The Civil Liability and Insurance Act for Motor Vehicle Traffic distinguishes precisely between the two situations. In cases involving personal injury, the system is based on the risk created by driving and allows liability to be excluded only in cases provided for by law. For property damage, by contrast, the driver’s fault or negligence comes into play.
The difficulty arises when cars collide, each driver gives a different account and the evidence does not make it possible to determine who caused the accident or to what extent each driver contributed. The Supreme Court addressed this scenario in ruling 294/2019, dated May 27, and established a specific criterion for reciprocal collisions where fault has not been proven.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE INJURIES AND NO ONE CAN PROVE WHO WAS AT FAULT
When injuries occur and the degree of responsibility of each driver cannot be determined, the Supreme Court applies what is known as the doctrine of cross-compensation. If a specific percentage of causal contribution also cannot be proven, each driver is liable for the total personal injury damages caused to the occupants of the other vehicle, in accordance with the legal precedent established by the Chamber.
The reasoning changes when the claim concerns damage to the car or other property. The Supreme Court rejected both the possibility that no one would receive compensation and the idea that each party should pay the other’s damages in full. In the case decided in 2019, it opted for an intermediate solution: each party would bear 50% of the compensation corresponding to the damage to the other vehicle.
The case that gave rise to this doctrine involved a taxi and an emergency vehicle after a collision at a traffic-light-controlled intersection. It could not be proven which of the two had run a red light. After several conflicting court rulings, the Supreme Court reduced to 50% the compensation for property damage and losses that had initially been awarded.
THE 50% RULE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO EVERY ACCIDENT
The fact that drivers disagree does not automatically mean that the damages will be divided 50-50. The key is that, after assessing the evidence, it is not possible to determine fault or the degree of responsibility. If there is sufficient evidence to attribute the accident to one of the parties or to establish different percentages, compensation must reflect the responsibility that has been proven.
The 50% criterion became a reference for resolving collisions in which the circumstances remain unclear. The ruling itself explains that it seeks to avoid two extremes: leaving uncompensated an owner who may not have caused the accident but cannot prove it, or fully compensating someone who may have caused it when there is also insufficient evidence to establish that.
