodovancev (z izjemo tistih, ki so v določbi navedeni) do povrnitve škode, ki nastane kot posledica prometne nesreče.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo zahtevek za plačilo 4.166,63 EUR iz naslova škode, ki naj bi tožeči stranki kot posredni oškodovanki nastala zaradi prometne nesreče, v kateri sta bila udeležena zavarovanec tožene stranke in delavka tožeče stranke.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožeča stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

5. Senat je sklep sprejel soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).