[ad_1]
The result was a man who was beaten and fatally injured in a crosswalk. The pedestrian was still trying to avoid the car while running, but it crashed and then hit the car’s windshield from the impact.
However, the court took pity on the perpetrator and released him from criminal liability on bail for a period of one year. The injured woman, who lost her husband, was paid 18 thousand insurance. and the author transferred it 1350 euros.
The court ruled that Aurimas V. must pay a total of 2,000. euros. He was also ordered to pay the victim’s lawyer the sum of 800 euros. This verdict can still be appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court.
Controller error
According to the case, Aurimas V. violated road safety regulations while driving a highway vehicle, which resulted in a traffic accident that killed one person.
In Vilnius, in a Subaru Forester car, driving on the second lane of the street carriageway and approaching the crosswalk, you violated the requirements of paragraph 31 of the Road Traffic Regulations (KET).
They stipulate that if a vehicle has slowed down before a crosswalk, the driver traveling in the same direction must slow down or stop and start over only if he is convinced that there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk that could obstruct or endanger.
It was found that when approaching an unregulated crosswalk, in front of which two cars traveling in front of the same lane next to it in the same direction began to slow down, Aurimas V. did not slow down and did not stop in front of the crossing.
The driver was not convinced that there were no pedestrians in the crossing, resulting in a crosswalk from the crosswalk from right to left, who died at the scene of the accident, crashing in the direction of travel.
Bad traffic conditions
During the trial, the defendant Aurimas V. pleaded guilty in full and explained that around 5 in the afternoon. he was driving a Subaru Forester. When the light turned green, he went uphill and the car in front of him changed lanes to the first lane. He stayed in second gear and did not realize that his car was beginning to brake ahead.
According to the driver, it was damp and dark at the time of the incident, so he saw the pedestrian too late. The deceased walked quickly through the intersection, and when he saw the approaching car, he began to run, but failed to run. The man was struck almost crossing the intersection.
The pedestrian was without reflectors. Subaru’s speed was 50 to 60 km / h this time. The dead man was clogged in the front left corner of the car. The blow hit the man on the left side, then hit the car glass with his head. He then turned the car to the right and the deceased fell.
Aurimas V. suddenly got out of the car to check his pulse, but did not touch it. The driver was very excited, he started yelling for someone to call an ambulance. When medics arrived, they found the pedestrian dead.
The man said he was unable to contact relatives of the deceased during the pre-trial investigation because the investigator did not disclose the data. He said that the data will be given only if the relatives agree. The man emphasized that he was very sorry for his actions.
Asked 30 thousand. euros
The victim told RR during the trial that she was the widow of the deceased. They lived together for many years in marriage.
It is true that before the disaster they lived together only on weekends, other days of the week, separately. The husband lived with his mother and brother. They were going to buy a share house, run a family farm, keep calling, keep in touch.
The woman said the man was driving home that day to take care of his mother. Usually, on the way home, she kept calling and saying she was home, but this time the woman didn’t get the call.
So she called him herself, but no one picked up the phone. The alarmed woman called 112 and the police reported the incident.
During the trial, the woman asked for compensation of 30 thousand. moral damage. The woman said her apartment was in a state of emergency, that she had nowhere to bathe, that it was meant for her to find a new living space. There was no dispute over compensation for material damage, since the insurance had already paid 18 thousand. euros.
[ad_2]
